Forget Econ Stats, Do Americans Feel Economic Exhuberance or Malaise?

[AvgGuyIA]

bottom line: No one feels this economy is going gang busters. Intuitively, americans know something's wrong.

We econ geeks can spend hundreds of hours on this board throwing around economic statistics, but my guess is the average american/average reader doesn't read threads in the economy section. It's too wonky.

Oldfart commented that my posts don't sound the way most macroeconomists talk. I can't stand how most macroeconomists talk. Most don't speak in a way that normal americans can understand. They speak to out-geek the next geek. Just like every econ professor i ever had.

i'd like this to be a thread meant for "normal" americans - those living out on main street, not wall street - who just want to know why they're not feeling optimistic about their economic situations and what can be done about it.

This thread is meant to involve people who want more "intuitive" answers about the economy.

Let's see if we can manage to do that. :d

Ma-fucking-laise

 

[zeke]

Who is stopping regulation of derivatives today?

Once again, blame it on Bush. Even 2nd graders can see through that bullsheeet.

How's come, with you being the econo chick, you won't acknowledge what decision were made during the Bush admin. and what the consequences have been for those decisions.

When I read you first post, I thought you might know something the other right wingers don't know. But you are repeating the same debunked talking point all the rest of you guys use.

Dad23 has articles, links, chart, graphs and hell who knows what else but he can make a case.

You got;"Once again, blame it on Bush........yada yada.

We know it was Bush. We just don't understand why you don't know.

 

[Rozman]

Stagnant would be my description.

 

[Dad2three]

The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.



In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."

Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


NOW ONE MORE TIME, WHICH SIDE WAS CORRECT?

 

[EconChick]

Once again, blame it on Bush. Even 2nd graders can see through that bullsheeet.

How's come, with you being the econo chick, you won't acknowledge what decision were made during the Bush admin. and what the consequences have been for those decisions.

When I read you first post, I thought you might know something the other right wingers don't know. But you are repeating the same debunked talking point all the rest of you guys use.

Dad23 has articles, links, chart, graphs and hell who knows what else but he can make a case.

You got;"Once again, blame it on Bush........yada yada.

We know it was Bush. We just don't understand why you don't know.

Well, your post kinda looks serious so I'll give serious answers. I did acknowledge a number of times what Bush did wrong. You should go back and reread if you didn't see them.

Posting links, charts, and graphs means nothing. I could bury you with links, charts and graphs. You would miss them...just like you missed my plain-English posts admitting to Bush's contribution to the problem.

I'm trying to keep the posts short and intuitive. When I start adding the graphs, charts, and links it will be nothing but .....wait for it................dueling graphs, charts, and links. Most readers don't have the background to assess the reliability of graphs, charts, and links. Why? Because most graphs, charts, and links are biased on BOTH SIDES.

Like the Unemployment rate being 6.1%. Do you know why that's actually a misleading number? Do you know why despite the U rate dropping from 6.3 to 6.1, it's actually a sign that things are getting worse?

You don't. You look at the surface and just accept that 6.1 must be better than 6.3, because you don't have the immersion in the data to know better.

Oh yes, I've seen the superficial descriptions by liberals who have but the most limited grasp on the entire U-1 through U-6 rating descriptions. But the stats behind it are complicated. It would take a long time to explain it thoroughly.

I'm not posting to explain to partisans who already have an agenda. You people are totally gone. I know what it's like to spend 100s of hours using charts and graphs to that type. The ocean is made of bubblegum and no one's going to change their minds, damn it.

But to people with open minds with common sense, certain things resonate. Like the fact that most of middle America KNOWS the job market sucks. Yet here Liberal morons try to spin data like it doesn't.

What is funny as hell is to listen to someone like you say conservative points are debunked. While I was in undergrad and grad school, I started out as a dumbfuck, gullible, think-from-the-heart, emotional liberal that accepted all this Keynsian bullshit you libs eat up from liberal professors and media outlets ....till independent research showed how wrong it really was.

It's Keynsian BS that's debunked, not vice versa.

 

[EconChick]

The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.



In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."

Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


NOW ONE MORE TIME, WHICH SIDE WAS CORRECT?

Ok, let's explain something here.

The overwhelming number of econ departments within universities across the United States are Keynsian Departments.

What does that mean mathematically. That means you will find an overwhelming number of people publishing in academia and the media come from that dumbass, BIG-SPENDING, debunked, corrupt-ass economic philosophy point of view when they write.

Most are so stupid they don't even know they have that bias. Some professor made them answer tests a certain way to pass so they accepted it as gospel.

You could pull up thousands of reports and articles...........and I could tell you they're all bull based on the assumptions I can tell the dumbass authors make.

It is yet another fallacy indicative of the lack of critical thinking in this country to think just because Dad2three pulls up an official looking report that it's gospel.

You've pulled up a long list of stupid ass sources on this thread. I'm sure some are stupid enough to be taken in.

I'm sure there are others that can see right through it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

How's come, with you being the econo chick, you won't acknowledge what decision were made during the Bush admin. and what the consequences have been for those decisions.

When I read you first post, I thought you might know something the other right wingers don't know. But you are repeating the same debunked talking point all the rest of you guys use.

Dad23 has articles, links, chart, graphs and hell who knows what else but he can make a case.

You got;"Once again, blame it on Bush........yada yada.

We know it was Bush. We just don't understand why you don't know.

Well, your post kinda looks serious so I'll give serious answers. I did acknowledge a number of times what Bush did wrong. You should go back and reread if you didn't see them.

Posting links, charts, and graphs means nothing. I could bury you with links, charts and graphs. You would miss them...just like you missed my plain-English posts admitting to Bush's contribution to the problem.

I'm trying to keep the posts short and intuitive. When I start adding the graphs, charts, and links it will be nothing but .....wait for it................dueling graphs, charts, and links. Most readers don't have the background to assess the reliability of graphs, charts, and links. Why? Because most graphs, charts, and links are biased on BOTH SIDES.

Like the Unemployment rate being 6.1%. Do you know why that's actually a misleading number? Do you know why despite the U rate dropping from 6.3 to 6.1, it's actually a sign that things are getting worse?

You don't. You look at the surface and just accept that 6.1 must be better than 6.3, because you don't have the immersion in the data to know better.

Oh yes, I've seen the superficial descriptions by liberals who have but the most limited grasp on the entire U-1 through U-6 rating descriptions. But the stats behind it are complicated. It would take a long time to explain it thoroughly.

I'm not posting to explain to partisans who already have an agenda. You people are totally gone. I know what it's like to spend 100s of hours using charts and graphs to that type. The ocean is made of bubblegum and no one's going to change their minds, damn it.

But to people with open minds with common sense, certain things resonate. Like the fact that most of middle America KNOWS the job market sucks. Yet here Liberal morons try to spin data like it doesn't.

What is funny as hell is to listen to someone like you say conservative points are debunked. While I was in undergrad and grad school, I started out as a dumbfuck, gullible, think-from-the-heart, emotional liberal that accepted all this Keynsian bullshit you libs eat up from liberal professors and media outlets ....till independent research showed how wrong it really was.

It's Keynsian BS that's debunked, not vice versa.

Oh....now I see. You'd give us some evidence, but we aren't bright enough to understand it. So....instead you just vomit bullshit thinking we are also dumb enough to buy it. Cool. You are an economist. You know stuff. So intimidating....I can barely stand it.

Most of middle America knows the job market sucks? Perhaps. But they also knew that it sucks less now than it did last year....and the year before that.....and the year before that. Things are getting better. Bottom line, bitch.

Thread fail.

 

[Dad2three]

The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.



In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."

Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


NOW ONE MORE TIME, WHICH SIDE WAS CORRECT?

Ok, let's explain something here.

The overwhelming number of econ departments within universities across the United States are Keynsian Departments.

What does that mean mathematically. That means you will find an overwhelming number of people publishing in academia and the media come from that dumbass, BIG-SPENDING, debunked, corrupt-ass economic philosophy point of view when they write.

