Democrats caused recession in 2007

[AntonToo]

So if you take out the "G," what are you claiming exactly? You didn't contradict what I said, just gave a single point which you then didn't follow up on

He is claiming that if Obama ramped up government spending the way it was during Reagan's terms did we would have 3%+ growth.

 

[kaz]

Oh, and full employment?



You mean most people who having given up and quit the labor force have a job now?

Pretty much. The number of discouraged is less than half it was at its peak, and almost down to the level of the 1990's. At the same time, employment has been steadily going up.

Please, the so called "recovery" has been a disaster. Obama will be the first President in history not to have one year of 3% GDP growth. And that being from the bottom of a recession is incredible. Usually coming out of a recession growth is high just getting back to where you were.

Which has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

And what happened to all the people since you say the discouraged are half gone when labor participation rate is still at a generational low?

You're comparing a change in level to change in percentage. Do you think that's honest?
You do realize that the employment-population ratio has gone up? Since the labor market bottomed out in Feb 2010, the population has gone up 7%, employment has gone up 9.5% (so the emp-pop ratio has gone up 1.4 percentage points). Unemployment has dropped 48.5%, so the labor force (employment plus unemployment) has only gone up 3.8% and the participation rate has gone down.

Discouraged are only a tiny percentage of the overall not in the labor force...only half a percent of those not in the labor force are discouraged.

You're not being honest. I said BOTH change in level (underemployment) AND percentage (labor participation rate)

You are conflating discouraged with not in the labor force. That the Labor Force Participation rate has been going down (since 1999) has nothing at all to do with the number of discouraged. And "underemployment?" This is the first you're using that term talking to me, and whatever you mean by underemployment has nothing to do with labor force participation.

I didn't use the term "discouraged" in the post you just responded to. The post was clear. Labor participation rate combines everyone who's not working who is of working age

 

[kaz]

The Bushes were horrible, that's my long standing position on them. I lost interest there.

Obama was the third and fourth terms of W. Their policies militarily, socially and economically all are virtually identical. The only difference is the words they said while they did it

Well alright, so long as you at least keep some consistency in your standards and don't try to claim that the last two Republicans somehow have better records.

You can search my 36,000+ posts and I have repeatedly said W = O, you will find no direct or indirect contradiction anywhere.

You know I'm not a Republican, right? I'm a libertarian? I voted Republican once in the last six elections and it's about to be one for seven

 

[kaz]

So if you take out the "G," what are you claiming exactly? You didn't contradict what I said, just gave a single point which you then didn't follow up on

He is claiming that if Obama ramped up government spending the way it was during Reagan's terms did we would have 3%+ growth.

Reagan's term? Why pick that one of all the Presidents who increased spending? That was is odd since while Reagan drove military, it was O'Neill who drove up domestic spending

 

[AntonToo]

Reagan's term? Why pick that one of all the Presidents who increased spending? That was is odd since while Reagan drove military, it was O'Neill who drove up domestic spending

odd or not, Regan or not, those are the facts of what happened in the 80s recession that conservatives like to use as a model of dealing with recessions (never mind that it had much different underlying reasons compared to GR)

 

[pinqy]

Pretty much. The number of discouraged is less than half it was at its peak, and almost down to the level of the 1990's. At the same time, employment has been steadily going up.

Please, the so called "recovery" has been a disaster. Obama will be the first President in history not to have one year of 3% GDP growth. And that being from the bottom of a recession is incredible. Usually coming out of a recession growth is high just getting back to where you were.

Which has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

And what happened to all the people since you say the discouraged are half gone when labor participation rate is still at a generational low?

You're comparing a change in level to change in percentage. Do you think that's honest?
You do realize that the employment-population ratio has gone up? Since the labor market bottomed out in Feb 2010, the population has gone up 7%, employment has gone up 9.5% (so the emp-pop ratio has gone up 1.4 percentage points). Unemployment has dropped 48.5%, so the labor force (employment plus unemployment) has only gone up 3.8% and the participation rate has gone down.

Discouraged are only a tiny percentage of the overall not in the labor force...only half a percent of those not in the labor force are discouraged.

