Reagan blamed Jimmy Carter for years, Roosevelt blamed Herbert Hoover for years

[bripat9643]

No it wasn't. Obama made it worse with his noxious economic policies.


Who has evidence that the budget was going to be in surplus? Perhaps if inflation went to 30% and interest rates went to 50%. Carter's economy was headed for a crash. It was only a matter of when it would occur.

No it wasn't.

spot the dots.....



Obama made it worse with his noxious economic policies.

neat trick, given that the recession ended in June. 2009...

and here is why...

The real economy also responded to the massive stimulus but remained heavily dependent on it. In the United States, growth during the second half of 2009 probably averaged about 3 percent. Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009.

The Year Ahead

Before you bleat something stupid, bear in mind that this is an economist from AEI......(yeah, I know....you have no idea what that is....trust me....it is NOT "Obama friendly")

We aren't discussing just the length of the period that economists define officially as a "recession." We're discussing the performance of Obama's economic policies for his entire term, and they suck.

Claiming the economy "would have contracted" without Obama's magic elixir is pure abracadabra. Economists have a poor record of predicting what the economy will do. Their prognostications are almost entirely worthless.

The bottom line is that Obama's economic numbers suck.

Bri,

Where did you get the idea that your Bold Assertions carry any weight?

Do you understand how argument works?

They aren't mere "assertions." I posted the damning evidence. You continue to ignore it.

Nah.....you posted some idiocy sourced from an illiterate calling itself "robo" something.....

and dated crap from "Liberty Works" or whatever....

Here's me doing you a massive solid

Federal Reserve Economic Data - FRED - St. Louis Fed

Whenever you are looking for information about the economy......unless, of course, you prefer it predigested.....

Your Federal Reserve data doesn't prove a damn thing, moron.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Under Obama GDP growth has stopped!!!
By the way... when did the GDP peak??? during Bush.........GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent
The BEA has calculated GDP for each year going back to 1929 and it has calculated the inflation-adjusted annual change in GDP (in constant 2009 dollars) from 1930 forward.

In the 85 years for which BEA has calculated the annual change in real GDP there is only one ten-year stretch—2006 through 2015—when the annual growth in real GDP never hit 3 percent. During the last ten years, real annual growth in GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent. It has never been that high again, according to the BEA.
U.S. Has Record 10th Straight Year Without 3% Growth in GDP

AND remember since 2008... not one single hurricane. Not one single attack equal to 9/11!
NOT one major issue that Obama has had to confront. YET GDP is stymied.
When Obama has signed the fewest oil leases then Bush did by over 61%...that affects the economy!
View attachment 65162

YET GDP is stymied.

GDP growth under Obama has exceeded that under Scrub by roughly 30%.......

and the spread would be even greater but for THIS

and if you read Terence Jeffrey, you are an imbecile...

Government does contribute squat to real GDP growth.

You're an imbecile...

GDP is the sum of Consumption (C), Investment (I), Government Spending (G) and Net Exports (X – M): Y = C + I + G + (X - M). ...

 

[ZackB]

Under Obama GDP growth has stopped!!!
By the way... when did the GDP peak??? during Bush.........GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent
The BEA has calculated GDP for each year going back to 1929 and it has calculated the inflation-adjusted annual change in GDP (in constant 2009 dollars) from 1930 forward.

In the 85 years for which BEA has calculated the annual change in real GDP there is only one ten-year stretch—2006 through 2015—when the annual growth in real GDP never hit 3 percent. During the last ten years, real annual growth in GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent. It has never been that high again, according to the BEA.
U.S. Has Record 10th Straight Year Without 3% Growth in GDP

AND remember since 2008... not one single hurricane. Not one single attack equal to 9/11!
NOT one major issue that Obama has had to confront. YET GDP is stymied.
When Obama has signed the fewest oil leases then Bush did by over 61%...that affects the economy!
View attachment 65162

Correct assessment.

not in this or any other reality

Like I have told you before, your opinion means nothing to me.

 

[IcebergSlim]

No it wasn't.

spot the dots.....



Obama made it worse with his noxious economic policies.

neat trick, given that the recession ended in June. 2009...

and here is why...

The real economy also responded to the massive stimulus but remained heavily dependent on it. In the United States, growth during the second half of 2009 probably averaged about 3 percent. Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009.

The Year Ahead

Before you bleat something stupid, bear in mind that this is an economist from AEI......(yeah, I know....you have no idea what that is....trust me....it is NOT "Obama friendly")

We aren't discussing just the length of the period that economists define officially as a "recession." We're discussing the performance of Obama's economic policies for his entire term, and they suck.

Claiming the economy "would have contracted" without Obama's magic elixir is pure abracadabra. Economists have a poor record of predicting what the economy will do. Their prognostications are almost entirely worthless.