Most are so stupid they don't even know they have that bias. Some professor made them answer tests a certain way to pass so they accepted it as gospel.

You could pull up thousands of reports and articles...........and I could tell you they're all bull based on the assumptions I can tell the dumbass authors make.

It is yet another fallacy indicative of the lack of critical thinking in this country to think just because Dad2three pulls up an official looking report that it's gospel.

You've pulled up a long list of stupid ass sources on this thread. I'm sure some are stupid enough to be taken in.

I'm sure there are others that can see right through it.

"...According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.



In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."


NOW ONE MORE TIME, WHICH SIDE WAS CORRECT?

 

[Dad2three]

The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.



In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."

Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


NOW ONE MORE TIME, WHICH SIDE WAS CORRECT?

Ok, let's explain something here.

The overwhelming number of econ departments within universities across the United States are Keynsian Departments.

What does that mean mathematically. That means you will find an overwhelming number of people publishing in academia and the media come from that dumbass, BIG-SPENDING, debunked, corrupt-ass economic philosophy point of view when they write.

Most are so stupid they don't even know they have that bias. Some professor made them answer tests a certain way to pass so they accepted it as gospel.

You could pull up thousands of reports and articles...........and I could tell you they're all bull based on the assumptions I can tell the dumbass authors make.

It is yet another fallacy indicative of the lack of critical thinking in this country to think just because Dad2three pulls up an official looking report that it's gospel.

You've pulled up a long list of stupid ass sources on this thread. I'm sure some are stupid enough to be taken in.

I'm sure there are others that can see right through it.

Got it, Policy from Dubya didn't REALLY matter, But EVERYTHING Obama has done is the REASON the US can't climb out of the Dubya/GOP hole right?

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008


WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF REGULATORS THEN?

 

[Dad2three]

Barack Obama bests Bill Clinton's private sector job creation record

June marks 52 straight months of private sector job growth, the longest ever on record, beating out Bill Clinton's record of 51 continuous months of private sector job growth from February 1996 to April 2000. The economy has added more than 200,000 jobs for five months in a row now, the longest such streak since 1999. In the first half of this year alone the economy has added 1.4 million jobs, another accomplishment not seen since 1999.


Barack Obama bests Bill Clinton's private sector job creation record ? The People's View

 

[EconChick]

CLINTON?

Oh here we go with how great the Clinton years were.


Is it too much to ask someone trying to convince the world they understand the topic of economics to acknowledge that

-some economic occurrences are due to short term factors
-some economic occurrences are due to medium term factors
-and some economic occurrences are due to long-term factors (like bubbles)

The success of the Clinton economy was in large part a result of the years of all the hard work Reagan had done to clean up the economy........and the hard work Reagan did to bring the Cold War to an end. Clinton also gets some credit but most of it was due to conditions laid down by Reagan in the 80s.

I'm not going to spend the 100s of hours it would take to explain that to you. Try researching it yourself instead of believing all the propaganda you slurp up.

Reagan gets credit huh? NEVER heard that one before *shaking head*

I guess tripling the debt and blowing up spending like Ronnie did helped Clinton? Or was it ignoring the regulator warnings on the S&L crisis?

A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.

This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan’s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan’s 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his “Ronald Reagan Legacy Project,” along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter.


...Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of “Containment” by eight U.S. presidents. As Tony Judt’s Postwar concluded: “…Washington did not ‘bring down’ Communism – Communism imploded of its own accord.”

Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


Establishing Fiscal Discipline and Paying off the National Debt

President Clinton’s Record on Fiscal Discipline: Between 1981 and 1992, the national debt held by the public quadrupled. The annual budget deficit grew to $290 billion in 1992, the largest ever, and was projected to grow to more than $455 billion by Fiscal Year (FY) 2000.



To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote.

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits." — Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994



"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity." — Business Week, May 19, 1997

The Clinton Presidency: Historic Economic Growth

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh Myyyyyyyyyyyyyy Goddddddd. You're on the fucking payrolls of some Democrat organization. Or you just read and regurgitate their propaganda without questioning it.