You're not being honest. I said BOTH change in level (underemployment) AND percentage (labor participation rate)

You are conflating discouraged with not in the labor force. That the Labor Force Participation rate has been going down (since 1999) has nothing at all to do with the number of discouraged. And "underemployment?" This is the first you're using that term talking to me, and whatever you mean by underemployment has nothing to do with labor force participation.

I didn't use the term "discouraged" in the post you just responded to. The post was clear. Labor participation rate combines everyone who's not working who is of working age

I know. But you had so far made no distinction between the two and were definitely trying to link them. The labor force participation rate is the number of people in the labor force (employed plus unemployed) divided by the adult civilian non-institutional population (those age 16 and older excluding active duty military, prisoners, and those in long term health care or nursing homes)

You are thinking instead of Not in the Labor Force, which is everyone who is neither working nor looking for work. That number is mostly people who do not want to work, and the majority are old, disabled, students, or stay home spouses. Also included would be the independently wealthy, many criminals, and potheads living in mom's basement.

Most of the changes to the participation rate are demographic, not economic.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Pretty much. The number of discouraged is less than half it was at its peak, and almost down to the level of the 1990's. At the same time, employment has been steadily going up.

Please, the so called "recovery" has been a disaster. Obama will be the first President in history not to have one year of 3% GDP growth. And that being from the bottom of a recession is incredible. Usually coming out of a recession growth is high just getting back to where you were.

And what happened to all the people since you say the discouraged are half gone when labor participation rate is still at a generational low?

The depression is still in a real way going on after eight years of Obama. You're just putting lipstick on a pig

Would you post the equation for determining GDP?

We will take this step by step to avoid any logical breakdowns...

I will, but if you continue the contradicting instead of debating crap, I will pull out. A debate is where you process and rationally respond to my points. You are contradicting. You just argue anything I say. If I said water is wet or concrete is hard, you would argue I'm wrong. It gets really dull after awhile. Note I'm not asking you a question here. I am informing you to cut the crap.



GDP = C + I + G + (X - M)

Do I need to explain that to you?

I crack myself up, like you know what an explanation is. I've walked into that trap before. So explain how this gets us to that currency isn't devalued by printing money? Those terms are all measured in nominal currency value. But go ahead, I answered your question. The stage is yours

Contradiction is an essence of Argument.....not to be confused with "gainsaying" and "Boldly Asserting"...

I have " contradicted" your arguments by demonstrating where they are both wrong on the facts, and flawed by structure. In doing so, I have employed objective sources. In response, you have relied on Bold Assertion and Indignation.

Consider the following:

Obama will be the first President in history not to have one year of 3% GDP growth.

The "G" in your formula represents the contribution to GDP of Government expenditures and net investment.......

The Great Recession is the first in the Post WW2 era to feature a NEGATIVE avg annual contribution from "G"....

To compare 2009- present to 1981-1989, and 2001-2009, you would add 0.85% and 0.5% respectively.

Mind you, this is entirely independent of the effect of household leverage....

So if you take out the "G," what are you claiming exactly? You didn't contradict what I said, just gave a single point which you then didn't follow up on

I didn't say "take out"..... You should pay attention... It will save us both a lot of time.

 

[IcebergSlim]

So if you take out the "G," what are you claiming exactly? You didn't contradict what I said, just gave a single point which you then didn't follow up on

He is claiming that if Obama ramped up government spending the way it was during Reagan's terms did we would have 3%+ growth.

Reagan's term? Why pick that one of all the Presidents who increased spending? That was is odd since while Reagan drove military, it was O'Neill who drove up domestic spending

I picked the two Supply Side regimes......Useful Idiots love to offer Reagan as a counterexample to the current Administration.

And, no, discretionary social spending under Reagan was largely flat...

You are susceptible to a lot of "received wisdom"

 

[IcebergSlim]

As I've repeatedly demonstrated, your example used three FIXED numbers.....CP holds all ELSE, not EVERYTHING, constant.....the entire point is to stress a VARIABLE...

