FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
I'm normally not one for quoting political websites or blogs, however I will link to one on this occasion simply to demonstrate that "Success" is relative to your point of view.
http://www.obamaachievements.com/
Media deception concerning the Beck rally?
- Thread starter shagdrum
- Start date
I'm normally not one for quoting political websites or blogs, however I will link to one on this occasion simply to demonstrate that "Success" is relative to your point of view.
http://www.obamaachievements.com/
Actually, Palin got the job description of the VP right.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
-Article I, § 3, clause 4 of the United States Constitution
In the mainstream media's sycophantic zeal to support Obama, they missed that fact.-Article I, § 3, clause 4 of the United States Constitution
What, specifically, was bad about Bush's fiscal policies?
A: what was the primary source of national debt?
B: what recovery?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You mean the policy that saw 52 straight months of economic growth?
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
How about that national deficit and debt growth too? Or how about the loss of all of the last remaining restrictions on businesses to keep them from doing exactly what they did? Bush didn't do anything to help the job market, the economy was growing on its own, just like he didn't REALLY do anything to cause recession.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Oh, so they are in charge of the United States Senate? If they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of policy changes? That sounds kinda different from casting a tie breaker vote.
The job of the VP, per the Constitution, is to be "President of the Senate". This means that the the VP runs the Senate. More often then not, others serve as a substitute for the VP in that role, but that does not change Constitutional fact.
Weather or not they are casting a vote or directly drafting bills is irrelevant to the fact that their role as VP is, in part, to head and run the Senate.
In fact, that fact of the VP running the Senate was to be utilized in the strategy behind getting Obamacare passed.
Are you going to answer my questions in post #53?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Deficit AND debt growth? Both at the same time?
:bowrofl:Complete, disjointed, incoherent nonsense. So, when one thing you throw up against the wall doesn't stick, you try something else. Got it.
So, if Bush's policies of tax cuts were so bad, why are the Democrats and the White House considering them now?
Yawn. I'm bored with you. You won't listen to facts even when they're presented.
Specifically, what restrictions were lifted? More broadly what was the reason for the housing bust? Can you show that A) important restrictions were lifted and, B) those restrictions would have prevented this crisis?
These leftist cliches are nice ready-made opinions to buy into that server to make one sound informed and also appeal to the envy of buinesses that make more money then you.
Unfortunately, upon closer, critical examination, these talking points don't explain anything and tend to be more opportunistic political propaganda. They are often not a logical explanation of the truth of what happened. Heck, they, often they are not even a coherent explanation of what happened upon scrutiny. Upon closer scrutiny, the "explanation" turns into a defensive attempt to rationalize emotional reactions instead to the event; not an objective, honest inquiry into what happened.
Can you connect the dots here and explain, specifically, how the housing bust happened? What factors were involved, etc?
Tax cuts did not help the job market?
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Fiasco or Superior Intelligence?
Actually, worm, the ability to create words for a specific situation is probably the mark of a superior intellect. It was one of the traits of an uncle who had little formal schooling---he had to go to work as a kid to help support the family---but undeniably had an excellent head.
On an allied note, consider 'Jabberwocky', universally thought to be an exceptional word exercise. A number of those 'made-up' words have passed into general usage.
KS
Actually, worm, the ability to create words for a specific situation is probably the mark of a superior intellect. It was one of the traits of an uncle who had little formal schooling---he had to go to work as a kid to help support the family---but undeniably had an excellent head.
On an allied note, consider 'Jabberwocky', universally thought to be an exceptional word exercise. A number of those 'made-up' words have passed into general usage.
KS
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Cammerfe, I think you've refudiated hrmwrm. Well said.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You're hardly the judge of who's an idiot and who's smart.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
I am not going to get into this with you, not if you are going to start out by saying the causes for the housing bubble busting and the recession are all propaganda...... You are ready to dismiss any logical or factual reasoning before it is even given to you because it does not support your world-view.
Tax cuts did not help the job market?
Prove that they did. You seem set on asking me to prove that lending policy changes and banking regulation changes caused the recession and housing bubble collapse, then you should be fully prepared to prove your statement.
While you are chewing that over, let's just look at some real data
unemployment
Tax Rates
You want to know a few examples of what I don't like about Bush era policy-making? Let's forget about the fact that we were right in the middle of one of the biggest and longest bull markets in history that Bush was lucky enough to inherit. What else happened during his presidency. Hmmm, tax cuts in the first 2 years, but, in his first 2 years over 2 million Americans lost their jobs. How did that happen? Shouldn't the tax cuts have made more jobs? That's fine, cause for those 2 million americans who lost their jobs, he cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history. And yeah sure, a lot of his deficit spending was due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but what about those veterans? He cut their healthcare benefits. Thanks for defending freedom boys. Of course, the most secretive and unaccountable presidency in US history dissolved more treaties than any other US president. Of course, he was championing small government though wasn't he, when he created the largest government bureaucracy in US history. He took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history). First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea. He entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.
But yeah, we need more Bush era policy don't we? Does my list need to be longer? Why don't you tell me what Obama has really messed up so far? Let's try to stick to real issues, not just some fashion faux pas or golfing trip. We can leave health care reform off that list, because I'm pretty sure we are both in agreement that he messed that up big time.
I am not dismissing anything. I am just expecting you to be able to logically explain it and provide evidence that logically supports your argument when you claim there is some. What factors were involved; both economically and politically? Do you think the Community Reinvestment Act played any part? How about the Fed lowering interest rates or Fannie and Freddy?
It is basic economics.
Tax cuts give more disposable income and more money to invest. Unless people sock the money away under their mattresses, it is going back into the economy in some fashion, creating more demand and more jobs.