Dad2three, you seem like a nice enough person, and you seem relatively respectful while debating, but I had no idea I was dealing with someone this misinformed and unknowledgeable about the past.

Thank God there's only about 20% of the country left that's as brainwashed and indoctrinated as you are.

The old Soviet Union would be proud of the job liberal academia and liberal media have done on the far left.

It's breathtaking to read someone tell me something I lived through firsthand was my imagination. It's like hearing someone say the US didn't win the Cold War.

All you can do is feel sorry for the level of indoctrination that person has been exposed to. Ever see the Manchurian Candidate? You should.

 

[EconChick]

Barack Obama bests Bill Clinton's private sector job creation record

June marks 52 straight months of private sector job growth, the longest ever on record, beating out Bill Clinton's record of 51 continuous months of private sector job growth from February 1996 to April 2000. The economy has added more than 200,000 jobs for five months in a row now, the longest such streak since 1999. In the first half of this year alone the economy has added 1.4 million jobs, another accomplishment not seen since 1999.


Barack Obama bests Bill Clinton's private sector job creation record ? The People's View

More bullshit "stats" being spun.

You know what isn't spun????? You know what number everyone knows is true? GDP. And the first quarter saw a contraction of 3 full points.

Anyone with good sense knows that 3% of a 17 trillion economy is a LARGE amount by which the economy contracted in Jan, Feb and March.

O's got a MINUS 3% happening (yes, some was weather but not enough to push into neg) while some of Reagan's quarters yielded 8%.

Let me repeat. Obama's got a MINUS 3% quarter when Reagan's quarters were as high as 8%.

 

[Dad2three]

Oh here we go with how great the Clinton years were.


Is it too much to ask someone trying to convince the world they understand the topic of economics to acknowledge that

-some economic occurrences are due to short term factors
-some economic occurrences are due to medium term factors
-and some economic occurrences are due to long-term factors (like bubbles)

The success of the Clinton economy was in large part a result of the years of all the hard work Reagan had done to clean up the economy........and the hard work Reagan did to bring the Cold War to an end. Clinton also gets some credit but most of it was due to conditions laid down by Reagan in the 80s.

I'm not going to spend the 100s of hours it would take to explain that to you. Try researching it yourself instead of believing all the propaganda you slurp up.

Reagan gets credit huh? NEVER heard that one before *shaking head*

I guess tripling the debt and blowing up spending like Ronnie did helped Clinton? Or was it ignoring the regulator warnings on the S&L crisis?

A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.

This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan’s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan’s 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his “Ronald Reagan Legacy Project,” along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter.


...Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of “Containment” by eight U.S. presidents. As Tony Judt’s Postwar concluded: “…Washington did not ‘bring down’ Communism – Communism imploded of its own accord.”

Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


Establishing Fiscal Discipline and Paying off the National Debt

President Clinton’s Record on Fiscal Discipline: Between 1981 and 1992, the national debt held by the public quadrupled. The annual budget deficit grew to $290 billion in 1992, the largest ever, and was projected to grow to more than $455 billion by Fiscal Year (FY) 2000.



To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote.

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits." — Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994



"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity." — Business Week, May 19, 1997

The Clinton Presidency: Historic Economic Growth

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh Myyyyyyyyyyyyyy Goddddddd. You're on the fucking payrolls of some Democrat organization. Or you just read and regurgitate their propaganda without questioning it.

Dad2three, you seem like a nice enough person, and you seem relatively respectful while debating, but I had no idea I was dealing with someone this misinformed and unknowledgeable about the past.

Thank God there's only about 20% of the country left that's as brainwashed and indoctrinated as you are.

The old Soviet Union would be proud of the job liberal academia and liberal media have done on the far left.

It's breathtaking to read someone tell me something I lived through firsthand was my imagination. It's like hearing someone say the US didn't win the Cold War.

All you can do is feel sorry for the level of indoctrination that person has been exposed to. Ever see the Manchurian Candidate? You should.

Got it, You'll stick with right wing talking points

And about 40% of US are brainwashed, we call them conservatives ALWAYS fighting for the millionaires/billionaires against their own best interests

Never said the US didn't win the 'Cold War', but that Ronnie didn't win it on his own, as MOST credible historians see it AND the US public did BEFORE the MYTH of Reagan was CREATED!