I don't know else to explain it. You don't know what cetris paribus means. If you really studied Latin, I'd demand your money back. I said I was explaining it to Skylar. And you keep saying OMG, you made up those numbers! No shit, that's what I said. It was to explain the concept

The actions of the Fed have not resulted in the Hyperinflation scenario predicted by economic naifs because they have occurred at the "zero lower bound". Instead of circulating, and being subject to velocity, this money is going to Excess Reserves at the Fed.....the practical effect (and I suspect, original intent) has been to shore up bank capital ravaged by the Wages of Supply
Side Idiocy.

Strawman, I said nothing about "hyperinflation." I didn't even say printing money was the only problem for the recession, I said it didn't cause it, it just made it worse.

But you simpletons keep coming back with no, printing money doesn't devalue currency! It's a stupid argument and prima facie wrong. You just have to think about it. You printed money, of course that is going to have a devaluing effect on the currency.

Prima facie is Latin, sorry, I know you don't know what it means

. You don't know what cetris paribus means.

Me - ..CP holds all ELSE, not EVERYTHING, constant....

Ceteris paribus, a Latin phrase, roughly means “holding other things constant.” The more common English translation reads “all other things being equal.” This term is most widely used in economics and finance as a shorthand indication of the effect of one economic variable on another, keeping all other variables constant that could render an effect on the second variable.

Read more: Ceteris Paribus Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/ceterisparibus.asp#ixzz4GBagrvVi


. And you keep saying OMG, you made up those numbers! No shit, that's what I said. It was to explain the concept

No....that is not what I have said.....I have pointed out that the illustration you offered has nothing to do with CP because none of your variables are dependent.....your argument is tautological..... It assumes what you aim to "demonstrate"....

" It's a stupid argument and prima facie wrong."

If something is shown to be in conflict with the facts, it is NOT "prima facie"..... Go ahead and look up the definition.

I'm going to give you one last chance to show you're not just being an ass.

It wasn't an argument on printing money. Yes, I made it up.

I was explaining to Skylar what "all else held equal" or ceteris paribus means. He didn't grasp it and I was ONLY explaining that concept to him. The numbers in my example were NOT ... AN ... ARGUMENT, they were a made up EXAMPLE. But if he didn't understand the concept, we couldn't get to the actual argument, and he didn't understand it. He kept saying it means there are no other factors, that isn't what it means.

I am not explaining this to you again. Either get it and we move on or we're done now. Next step is up to you. But I'm not repeating this step again

You have yet to explain how three FIXED data items can offer an example of "ceteris paribus"...... I have demonstrated that, in the absence of a DEPENDENT variable, they cannot....what you INTENDED to show is irrelevant....

I've seen the error of my ways. You just want to argue. That's cool, but it gets dull after awhile when you're not intellectually engaged.

To answer your question though, all the variables I gave were dependent variables. The independent variable was the money printed, the discussion topic. I mean duh.

I look forward to another deeply intellectually thought through and presented, no it isn't ...

They would be dependent if they were derived......in your illustration they are given........just like " money printed"....

 

[IcebergSlim]

So if you take out the "G," what are you claiming exactly? You didn't contradict what I said, just gave a single point which you then didn't follow up on

He is claiming that if Obama ramped up government spending the way it was during Reagan's terms did we would have 3%+ growth.

I'm not "claiming" it....I'm demonstrating it....

The data is available at BEA...

 

[AntonToo]

So if you take out the "G," what are you claiming exactly? You didn't contradict what I said, just gave a single point which you then didn't follow up on

He is claiming that if Obama ramped up government spending the way it was during Reagan's terms did we would have 3%+ growth.

I'm not "claiming" it....I'm demonstrating it....

The data is available at BEA...

I'm not disagreeing with the claim.

 

[kaz]

Reagan's term? Why pick that one of all the Presidents who increased spending? That was is odd since while Reagan drove military, it was O'Neill who drove up domestic spending

odd or not, Regan or not, those are the facts of what happened in the 80s recession that conservatives like to use as a model of dealing with recessions (never mind that it had much different underlying reasons compared to GR)

Not sure how old you are, but that makes no sense in terms of the Reagan administration. He cut taxes do spur growth, that's how he dealt with the recession. It worked, just like it had for JFK.