The bottom line is that Obama's economic numbers suck.

Bri,

Where did you get the idea that your Bold Assertions carry any weight?

Do you understand how argument works?

They aren't mere "assertions." I posted the damning evidence. You continue to ignore it.

Nah.....you posted some idiocy sourced from an illiterate calling itself "robo" something.....

and dated crap from "Liberty Works" or whatever....

Here's me doing you a massive solid

Federal Reserve Economic Data - FRED - St. Louis Fed

Whenever you are looking for information about the economy......unless, of course, you prefer it predigested.....

Your Federal Reserve data doesn't prove a damn thing, moron.

Where do you think the idiots you cribbed from got THEIR data?

Seriously......you are a 4 Sigma to the Left of the Mean.......

 

[IcebergSlim]

No it wasn't. Obama made it worse with his noxious economic policies.


Who has evidence that the budget was going to be in surplus? Perhaps if inflation went to 30% and interest rates went to 50%. Carter's economy was headed for a crash. It was only a matter of when it would occur.

No it wasn't.

spot the dots.....



Obama made it worse with his noxious economic policies.

neat trick, given that the recession ended in June. 2009...

and here is why...

The real economy also responded to the massive stimulus but remained heavily dependent on it. In the United States, growth during the second half of 2009 probably averaged about 3 percent. Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009.

The Year Ahead

Before you bleat something stupid, bear in mind that this is an economist from AEI......(yeah, I know....you have no idea what that is....trust me....it is NOT "Obama friendly")

We aren't discussing just the length of the period that economists define officially as a "recession." We're discussing the performance of Obama's economic policies for his entire term, and they suck.

Claiming the economy "would have contracted" without Obama's magic elixir is pure abracadabra. Economists have a poor record of predicting what the economy will do. Their prognostications are almost entirely worthless.

The bottom line is that Obama's economic numbers suck.

Bri,

Where did you get the idea that your Bold Assertions carry any weight?

Do you understand how argument works?

They aren't mere "assertions." I posted the damning evidence. You continue to ignore it.

He cannot copy and paste logic, experience, or anything else but stats.

My opinions are informed by facts.......yours?

 

[IcebergSlim]

This is epic....

Your Federal Reserve data doesn't prove a damn thing, moron


dayum..........

 

[bripat9643]

So if we don't count part of the GDP, then it didn't grow very fast under Bush? Is that really your argument? With that and $3.50 you can buy a grande latte at Starbucks.

It indicates that growth under Scrub was almost entirely dependent on households assuming debt....

You wanna see what happened to that trend from 2009 on?

It was caused by a boom in housing construction, moron. Growth is always caused by something. The housing boom may have been the result of a credit bubble created by the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but nevertheless, it was no different that any of the previous bubbles the government created. Nevertheless, it was GDP growth as the term is defined. Saying "count this, but don't count that" is the handiwork of charlatans.

 

[bripat9643]

This is epic....

Your Federal Reserve data doesn't prove a damn thing, moron


dayum..........

How does it prove that Obama's economic performance was better than Reagan's?

 

[bripat9643]

No it wasn't. Obama made it worse with his noxious economic policies.


Who has evidence that the budget was going to be in surplus? Perhaps if inflation went to 30% and interest rates went to 50%. Carter's economy was headed for a crash. It was only a matter of when it would occur.

No it wasn't.

spot the dots.....



Obama made it worse with his noxious economic policies.

neat trick, given that the recession ended in June. 2009...

and here is why...

The real economy also responded to the massive stimulus but remained heavily dependent on it. In the United States, growth during the second half of 2009 probably averaged about 3 percent. Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009.

The Year Ahead

Before you bleat something stupid, bear in mind that this is an economist from AEI......(yeah, I know....you have no idea what that is....trust me....it is NOT "Obama friendly")

We aren't discussing just the length of the period that economists define officially as a "recession." We're discussing the performance of Obama's economic policies for his entire term, and they suck.

Claiming the economy "would have contracted" without Obama's magic elixir is pure abracadabra. Economists have a poor record of predicting what the economy will do. Their prognostications are almost entirely worthless.

The bottom line is that Obama's economic numbers suck.

Bri,

Where did you get the idea that your Bold Assertions carry any weight?

Do you understand how argument works?

They aren't mere "assertions." I posted the damning evidence. You continue to ignore it.

He cannot copy and paste logic, experience, or anything else but stats.

Yep. He posts a list of numbers and thinks he has proved something. He's very similar to Dad2three in that respect. Do you suppose he's a sock?

 

[bripat9643]

Under Obama GDP growth has stopped!!!
By the way... when did the GDP peak??? during Bush.........GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent
The BEA has calculated GDP for each year going back to 1929 and it has calculated the inflation-adjusted annual change in GDP (in constant 2009 dollars) from 1930 forward.