But is Communism a failed policy or was it Ronnie's policies that brought them down?

Liberal means fact based. ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US? Just ONE please?

Cons were against both WW's as isolationists, fought SS, Medicare, labor laws, woman's right to vote, civil rights laws, environmental laws, etc. NEVER on the correct side of history. EVER

 

[EconChick]

Well, your post kinda looks serious so I'll give serious answers. I did acknowledge a number of times what Bush did wrong. You should go back and reread if you didn't see them.

Posting links, charts, and graphs means nothing. I could bury you with links, charts and graphs. You would miss them...just like you missed my plain-English posts admitting to Bush's contribution to the problem.

I'm trying to keep the posts short and intuitive. When I start adding the graphs, charts, and links it will be nothing but .....wait for it................dueling graphs, charts, and links. Most readers don't have the background to assess the reliability of graphs, charts, and links. Why? Because most graphs, charts, and links are biased on BOTH SIDES.

Like the Unemployment rate being 6.1%. Do you know why that's actually a misleading number? Do you know why despite the U rate dropping from 6.3 to 6.1, it's actually a sign that things are getting worse?

You don't. You look at the surface and just accept that 6.1 must be better than 6.3, because you don't have the immersion in the data to know better.

Oh yes, I've seen the superficial descriptions by liberals who have but the most limited grasp on the entire U-1 through U-6 rating descriptions. But the stats behind it are complicated. It would take a long time to explain it thoroughly.

I'm not posting to explain to partisans who already have an agenda. You people are totally gone. I know what it's like to spend 100s of hours using charts and graphs to that type. The ocean is made of bubblegum and no one's going to change their minds, damn it.

But to people with open minds with common sense, certain things resonate. Like the fact that most of middle America KNOWS the job market sucks. Yet here Liberal morons try to spin data like it doesn't.

What is funny as hell is to listen to someone like you say conservative points are debunked. While I was in undergrad and grad school, I started out as a dumbfuck, gullible, think-from-the-heart, emotional liberal that accepted all this Keynsian bullshit you libs eat up from liberal professors and media outlets ....till independent research showed how wrong it really was.

It's Keynsian BS that's debunked, not vice versa.

Oh....now I see. You'd give us some evidence, but we aren't bright enough to understand it. So....instead you just vomit bullshit thinking we are also dumb enough to buy it. Cool. You are an economist. You know stuff. So intimidating....I can barely stand it.

Most of middle America knows the job market sucks? Perhaps. But they also knew that it sucks less now than it did last year....and the year before that.....and the year before that. Things are getting better. Bottom line, bitch.

Thread fail.

Oh look the brainless one that can't stop posting in the failed thread. LMAO. Darlin, go paint your fingernails. Maybe it will help you think better.

 

[EconChick]

Reagan gets credit huh? NEVER heard that one before *shaking head*

I guess tripling the debt and blowing up spending like Ronnie did helped Clinton? Or was it ignoring the regulator warnings on the S&L crisis?

A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.

This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan’s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan’s 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his “Ronald Reagan Legacy Project,” along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter.


...Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of “Containment” by eight U.S. presidents. As Tony Judt’s Postwar concluded: “…Washington did not ‘bring down’ Communism – Communism imploded of its own accord.”

Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


Establishing Fiscal Discipline and Paying off the National Debt

President Clinton’s Record on Fiscal Discipline: Between 1981 and 1992, the national debt held by the public quadrupled. The annual budget deficit grew to $290 billion in 1992, the largest ever, and was projected to grow to more than $455 billion by Fiscal Year (FY) 2000.



To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote.

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits." — Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994



"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity." — Business Week, May 19, 1997

The Clinton Presidency: Historic Economic Growth

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh Myyyyyyyyyyyyyy Goddddddd. You're on the fucking payrolls of some Democrat organization. Or you just read and regurgitate their propaganda without questioning it.