The spending was not an economic policy of Reagan's. He wanted to bring down the Soviet Union. He spent big on military to do it. It was painful to us. It was catastrophic to the Soviets. They agreed to the first reduction in warheads, then eventually fell in an economic collapse. Did Reagan cause it? No. Did he tip the cow? Yes.

Tip's price for Reagan's plan was domestic spending. Reagan agreed to get his agenda. You can agree or disagree with that, but he didn't want the spending and it wasn't an economic plan.

This was my point in mentioning your "Reagan" example rather than the other ones that would have made more sense. You picked Reagan as an agenda, not to make the point in the discussion

 

[kaz]

Please, the so called "recovery" has been a disaster. Obama will be the first President in history not to have one year of 3% GDP growth. And that being from the bottom of a recession is incredible. Usually coming out of a recession growth is high just getting back to where you were.

Which has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

And what happened to all the people since you say the discouraged are half gone when labor participation rate is still at a generational low?

You're comparing a change in level to change in percentage. Do you think that's honest?
You do realize that the employment-population ratio has gone up? Since the labor market bottomed out in Feb 2010, the population has gone up 7%, employment has gone up 9.5% (so the emp-pop ratio has gone up 1.4 percentage points). Unemployment has dropped 48.5%, so the labor force (employment plus unemployment) has only gone up 3.8% and the participation rate has gone down.

Discouraged are only a tiny percentage of the overall not in the labor force...only half a percent of those not in the labor force are discouraged.

You're not being honest. I said BOTH change in level (underemployment) AND percentage (labor participation rate)

You are conflating discouraged with not in the labor force. That the Labor Force Participation rate has been going down (since 1999) has nothing at all to do with the number of discouraged. And "underemployment?" This is the first you're using that term talking to me, and whatever you mean by underemployment has nothing to do with labor force participation.

I didn't use the term "discouraged" in the post you just responded to. The post was clear. Labor participation rate combines everyone who's not working who is of working age

I know. But you had so far made no distinction between the two and were definitely trying to link them. The labor force participation rate is the number of people in the labor force (employed plus unemployed) divided by the adult civilian non-institutional population (those age 16 and older excluding active duty military, prisoners, and those in long term health care or nursing homes)

You are thinking instead of Not in the Labor Force, which is everyone who is neither working nor looking for work. That number is mostly people who do not want to work, and the majority are old, disabled, students, or stay home spouses. Also included would be the independently wealthy, many criminals, and potheads living in mom's basement.

Most of the changes to the participation rate are demographic, not economic.

"mostly" LOL. Therein lies where your argument falls apart

 

[kaz]

Please, the so called "recovery" has been a disaster. Obama will be the first President in history not to have one year of 3% GDP growth. And that being from the bottom of a recession is incredible. Usually coming out of a recession growth is high just getting back to where you were.

And what happened to all the people since you say the discouraged are half gone when labor participation rate is still at a generational low?

The depression is still in a real way going on after eight years of Obama. You're just putting lipstick on a pig

Would you post the equation for determining GDP?

We will take this step by step to avoid any logical breakdowns...

I will, but if you continue the contradicting instead of debating crap, I will pull out. A debate is where you process and rationally respond to my points. You are contradicting. You just argue anything I say. If I said water is wet or concrete is hard, you would argue I'm wrong. It gets really dull after awhile. Note I'm not asking you a question here. I am informing you to cut the crap.



GDP = C + I + G + (X - M)

Do I need to explain that to you?

I crack myself up, like you know what an explanation is. I've walked into that trap before. So explain how this gets us to that currency isn't devalued by printing money? Those terms are all measured in nominal currency value. But go ahead, I answered your question. The stage is yours

Contradiction is an essence of Argument.....not to be confused with "gainsaying" and "Boldly Asserting"...

I have " contradicted" your arguments by demonstrating where they are both wrong on the facts, and flawed by structure. In doing so, I have employed objective sources. In response, you have relied on Bold Assertion and Indignation.

