I can think of a ton of things Bush did wrong, but you are the one trying to blame him for a budget Obama signed.
Last edited by a moderator:
I can think of a ton of things Bush did wrong, but you are the one trying to blame him for a budget Obama signed.
Aww.... don't be petty. Nothing like a grammatical error someone used twice recently eh?
Corporate greed? That's a broad brush, an ignorant one by my measure but hey, it's always someone else isn't it? I can see why you appreciate your boy so much.
http://money.cnn.com/gallery/news/economy/2014/01/28/obama-economy/index.html
The entitlement spending has been and will remain the problem along with significant issues such as manufacturing jobs being stagnant. Oh right.... because corporate greed.
Facts remain, President had Congress to himself, and honestly what has he really done to inspire real world growth? Not patchwork BS stimulus packages, but real policy? Crumbling infrastructure? Energy policy? How about a little help for investing for the little man for retirement? If anything he's crushed the small businessman with Obamacare. Considering that's one of the most significant costs for a small businessman.
By all means, employ a response with some critical thinking and without finger pointing...... I dares ya.
I was right, you couldn't.
Did you actually even look at your source?
Job Growth, when Obama entered office, was in the toilet. Now steady growth.
Unemployment, down.
Economic growth, when Obama entered office, was in the toilet. Now steady growth.
Corporate profits, way up.
Wages, flat.
Stocks, doubled.
Food stamps, up.
Poverty, flat.
Manufacturing, up.
Interest rates, about where they were when Obama took office.
Home prices, up and rising.
Foreclosures, way down.
Consumer spending, when Obama entered office, was in the toilet. Now steady growth.
Inflation. 1.5%
Gas prices, up. Of course they are now to near where they were.
Federal spending, same as when he entered office.
Government debt, up.
Damn, you just made a great argument for the fact that the economy has improved vastly since Obama took office.
"Corporate greed? That's a broad brush, an ignorant one by my measure but hey, it's always someone else isn't it? I can see why you appreciate your boy so much"
"It's pretty amateurish to look at the Dow, Nasdaq, etc as a measure of economic policy"
"It's also kind of retarded to quote the dollar coming off a low as a measure also."
No need to add anything.
Last edited:
Ace, again, I don't know if you are capable of critical thinking but it SHOULD be obvious that I read through the source. Hence I quoted the good AND bad earlier? Did you not understand it because it wasn't complete biased? I figure you just don't understand the implication of the bad, or most likely it seems someone hasn't told you what to think yet? Understand that a google search won't tell you is that how the economy is moving is just as important. Hence, I laid out some key points you ignored and superficially scanned over and saw what you wanted to out of the article.
Namely, I guess you had no answer for the poverty level? Food Stamps? Manufacturing? Healthcare? etc? Obama has had plenty of time and the means to implement "change" and to be quite honest, all I'm seeing is patchwork policies coupled with cherry picked stats riding a momentum that can only go one way. Apologists parrot this in tow of course. But what about long term sustained growth? Small business growth? Again... how about infrastructure? energy?
Oh wait.... sorry.... all is good because of the Dow and Nasdaq!!
Namely, I guess you had no answer for the poverty level? Food Stamps? Manufacturing? Healthcare? etc? Obama has had plenty of time and the means to implement "change" and to be quite honest, all I'm seeing is patchwork policies coupled with cherry picked stats riding a momentum that can only go one way. Apologists parrot this in tow of course. But what about long term sustained growth? Small business growth? Again... how about infrastructure? energy?
Oh wait.... sorry.... all is good because of the Dow and Nasdaq!!
It's amusing, you're so busy trying to insult me, you rush over, well, just about everything and focus in on the very little that fits your narrative.
Let's go over the list, and I'll even help you out.
Job Growth, when Obama entered office, was in the toilet. Now steady growth. Good
Unemployment, down. Good
Economic growth, when Obama entered office, was in the toilet. Now steady growth. Good
Corporate profits, way up. Good
Wages, flat. Bad
Stocks, doubled. Good
Food stamps, up. Bad
Poverty, flat. Neutral
Manufacturing, up. Good
Interest rates, about where they were when Obama took office. Neutral.
