RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

TallClevDom -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/6/2016 10:12:10 AM)

It's a mistake to give credit or blame to the President for the state of the economy. First, most economic programs have significant lag effect, meaning it may be 2 years or more before the impact is felt by the major indicators. Second, there are way too many variables that impact the economy, most of which are out of the authority of the President. An earthquake in Pakistan, a terror attack in Jordan or a coup d'etat in Paraguay all affect the price of Rice Krispies in Peoria. Third, constitutionally, Congress carries just as much sway over the economy as the President. Lastly, private enterprise is the primary source of economic impact. The president of Citibank holds as much influence over the economy as does the President of the US.

The point being, it's very short-sighted to ascribe the state of the economy solely, or even significantly, to the President.



MrRodgers -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/6/2016 10:29:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC

Mr.Rogers, if you knew anything at all about history, you would know that tax cuts RAISE revenue rather than decrease it. President Reagan knew this and proved it. President Bush knew this and proved it. And President John Kennedy knew this and proved it. Why are dumbocrats so blind to the truth and simple facts?

Another revision of history. Reagan did no such thing and his own white house economic counsel David Stockman knew as much and said as much.

H.W. Bush called it voodoo economic and was correct and had to go back on his own no new taxes pledge to just reduce the deficits he would have been historically libel for.

By fiscal 85 Reagan had doubled total federal debt from $1 to $2 trillion. By the time H.W. took office, the federal debt had almost doubled again but for a tripling of the payroll tax (the great so-called soc. sec. reform of 83)...stolen to mask the federal spending deficit.

How often do we say at the dinner table..."Gee, if I take a pay cut...my income will go up ?"

Kennedy cut in half the number of tax rates, and cut only the top actual tax rate by 30% The need was to get money into the economy fast. Kennedy directed all Federal agencies to accelerate their procurement and construction. He released over a billion dollars in state highway aid funds ahead of schedule, raised farm price supports and advanced their payment, speeded up the distribution of tax refunds and GI life insurance dividends.

He created a "pilot" Food Stamp program for the needy and expanded US Employment Offices. Finally, he encouraged the Federal Reserve Board to help keep long-term interest rates low through the purchase of long-term bonds.

While most of Kennedy's administrative moves added to the deficit--some by billions of dollars--none of them had to wait for legislation or appropriations. Between 1961-1963, Kennedy added $23 billion to the national debt. This was a moderate 8% increase to the $289 billion debt level at the end of Eisenhower's last budget. . Oh and BTW, the repubs ever in their partisan mode, predicted all of the red ink.

Top rate from 91% down to 65%. HERE

Now just who is it that's dumb ?



WickedsDesire -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/6/2016 10:37:49 AM)

Economics - do not really interest I...I will not go into the reasons. But I am fascinated with (many) Americans fascination about it and their lack of an iota of knowledge - don't worry the UK is the same (the many).

MasterBrentC Mr.Rogers, if you knew anything at all about history, you would know that tax cuts RAISE revenue rather than decrease it. President Reagan knew this and proved it. President Bush knew this and proved it. And President John Kennedy knew this and proved it. Why are dumbocrats so blind to the truth and simple facts? I see! Now that is not true now is it.

If people just actually paid their taxes it would not be an issue - I am not going into the semantics of tax avoidance - of which your NaziCoffeePartyoRavingLunatics are more guilty off and chapter 17 or whatever the hell its called, are they not - well i called obama red as you lort impression my feeble mind - there must always be balance

Economics - Politicians have no control - your free market has control and that is controlled by the greedy who give not a flying fukery about anyone other than themselves. And that is economics....or if you like it is a roller coaster.

Now, I did like something called the New Statesman - near the mark was that TV show and it is oldish
a few books there name escape me and runs on banks
The Wolf Of Wall Street - Lemon Quaaludes - i wet my pantaloons
the Big short
was anyone actually punished

I like the term paper money - I am not sure many of you know what I mean about that.



Lucylastic -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/6/2016 11:49:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC

Considering it's more than doubled in the past 7 years since fuck face Obama was sworn in, you might want to blame him and not Ryan. Oh wait, that would require a dumbocrat to actually think. My bad.

got a cite to prove this ???
Of course you dont, because it aint true.
It hasnt doubled since your man bush
not in any sense of the ridiculous, let alone reality
When you tout that other people are dumb, you should be careful where you project.