Consider the following:

Obama will be the first President in history not to have one year of 3% GDP growth.

The "G" in your formula represents the contribution to GDP of Government expenditures and net investment.......

The Great Recession is the first in the Post WW2 era to feature a NEGATIVE avg annual contribution from "G"....

To compare 2009- present to 1981-1989, and 2001-2009, you would add 0.85% and 0.5% respectively.

Mind you, this is entirely independent of the effect of household leverage....

So if you take out the "G," what are you claiming exactly? You didn't contradict what I said, just gave a single point which you then didn't follow up on

I didn't say "take out"..... You should pay attention... It will save us both a lot of time.

Yes you did

 

[kaz]

So if you take out the "G," what are you claiming exactly? You didn't contradict what I said, just gave a single point which you then didn't follow up on

He is claiming that if Obama ramped up government spending the way it was during Reagan's terms did we would have 3%+ growth.

Reagan's term? Why pick that one of all the Presidents who increased spending? That was is odd since while Reagan drove military, it was O'Neill who drove up domestic spending

I picked the two Supply Side regimes......Useful Idiots love to offer Reagan as a counterexample to the current Administration.

And, no, discretionary social spending under Reagan was largely flat...

You are susceptible to a lot of "received wisdom"

No you didn't

 

[kaz]

I don't know else to explain it. You don't know what cetris paribus means. If you really studied Latin, I'd demand your money back. I said I was explaining it to Skylar. And you keep saying OMG, you made up those numbers! No shit, that's what I said. It was to explain the concept

Strawman, I said nothing about "hyperinflation." I didn't even say printing money was the only problem for the recession, I said it didn't cause it, it just made it worse.

But you simpletons keep coming back with no, printing money doesn't devalue currency! It's a stupid argument and prima facie wrong. You just have to think about it. You printed money, of course that is going to have a devaluing effect on the currency.

Prima facie is Latin, sorry, I know you don't know what it means

. You don't know what cetris paribus means.

Me - ..CP holds all ELSE, not EVERYTHING, constant....

Ceteris paribus, a Latin phrase, roughly means “holding other things constant.” The more common English translation reads “all other things being equal.” This term is most widely used in economics and finance as a shorthand indication of the effect of one economic variable on another, keeping all other variables constant that could render an effect on the second variable.

Read more: Ceteris Paribus Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/ceterisparibus.asp#ixzz4GBagrvVi


. And you keep saying OMG, you made up those numbers! No shit, that's what I said. It was to explain the concept

No....that is not what I have said.....I have pointed out that the illustration you offered has nothing to do with CP because none of your variables are dependent.....your argument is tautological..... It assumes what you aim to "demonstrate"....

" It's a stupid argument and prima facie wrong."

If something is shown to be in conflict with the facts, it is NOT "prima facie"..... Go ahead and look up the definition.

I'm going to give you one last chance to show you're not just being an ass.

It wasn't an argument on printing money. Yes, I made it up.

I was explaining to Skylar what "all else held equal" or ceteris paribus means. He didn't grasp it and I was ONLY explaining that concept to him. The numbers in my example were NOT ... AN ... ARGUMENT, they were a made up EXAMPLE. But if he didn't understand the concept, we couldn't get to the actual argument, and he didn't understand it. He kept saying it means there are no other factors, that isn't what it means.

I am not explaining this to you again. Either get it and we move on or we're done now. Next step is up to you. But I'm not repeating this step again

You have yet to explain how three FIXED data items can offer an example of "ceteris paribus"...... I have demonstrated that, in the absence of a DEPENDENT variable, they cannot....what you INTENDED to show is irrelevant....

I've seen the error of my ways. You just want to argue. That's cool, but it gets dull after awhile when you're not intellectually engaged.

To answer your question though, all the variables I gave were dependent variables. The independent variable was the money printed, the discussion topic. I mean duh.

I look forward to another deeply intellectually thought through and presented, no it isn't ...

They would be dependent if they were derived......in your illustration they are given........just like " money printed"....