Home prices, up and rising. Good
Foreclosures, way down. Good
Consumer spending, when Obama entered office, was in the toilet. Now steady growth. Good
Inflation. 1.5%. Good
Gas prices, up. Of course they are now to near where they were. Good
Federal spending, same as when he entered office. Neutral
Government debt, up. Bad
It appears that the growth of small businesses will continue to progress in 2014 as small businesses have generated more than 65% of the new jobs created in the U.S. since 1996. This growth is occurring at an impressive rate as more than 540,000 new businesses are being started each month. This trend favors small business growth as more employee businesses shut down than start up each month. On the other hand, nonemployer businesses have seen steady growth in recent years as 2011 saw the number of nonemployer businesses grow by 2%.
Infrastructure. Needs to be addressed, you are correct on that point.
Energy. To generalized to address.
I do want to highlight this quote, "all I'm seeing is patchwork policies coupled with cherry picked stats riding a momentum that can only go one way."
The dollar has rallied and equities reached record levels last week as data reinforced the health of the U.S. economy in comparison to other nations...American manufacturing grew at a faster pace than estimated last month, while factory gauges for China and the euro zone retreated...“All arguments are in favor of the dollar,” said Lutz Karpowitz, a senior currency strategist at Commerzbank AG in Frankfurt. “It’s very clear that the Fed is the central bank that is relatively hawkish. We are seeing underlying dollar strength, and it’s justified.”
You see it wrong. It's that simple.
Last edited:
How about the ol' labor force participation rate?
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
Kind of clarifies the unemployment lie, less on the book because they keep falling off, some improvement there Ace...
Here's a few paragraphs from a Forbes article which I think, clarify flaws in the talking points Ace tossed out. Those talking points appear to be from a comparison of Regan to O in some source which I have not seen. O fails by the way....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2014/09/23/the-obama-reagan-comparison-does-o-no-favors/
"This argument has glaring flaws, the most obvious of which (from a statistical point of view) is that the labor force participation rate has collapsed under Obama, while it surged under Reagan, rendering any kind of comparison of unemployment rates inoperable. The bald economic growth numbers, for their part, are double in the Reagan (20.3%) than in the Obama (9.7%) case.
The deeper flaw in the comparison concerns history and precedent. Obama took office as the economy was in “free fall” (as some say), free fall from a long period of mediocrity. At the very peak of the George W. Bush expansion in the summer of 2008, the economy had grown all of 1.9% per year since the 2000 peak. In the six years since the summer of 2008, the economy has grown 1.1% per year. The long period of mediocrity, at least as goes the favorite macroeconomic statistic (GDP), that preceded Barack Obama has only become entrenched at worse levels in the years of this presidency.
1.9% per year was in fact the yearly growth rate in the nine-and-a-half year period that preceded the implementation of Ronald Reagan’s economic policies. From the peak in mid-1973 until the trough at the end of 1982, that was the number, basically the same thing that President Obama would have to deal with on assuming office in 2009.
However, in Reagan’s case, 1973-82 also saw a whopping 120% increase in consumer prices (8.3% per year), a doubling of the unemployment rate (in the context of increased labor-force participation) to near 11%, stocks down a quarter in nominal and two-thirds in real terms, a soaring of the prime rate past 20%, and oil up 14-fold in price."
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
Kind of clarifies the unemployment lie, less on the book because they keep falling off, some improvement there Ace...
Here's a few paragraphs from a Forbes article which I think, clarify flaws in the talking points Ace tossed out. Those talking points appear to be from a comparison of Regan to O in some source which I have not seen. O fails by the way....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2014/09/23/the-obama-reagan-comparison-does-o-no-favors/
"This argument has glaring flaws, the most obvious of which (from a statistical point of view) is that the labor force participation rate has collapsed under Obama, while it surged under Reagan, rendering any kind of comparison of unemployment rates inoperable. The bald economic growth numbers, for their part, are double in the Reagan (20.3%) than in the Obama (9.7%) case.
The deeper flaw in the comparison concerns history and precedent. Obama took office as the economy was in “free fall” (as some say), free fall from a long period of mediocrity. At the very peak of the George W. Bush expansion in the summer of 2008, the economy had grown all of 1.9% per year since the 2000 peak. In the six years since the summer of 2008, the economy has grown 1.1% per year. The long period of mediocrity, at least as goes the favorite macroeconomic statistic (GDP), that preceded Barack Obama has only become entrenched at worse levels in the years of this presidency.
1.9% per year was in fact the yearly growth rate in the nine-and-a-half year period that preceded the implementation of Ronald Reagan’s economic policies. From the peak in mid-1973 until the trough at the end of 1982, that was the number, basically the same thing that President Obama would have to deal with on assuming office in 2009.