Dad2three, you seem like a nice enough person, and you seem relatively respectful while debating, but I had no idea I was dealing with someone this misinformed and unknowledgeable about the past.

Thank God there's only about 20% of the country left that's as brainwashed and indoctrinated as you are.

The old Soviet Union would be proud of the job liberal academia and liberal media have done on the far left.

It's breathtaking to read someone tell me something I lived through firsthand was my imagination. It's like hearing someone say the US didn't win the Cold War.

All you can do is feel sorry for the level of indoctrination that person has been exposed to. Ever see the Manchurian Candidate? You should.

Got it, You'll stick with right wing talking points

And about 40% of US are brainwashed, we call them conservatives ALWAYS fighting for the millionaires/billionaires against their own best interests

Never said the US didn't win the 'Cold War', but that Ronnie didn't win it on his own, as MOST credible historians see it AND the US public did BEFORE the MYTH of Reagan was CREATED!

But is Communism a failed policy or was it Ronnie's policies that brought them down?

Liberal means fact based. ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US? Just ONE please?

Cons were against both WW's as isolationists, fought SS, Medicare, labor laws, woman's right to vote, civil rights laws, environmental laws, etc. NEVER on the correct side of history. EVER

How many times do I have to explain that I came to my conclusions DESPITE attempted brainwashing in undergrad and grad school.

If I was once a liberal how can I be a hack. You're the hack and don't know it.

 

[Dad2three]

Barack Obama bests Bill Clinton's private sector job creation record

June marks 52 straight months of private sector job growth, the longest ever on record, beating out Bill Clinton's record of 51 continuous months of private sector job growth from February 1996 to April 2000. The economy has added more than 200,000 jobs for five months in a row now, the longest such streak since 1999. In the first half of this year alone the economy has added 1.4 million jobs, another accomplishment not seen since 1999.


Barack Obama bests Bill Clinton's private sector job creation record ? The People's View

More bullshit "stats" being spun.

You know what isn't spun????? You know what number everyone knows is true? GDP. And the first quarter saw a contraction of 3 full points.

Anyone with good sense knows that 3% of a 17 trillion economy is a LARGE amount by which the economy contracted in Jan, Feb and March.

O's got a MINUS 3% happening (yes, some was weather but not enough to push into neg) while some of Reagan's quarters yielded 8%.

Let me repeat. Obama's got a MINUS 3% quarter when Reagan's quarters were as high as 8%.

Weird, you don't remember the economy shrinking 9%+ the last quarter of Dubya's term?

You'd think with a contraction of almost 3% last quarter those 'job creators' would be worried and escaping Vegas East, why aren't they?

The revision reflected a slowdown in health care spending.

Consumers returned to stores and car dealerships, companies placed more orders for equipment and manufacturing picked up as temperatures warmed, indicating the early-year setback was temporary. Combined with more job gains, such data underscore the view of Federal Reserve policy makers that the economy is improving and in less need of monetary stimulus.

The first-quarter slump is “not really reflective of fundamentals,” said Sam Coffin, an economist at UBS Securities LLC in New York and the best forecaster of GDP in the last two years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. “For the second quarter, we’ll see some weather rebound and a return to more normal activity after that long winter.”

U.S. Economy Shrank in First Quarter by Most in Five Years - Bloomberg

 

[EconChick]

The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.



In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."

Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


NOW ONE MORE TIME, WHICH SIDE WAS CORRECT?

Ok, let's explain something here.

The overwhelming number of econ departments within universities across the United States are Keynsian Departments.

What does that mean mathematically. That means you will find an overwhelming number of people publishing in academia and the media come from that dumbass, BIG-SPENDING, debunked, corrupt-ass economic philosophy point of view when they write.

Most are so stupid they don't even know they have that bias. Some professor made them answer tests a certain way to pass so they accepted it as gospel.

You could pull up thousands of reports and articles...........and I could tell you they're all bull based on the assumptions I can tell the dumbass authors make.

It is yet another fallacy indicative of the lack of critical thinking in this country to think just because Dad2three pulls up an official looking report that it's gospel.

You've pulled up a long list of stupid ass sources on this thread. I'm sure some are stupid enough to be taken in.