No it wasn't

 

[kaz]

So if you take out the "G," what are you claiming exactly? You didn't contradict what I said, just gave a single point which you then didn't follow up on

He is claiming that if Obama ramped up government spending the way it was during Reagan's terms did we would have 3%+ growth.

I'm not "claiming" it....I'm demonstrating it....

The data is available at BEA...

No you aren't

 

[Faun]

Please, the so called "recovery" has been a disaster. Obama will be the first President in history not to have one year of 3% GDP growth.

Except of course both Republican Presidents before him would give their right nut (pardon the pun) to have Obama's stable under-3% gdp growth with ample job creation.

There is no precedent for market problems that lead to Great Recession, there has never been real estate and finance failure like that, so other comparisons are fundamentally flawed and make for a weak argument.

Bush had only two years with GDP growth above 3%. Those would be the years the housing boom fueled GDP. The dumb bastards are so ignorant, they don't even realize by crediting Bush with the GDP for those 2 years, they are also unwittingly blaming him for the financial meltdown.

 

[AntonToo]

Not sure how old you are, but that makes no sense in terms of the Reagan administration. He cut taxes do spur growth, that's how he dealt with the recession. It worked, just like it had for JFK.

The spending was not an economic policy of Reagan's. He wanted to bring down the Soviet Union. He spent big on military to do it. It was painful to us. It was catastrophic to the Soviets. They agreed to the first reduction in warheads, then eventually fell in an economic collapse. Did Reagan cause it? No. Did he tip the cow? Yes.

Tip's price for Reagan's plan was domestic spending. Reagan agreed to get his agenda. You can agree or disagree with that, but he didn't want the spending and it wasn't an economic plan.

This was my point in mentioning your "Reagan" example rather than the other ones that would have made more sense. You picked Reagan as an agenda, not to make the point in the discussion

INTENT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT - the FACT of the matter is that along with tax cuts government spending was increased under Reagan, raising the GDP and tripling debt. IF same government spending growth occurred under Obama we would easily hit 3%+ GDP growth in at least a few years.

 

[Faun]

Again,the part you're too stupid to understand -- a single member of the House minority party cannot stop any bill the majority party wants to pass. What Frank says on video does not block bills. Votes do. And the House passed only one bill. I bet you don't even know what happened to that one bill.

God you are dumb, Democrats controlled congress during this time. Bush called on congress to tighten regulations on Fannie and Freddie 17 times 17 do you understand that number. Barney Frank House Financial Services Committee Chairman refused to do anything until 2008 when it was too late. With tighter lending standards at Fannie and Freddie there would be no secondary mortgage market to buy up these shit loans and presto there would be no shit loans written.

Sorry, imbecile, the crisis began before 2008.

Even worse for you -- to demonstrate just how ignorant you are ... let me repeat your own words for everyone on the forum reading this to witness such incredible stupidity....

your words .... are ya ready ...?

"Barney Frank House Financial Services Committee Chairman refused to do anything until 2008 when it was too late."​

... see that? According to a raving lunatic like you, Barney Frank did nothing until 2008 ... now let's put aside your chronic rightwing dementia and take a glance at reality....

On March 9th, 2007, just nine weeks after Democrats took over the Congress and Barney Frank became the House Financial Services Committee Chairman, he sponsored
H.R. 1427: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007 and got it passed in the House.



And you moronically said he did nothing.

What did I just tell you about posting manifestos, its a gift that I even acknowledge your existence let alone read these.

Only to an abject imbecile like you would a U.S. Congressional bill be a "manifesto."

Your sickness aside, why the fuck do you think it even matters if you look at it or not? Stay ignorant. Who cares? The way I figure it, you're too committed to your delusions anyway to accept reality. So while you're making bullshit claims like Barney Frank did nothing until 2008, I'm proving you're deranged by showing that within two months of taking his office, he sponsored a GSE reform bill and got it passed in his chamber. And guess what? That's true whether you read the bill or not.

Your frustration is noted lib but again I have no time for your nonsensical

Ignoring reality doesn't make you right. It just makes you stupid.