However, in Reagan’s case, 1973-82 also saw a whopping 120% increase in consumer prices (8.3% per year), a doubling of the unemployment rate (in the context of increased labor-force participation) to near 11%, stocks down a quarter in nominal and two-thirds in real terms, a soaring of the prime rate past 20%, and oil up 14-fold in price."
Last edited:
Ace, once again I think you don't have the foundation to understand what I'm saying. I know it cut the healthcare thread short and I see it's coming to a head here.
Given some of these parameters in the link I gave have only one way to go, I'll even give you and your boy the credit. Which again, is why I posted what I did. However, like I said, you've ignored some of the most important issues if not lied about what they said..... take "Poverty Level" for instance. As given it has increased under Obama and remain flat at 15% and for the first time it's remained that high for 3 consecutive years since 1965. Manufacturing is touted as "imaginary" even though the numbers are too pathetic to call "up." Yes, I read my link.... did you?
You admit infrastructure is a valid point and kudos to you.
Energy is too generalized address? That's beyond ignorant. Before you go crying about insults, I mean that in a literal sense of the subject of energy and economics. How could anyone that understands how important energy to our economy say something like this? Just curious.
So my focus points are....
High Poverty Level
High Level of Entitlements
Higher Cost of Healthcare (especially for the small businessman)
Poor growth in Manufacturing
No comprehensive Energy Policy
No Change in crumbling Infrastructure
Now I know that the Stock Market and the recent rally in the dollar are key points to you and that's fine. I just have a higher understanding of the fundamentals and prefer reality and the importance of said fundamentals vs fiat. If this is "wrong" in your eyes.... so be it. I'm comfy.
Given some of these parameters in the link I gave have only one way to go, I'll even give you and your boy the credit. Which again, is why I posted what I did. However, like I said, you've ignored some of the most important issues if not lied about what they said..... take "Poverty Level" for instance. As given it has increased under Obama and remain flat at 15% and for the first time it's remained that high for 3 consecutive years since 1965. Manufacturing is touted as "imaginary" even though the numbers are too pathetic to call "up." Yes, I read my link.... did you?
You admit infrastructure is a valid point and kudos to you.
Energy is too generalized address? That's beyond ignorant. Before you go crying about insults, I mean that in a literal sense of the subject of energy and economics. How could anyone that understands how important energy to our economy say something like this? Just curious.
So my focus points are....
High Poverty Level
High Level of Entitlements
Higher Cost of Healthcare (especially for the small businessman)
Poor growth in Manufacturing
No comprehensive Energy Policy
No Change in crumbling Infrastructure
Now I know that the Stock Market and the recent rally in the dollar are key points to you and that's fine. I just have a higher understanding of the fundamentals and prefer reality and the importance of said fundamentals vs fiat. If this is "wrong" in your eyes.... so be it. I'm comfy.
Let's see, generalizations with no supporting proof. Strike.
Ignore all except what fits your narrative. Strike.
Childish insults. You're out.
Now you can run around the chess board squawking and crapping.
It's getting too easy to shut you down in these threads. There were no personal insults in that comment, however if you make a statement that shows a gross lack of understanding then, I'll call it like I see it. Nothing personal and I'm not highlighting a shortcoming, you just might want to a little more homework and maybe fine tune your links so they don't fit into the red herring category so easily.
As far as a lack of proof, you supposedly scanned over a majority of it previously? I called you out on your misrepresentations and I got what I expected.
So if everything is turning up roses under Obama as you say, that should mean that tax revenues should be more than enough to offset spending, right?
So let's see what Reagan did with his defecit spending? The fall of communism and the Soviet Union? Check.
How about Bush? The GWOT and a significant reduction in Islamic based hostilities globally? Check.
Now how about Obama? Let's see, we got Cash for Clunkers which took affordable used cars for the poor off the market. Check. Billions of dollars in green energy, evaporated? Check. The resurgence of Russia as a global power, The whole "Arab Spring" that fizzled and a nearly uncheked level of aggression by Islamic militants? Check.
Bush was not a good president. Obama is orders of magnitude worse. All politicians are bad anymore, you just have to assign levels of severity to their crimes.
One wonders what the punishments for them will be when the tribunals are held after the fall of the Republic.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Oklahoma City Trades added Price drop Heavy duty extruded metal Cabinet- Latest: Almost Jack Burton
-
-
-
-
-
-