Most any theory of economics views tax cuts as stimulative precisely for the reasons I just laid out.
The only debate comes in how they effect tax revenue.
Any explanation needs to make logical, economic sense. What you have provided, on it's own does not. You need to flesh out the explanation. I would agree that changes in regulation did lead to the recession. I would not agree that it was a lessening of regulation that lead to it. That is to simplistic and makes absolutely no economic sense.
What was the incentive structure involved and how did changes in regulation effect that structure?
You don't think 9/11 or the mild recession that started before Bush took office had anything to do with that?
Do you disagree with the notion of an inherent boom and bust cycle in the economy?
Would you disagree with the notion that the more you subsidize an activity, the more you get of the activity?
You're hardly the judge of who's an idiot and who's smart.
yet more feeble attacks. yawn.
do you have anything to actually add to the thread troll?
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Intelligence
I don't spend any time with idiots, and have never observed any except ths intelligent who 'make up' words. Why have you descended to name-calling?
KS
I don't spend any time with idiots, and have never observed any except ths intelligent who 'make up' words. Why have you descended to name-calling?
KS
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Did you read the links I gave you? Anyways, just to add to things, studies show that for every dollar spent on tax cuts, $0.60 is returned to the economy, whereas for every dollar spent on welfare programs it is something like $1.50 that is returned to the economy. I'll find the studies some time when I get the chance, I haven't read them in a while, so it may take a while for me to remember where to find them. Anyways, I guess that means that people are just stuffing that extra money away under their mattresses. It is NOT simple economics. If it were, you should be able to produce some evidence to that demonstrate that tax cuts have a direct link to job creation. I won't deny that lower taxes may have SOME positive impacts on the economy some of the time, but they cannot drive the economy. If you could just cut taxes to create jobs, why have so many people lost their jobs?
So.... relaxing regulations on banks and lenders had nothing to do with the housing bubble?
No. If anything, 9/11 should have created jobs. We saw the creation of the largest government bureaucracy ever, tons of additional security jobs, and the US at war in two countries created additional demand for many goods including military goods. Mild recession that started before Bush took office? not really....
http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/press/2003/fs_bushrecession073103.pdf
Perhaps you just weren't paying any attention to the economy at the time. I guess that you have spent to much time learning about the early years of Bush's presidency on conservative websites. Maybe you were in school at the time and didn't really have the time to pay attention to those kind of things. I don't know the reason, but you should be able to remember stuff that happened less than 10 years ago.....
Additional food for thought
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692
Did I say that I did?
No. Having had to collect unemployment myself in the past, I can say from experience that it is not something I would have wanted to stay on. Perhaps there are some that want to leech off of welfare, but they are the exception, not the rule. For most people who utilize unemployment, it is a temporary means to supplement their savings until they can find work. Tell me, if you were on unemployment, would you want to stay on it?
FIND, where are you getting these absurd notions? The points you raise are not even economically coherent. They are simply a collection of isolated attempts to be contentious that don't even logically confront what I am saying nor do they conform to (or convey independently) any coherent theory of economic causation.
Even Krugman and John Maynard Keynes (from whom most leftist economic thought is derived) have pointed out that tax cuts stimulate job growth. It is a point that is not really in question by any serious school of economic thought. Yet you are contesting that?!
There really is no possibility of productive dialog with you, is there.
Even Krugman and John Maynard Keynes (from whom most leftist economic thought is derived) have pointed out that tax cuts stimulate job growth. It is a point that is not really in question by any serious school of economic thought. Yet you are contesting that?!
There really is no possibility of productive dialog with you, is there.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
?????????
Actually, I'm not sure whether you were calling my Uncle Harold an idiot, or talking about Sarah Palin. It really doesn't make much difference; both have---had, in the case of my Uncle---significant intelligence. You don't know either of them. In the case of Mrs. Palin, you're simply indulging in that tired liberal stunt of name calling in an attempt to marginalize someone you're afraid of. I'm not sure why you'd take a cut at my Uncle Harold.
KS
Actually, I'm not sure whether you were calling my Uncle Harold an idiot, or talking about Sarah Palin. It really doesn't make much difference; both have---had, in the case of my Uncle---significant intelligence. You don't know either of them. In the case of Mrs. Palin, you're simply indulging in that tired liberal stunt of name calling in an attempt to marginalize someone you're afraid of. I'm not sure why you'd take a cut at my Uncle Harold.
KS
i did no such thing cammerfe.
you were saying that intelligent people make up descriptive words, and i've known idiots in my lifetime who have done it to look smart. don't put implications there that aren't.
afraid? right.
is she stupid? i wouldn't go that far.
does she see things from greatness beyond her capability? she makes a good appearance of that.
and you know it as well as anybody. this was NOT making up a word.
she posted it, got called on it, then tried to remove it.
it was gibberish when it was first wrote.
it was no stroke of genius, but somebody using a BIG WORD to sound smart.
it's obvious by her first actions at trying to remove it.
you can defend her how you like, but i don't buy it.
you were saying that intelligent people make up descriptive words, and i've known idiots in my lifetime who have done it to look smart. don't put implications there that aren't.
afraid? right.
is she stupid? i wouldn't go that far.
does she see things from greatness beyond her capability? she makes a good appearance of that.
and you know it as well as anybody. this was NOT making up a word.
she posted it, got called on it, then tried to remove it.
it was gibberish when it was first wrote.
it was no stroke of genius, but somebody using a BIG WORD to sound smart.
it's obvious by her first actions at trying to remove it.
you can defend her how you like, but i don't buy it.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
The irony here is thick enough to cut with a chainsaw. Mote, meet beam.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
So in other words, you have nothing to offer in support of your argument and are just going to ignore everything I posted for you.