CreativeDominant -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/6/2016 12:17:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

No, I think he is talking about the nutsuckers.

You know, give away all the hard earned taxpayer money to corporations.
give away the public lands of the citizenry to corporations.
give away our treasure to the corporations to get out of the country.
borrow money and spend money like drunken sailors.
enslave the citizenry to special interest groups and millionaires, to their lasting detriment?

You mean that group of intelligent voters?

No. He was talking about the intelligent Democrat voters. I mentioned several groups that vote Democratic to see if they were among the intelligent Democrat voters he was speaking of.



DominantWrestler -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/6/2016 12:41:39 PM)

The increase in debt during Bush is much higher than during Obama. Republicans are always worried about the budget when they are not increasing it more than usual



Phydeaux -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/6/2016 4:18:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler

The increase in debt during Bush is much higher than during Obama. Republicans are always worried about the budget when they are not increasing it more than usual


You are completely wrong. Go to the DoT and publish the numbers. It isn't even close. The debt obama incurred exceeds the debt of all presidents combined if you leave out bush - who was the second highest.



DominantWrestler -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/7/2016 12:19:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC

Mr.Rogers, if you knew anything at all about history, you would know that tax cuts RAISE revenue rather than decrease it. President Reagan knew this and proved it. President Bush knew this and proved it. And President John Kennedy knew this and proved it. Why are dumbocrats so blind to the truth and simple facts?


Reagan proved we had been held back by the 70s oil crises and the susceptibility of groups to social trends. During Reagan's presidency, the stock market had great growth, inflation was pretty high, and the rate median income increased was less than inflation. If you had extra money during the 80s, you could get great return in stocks. More or less, the rich became richer. In the mean time, median income was below inflation, so most people became poorer.

People buy into stocks when they are increasing in value. This means when a stock starts increasing, people buy into it in greater quantity. This is why stocks are volatile; they are always heading towards a runaway condition. For those mathematically inclined, the second derivative is positively coorelated to the first derivative. Put simply, it's like the Pokemon card or beanie baby trends. The momentum increases an objects value, whether it actually has more value or not. Basically, people follow market trends somewhat regardless of the quality of the company



DominantWrestler -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/7/2016 6:50:43 AM)

If you studied history, you'd also know median wages during the Reagan presidency didn't keep up with inflation though the stock market bubbled before causing the recession that prevented the first president bush from being elected for a second term.Because the wealth was building up on paper in the financial sector where there was little to no capital for actual production, it was just inflation to redistribute wealth to those with money to invest. It is the fall of capitalism and the rise of monetarism. Hard workers find their pay checks buying less and less every year, while those with extra cash get richer. All it is is rich people gambling playing with inflation to do less work for a larger percentage of GDP

If you prevent businesses from dodging taxes , like Reagan said and republicans have not done, you can lower taxes on American companies because all companies doing business in America are paying taxes. As it is now, many companies will establish themselves in a tax haven rather than the location of where they do most of their business. New York City, which has a huge amount of business with foreign companies, dealt with this problem by taxing the percentage of business done in New York. This means if we were going to tax businesses some fixed amount amongst all companies, having companies that were dodging taxes paying taxes, we can lower taxes on American companies. Reagan was against loopholes and for lower overall taxes but remember they must go hand in hand



MrRodgers -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/7/2016 9:27:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler
Reagan was against loopholes and for lower overall taxes but remember they must go hand in hand

They did go hand in hand but we can't trust the plutocracy. Since the great tax reform of 1986 that put into effect just that policy yet before 2000, there were 1500 tax code changes. Some will tell you another 500 adjustments since.



Lucylastic -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/7/2016 9:30:06 AM)

.



Phydeaux -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/7/2016 6:47:57 PM)

Since you didn't have the honesty to do it - here are the numbers:

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

9/30/2007 9 trillion dollars.
9/30/2015 18.2 trillion dollars.

Since these are on fiscal year basis - lets look to budget deficits shall we?

from Office of Management & Budget, Historical table 1.1


2000 -296.4
2001 -156.7
2002 -189.6
2003 -441.4
2004 -470.1
2005 -350.5
2006 -264.
2007: -166.6
2008 -459.4
2009 -1412.7
2010 -1279.2
2011 -1259.5
2012 -1034.0
2013 -637.5
2014 -447.7
2015 -531.0 (est)

So the 7 largest deficits in our history have been under Obama. Baracks worst deficit was almost triple Bush's worst.