I'm sure there are others that can see right through it.

Got it, Policy from Dubya didn't REALLY matter, But EVERYTHING Obama has done is the REASON the US can't climb out of the Dubya/GOP hole right?

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008


WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF REGULATORS THEN?

I said both parties were to blame for the financial crisis. I've said it over and over.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Oh....now I see. You'd give us some evidence, but we aren't bright enough to understand it. So....instead you just vomit bullshit thinking we are also dumb enough to buy it. Cool. You are an economist. You know stuff. So intimidating....I can barely stand it.

Most of middle America knows the job market sucks? Perhaps. But they also knew that it sucks less now than it did last year....and the year before that.....and the year before that. Things are getting better. Bottom line, bitch.

Thread fail.

Oh look the brainless one that can't stop posting in the failed thread. LMAO. Darlin, go paint your fingernails. Maybe it will help you think better.

I am posting in this failed thread in order to remind you that it is a failed thread. It's fun.

And.....you are not paying attention. Nutters tend to be a bit self absorbed like that.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Ok, let's explain something here.

The overwhelming number of econ departments within universities across the United States are Keynsian Departments.

What does that mean mathematically. That means you will find an overwhelming number of people publishing in academia and the media come from that dumbass, BIG-SPENDING, debunked, corrupt-ass economic philosophy point of view when they write.

Most are so stupid they don't even know they have that bias. Some professor made them answer tests a certain way to pass so they accepted it as gospel.

You could pull up thousands of reports and articles...........and I could tell you they're all bull based on the assumptions I can tell the dumbass authors make.

It is yet another fallacy indicative of the lack of critical thinking in this country to think just because Dad2three pulls up an official looking report that it's gospel.

You've pulled up a long list of stupid ass sources on this thread. I'm sure some are stupid enough to be taken in.

I'm sure there are others that can see right through it.

Got it, Policy from Dubya didn't REALLY matter, But EVERYTHING Obama has done is the REASON the US can't climb out of the Dubya/GOP hole right?

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008


WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF REGULATORS THEN?

I said both parties were to blame for the financial crisis. I've said it over and over.

I've said the same. Too bad that is not the topic of your thread. Do you need to be reminded what the topic is again?

 

[Dad2three]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh Myyyyyyyyyyyyyy Goddddddd. You're on the fucking payrolls of some Democrat organization. Or you just read and regurgitate their propaganda without questioning it.

Dad2three, you seem like a nice enough person, and you seem relatively respectful while debating, but I had no idea I was dealing with someone this misinformed and unknowledgeable about the past.

Thank God there's only about 20% of the country left that's as brainwashed and indoctrinated as you are.

The old Soviet Union would be proud of the job liberal academia and liberal media have done on the far left.

It's breathtaking to read someone tell me something I lived through firsthand was my imagination. It's like hearing someone say the US didn't win the Cold War.

All you can do is feel sorry for the level of indoctrination that person has been exposed to. Ever see the Manchurian Candidate? You should.

Got it, You'll stick with right wing talking points

And about 40% of US are brainwashed, we call them conservatives ALWAYS fighting for the millionaires/billionaires against their own best interests

Never said the US didn't win the 'Cold War', but that Ronnie didn't win it on his own, as MOST credible historians see it AND the US public did BEFORE the MYTH of Reagan was CREATED!

But is Communism a failed policy or was it Ronnie's policies that brought them down?

Liberal means fact based. ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US? Just ONE please?

Cons were against both WW's as isolationists, fought SS, Medicare, labor laws, woman's right to vote, civil rights laws, environmental laws, etc. NEVER on the correct side of history. EVER

How many times do I have to explain that I came to my conclusions DESPITE attempted brainwashing in undergrad and grad school.

If I was once a liberal how can I be a hack. You're the hack and don't know it.

You are a tool. Grad degree in economics? lol

Let me guess, Uncle Miltie 'fixed' Chile too?

Conservative policy HAS AND NEVER WILL WORK.


I was young and dumb once also, voted for Ronnie a couple times, then I grew a brain!