During Obamas administration our debt as % of gdp went from 40% to 106%.

You should challenge your assumptions Lucy.







Phydeaux -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/7/2016 6:53:11 PM)

Total deficit added during bush years: 2.185 trillion dollars.
Total deficit added during Obama 7.026 trillion. Estimated of course, as we don't know where 2015/16 will come in.



DesideriScuri -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/8/2016 6:07:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Treasury head: US economy better now than when Obama took office
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/264205-treasury-head-us-economy-better-now-than-when-obama-took-office
The U.S. economy is in better shape now than it was when President Obama took office, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said Wednesday.
Seven years ago, the unemployment rate and deficits were higher, but "where we are now, we're seeing steady growth, we've seen enormous job creation over this period of time, we're seeing the unemployment rate around 5 percent, and we're seeing that growth in spite of the fact that there's a lot of headwinds from a slower global economy," he told Fox Business Network.


Lucy, how many of those who lean left are going to deride you for using something from the FOX group? I bet I know that answer.

Jack Lew is painting a picture for political reasons. Technically, his assertion is true, but when you start at or near the bottom of a recession, it's not difficult to show that you're better now than when you started. It's like crowing about unemployment rates falling when it's due to the more people simply leaving the workforce (lower participation rates). It's also like slamming an administration for 90M+ people being unemployed, even though that includes people who have retired, have no inclination/desire to work, and/or are incapable of working.



DesideriScuri -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/8/2016 6:13:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler
The increase in debt during Bush is much higher than during Obama. Republicans are always worried about the budget when they are not increasing it more than usual


Survey says?

XXX

Sorry, not the #1 answer.

The #1 answer is, both parties are always worried about the budget when they are not increasing it for their own political benefit.




DesideriScuri -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/8/2016 6:23:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Since you didn't have the honesty to do it - here are the numbers:
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
9/30/2007 9 trillion dollars.
9/30/2015 18.2 trillion dollars.
Since these are on fiscal year basis - lets look to budget deficits shall we?
from Office of Management & Budget, Historical table 1.1
2000 -296.4
2001 -156.7
2002 -189.6
2003 -441.4
2004 -470.1
2005 -350.5
2006 -264.
2007: -166.6
2008 -459.4
2009 -1412.7
2010 -1279.2
2011 -1259.5
2012 -1034.0
2013 -637.5
2014 -447.7
2015 -531.0 (est)
So the 7 largest deficits in our history have been under Obama. Baracks worst deficit was almost triple Bush's worst.
During Obamas administration our debt as % of gdp went from 40% to 106%.
You should challenge your assumptions Lucy.


There's an issue, Phydeaux. The 2009 budget was made under Bush, and Obama didn't really have much say in it. Likewise with the 2001 budget, Bush didn't have much to do with it. Just because it happens during one President's administration doesn't mean it was the fault/credit of that administration. That would be like blaming Bush for 9/11, even though he had only been President for 8 months, and the planning started before he was in office.

If you shift the deficits one year (Bush being responsible for 2002-2009), the difference becomes less, but it's still there, and it's still in Bush's favor. If you change the way you assign deficits, the deficits under Bush $3.75T, and $5.189T under Obama (for just the 6 years listed).



MrRodgers -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/8/2016 7:30:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Since you didn't have the honesty to do it - here are the numbers:
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
9/30/2007 9 trillion dollars.
9/30/2015 18.2 trillion dollars.
Since these are on fiscal year basis - lets look to budget deficits shall we?
from Office of Management & Budget, Historical table 1.1
2000 -296.4
2001 -156.7
2002 -189.6
2003 -441.4
2004 -470.1
2005 -350.5
2006 -264.
2007: -166.6
2008 -459.4
2009 -1412.7
2010 -1279.2
2011 -1259.5
2012 -1034.0
2013 -637.5
2014 -447.7
2015 -531.0 (est)
So the 7 largest deficits in our history have been under Obama. Baracks worst deficit was almost triple Bush's worst.
During Obamas administration our debt as % of gdp went from 40% to 106%.
You should challenge your assumptions Lucy.


There's an issue, Phydeaux. The 2009 budget was made under Bush, and Obama didn't really have much say in it. Likewise with the 2001 budget, Bush didn't have much to do with it. Just because it happens during one President's administration doesn't mean it was the fault/credit of that administration. That would be like blaming Bush for 9/11, even though he had only been President for 8 months, and the planning started before he was in office.

If you shift the deficits one year (Bush being responsible for 2002-2009), the difference becomes less, but it's still there, and it's still in Bush's favor. If you change the way you assign deficits, the deficits under Bush $3.75T, and $5.189T under Obama (for just the 6 years listed).


Well plus too, as a percentage of GDP, Obama's is less than Reagan now. It was high but almost exclusively through no fault of his. Obama was left with a fiscal mess and an economy that was a sinking ship.




mnottertail -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/8/2016 11:01:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC

Mr.Rogers, if you knew anything at all about history, you would know that tax cuts RAISE revenue rather than decrease it. President Reagan knew this and proved it. President Bush knew this and proved it. And President John Kennedy knew this and proved it. Why are dumbocrats so blind to the truth and simple facts?


If you knew anything about history, you would know that is the stupidest shit ever said on the internet. Reagan raised revenue 5 times. He proved nothing of the kind, he went massively in debt after the tax cuts. Therefore, he 'enhanced' revenue. Bush didnt know shit, and you can read his lips to find that out. He raised taxes.
Why are you nutsuckers so blind to the truth and simple facts?

As in, you aint got a fucking one, but actual real history will put the lie to that nutsucker propaganda.



Phydeaux -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/8/2016 11:02:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Since you didn't have the honesty to do it - here are the numbers:
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
9/30/2007 9 trillion dollars.
9/30/2015 18.2 trillion dollars.
Since these are on fiscal year basis - lets look to budget deficits shall we?
from Office of Management & Budget, Historical table 1.1
2000 -296.4
2001 -156.7
2002 -189.6
2003 -441.4
2004 -470.1
2005 -350.5
2006 -264.
2007: -166.6
2008 -459.4
2009 -1412.7
2010 -1279.2
2011 -1259.5
2012 -1034.0
2013 -637.5
2014 -447.7
2015 -531.0 (est)
So the 7 largest deficits in our history have been under Obama. Baracks worst deficit was almost triple Bush's worst.
During Obamas administration our debt as % of gdp went from 40% to 106%.
You should challenge your assumptions Lucy.


There's an issue, Phydeaux. The 2009 budget was made under Bush, and Obama didn't really have much say in it. Likewise with the 2001 budget, Bush didn't have much to do with it. Just because it happens during one President's administration doesn't mean it was the fault/credit of that administration. That would be like blaming Bush for 9/11, even though he had only been President for 8 months, and the planning started before he was in office.

If you shift the deficits one year (Bush being responsible for 2002-2009), the difference becomes less, but it's still there, and it's still in Bush's favor. If you change the way you assign deficits, the deficits under Bush $3.75T, and $5.189T under Obama (for just the 6 years listed).



Liberals often make that argument. I don't accept it, in this case. Most of the time I would agree with you, the bill for 2009 would be passed no later than september 2008. Bush would have signed it, and been responsible for it.

Fact is, the spending bill was almost six months late - continuing resolutions were used to fund the government. The bill was signed by Obama, not bush, and modifications to the bill were made by the Obama administration. His signature, his bill. Additionally, the spending of the bill, which included TARP, was almost entirely determined by the Obama administration.

Had he objected he could have used recissions - or asked for supplemental spending.



Phydeaux -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/8/2016 11:09:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC

Mr.Rogers, if you knew anything at all about history, you would know that tax cuts RAISE revenue rather than decrease it. President Reagan knew this and proved it. President Bush knew this and proved it. And President John Kennedy knew this and proved it. Why are dumbocrats so blind to the truth and simple facts?


If you knew anything about history, you would know that is the stupidest shit ever said on the internet. Reagan raised revenue 5 times. He proved nothing of the kind, he went massively in debt after the tax cuts. Therefore, he 'enhanced' revenue. Bush didnt know shit, and you can read his lips to find that out. He raised taxes.
Why are you nutsuckers so blind to the truth and simple facts?

As in, you aint got a fucking one, but actual real history will put the lie to that nutsucker propaganda.



Bullshit. Kennedy lowered taxes, the deficit shrank.
http://www.npr.org/2013/11/12/244772593/jfks-lasting-economic-legacy-lower-tax-rates



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.736328E-02