In the 85 years for which BEA has calculated the annual change in real GDP there is only one ten-year stretch—2006 through 2015—when the annual growth in real GDP never hit 3 percent. During the last ten years, real annual growth in GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent. It has never been that high again, according to the BEA.
U.S. Has Record 10th Straight Year Without 3% Growth in GDP

AND remember since 2008... not one single hurricane. Not one single attack equal to 9/11!
NOT one major issue that Obama has had to confront. YET GDP is stymied.
When Obama has signed the fewest oil leases then Bush did by over 61%...that affects the economy!
View attachment 65162

YET GDP is stymied.

GDP growth under Obama has exceeded that under Scrub by roughly 30%.......

and the spread would be even greater but for THIS

and if you read Terence Jeffrey, you are an imbecile...

Government does contribute squat to real GDP growth.

You're an imbecile...

GDP is the sum of Consumption (C), Investment (I), Government Spending (G) and Net Exports (X – M): Y = C + I + G + (X - M). ...

You can't count government spending unless you subtract taxing and government borrowing. The net is less than zero.

 

[IcebergSlim]

So if we don't count part of the GDP, then it didn't grow very fast under Bush? Is that really your argument? With that and $3.50 you can buy a grande latte at Starbucks.

It indicates that growth under Scrub was almost entirely dependent on households assuming debt....

You wanna see what happened to that trend from 2009 on?

It was caused by a boom in housing construction, moron. Growth is always caused by something. The housing boom may have been the result of a credit bubble created by the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but nevertheless, it was no different that any of the previous bubbles the government created. Nevertheless, it was GDP growth as the term is defined. Saying "count this, but don't count that" is the handiwork of charlatans.

"Home Equity Withdrawal"........look it up....get back to us....

fucking brick.....

 

[IcebergSlim]

Under Obama GDP growth has stopped!!!
By the way... when did the GDP peak??? during Bush.........GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent
The BEA has calculated GDP for each year going back to 1929 and it has calculated the inflation-adjusted annual change in GDP (in constant 2009 dollars) from 1930 forward.

In the 85 years for which BEA has calculated the annual change in real GDP there is only one ten-year stretch—2006 through 2015—when the annual growth in real GDP never hit 3 percent. During the last ten years, real annual growth in GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent. It has never been that high again, according to the BEA.
U.S. Has Record 10th Straight Year Without 3% Growth in GDP

AND remember since 2008... not one single hurricane. Not one single attack equal to 9/11!
NOT one major issue that Obama has had to confront. YET GDP is stymied.
When Obama has signed the fewest oil leases then Bush did by over 61%...that affects the economy!
View attachment 65162

YET GDP is stymied.

GDP growth under Obama has exceeded that under Scrub by roughly 30%.......

and the spread would be even greater but for THIS

and if you read Terence Jeffrey, you are an imbecile...

Government does contribute squat to real GDP growth.

You're an imbecile...

GDP is the sum of Consumption (C), Investment (I), Government Spending (G) and Net Exports (X – M): Y = C + I + G + (X - M). ...

You can't count government spending unless you subtract taxing and government borrowing. The net is less than zero.

Sez who?

 

[bripat9643]

We aren't discussing just the length of the period that economists define officially as a "recession." We're discussing the performance of Obama's economic policies for his entire term, and they suck.

Claiming the economy "would have contracted" without Obama's magic elixir is pure abracadabra. Economists have a poor record of predicting what the economy will do. Their prognostications are almost entirely worthless.

The bottom line is that Obama's economic numbers suck.

Bri,

Where did you get the idea that your Bold Assertions carry any weight?

Do you understand how argument works?

They aren't mere "assertions." I posted the damning evidence. You continue to ignore it.

Nah.....you posted some idiocy sourced from an illiterate calling itself "robo" something.....

and dated crap from "Liberty Works" or whatever....

Here's me doing you a massive solid

Federal Reserve Economic Data - FRED - St. Louis Fed

Whenever you are looking for information about the economy......unless, of course, you prefer it predigested.....

Your Federal Reserve data doesn't prove a damn thing, moron.

Where do you think the idiots you cribbed from got THEIR data?

Seriously......you are a 4 Sigma to the Left of the Mean.......

So, are you saying the graphs I posted are accurate, or are they not?

Posting a column of numbers doesn't prove a damn thing.

 

[bripat9643]

Under Obama GDP growth has stopped!!!
By the way... when did the GDP peak??? during Bush.........GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent
The BEA has calculated GDP for each year going back to 1929 and it has calculated the inflation-adjusted annual change in GDP (in constant 2009 dollars) from 1930 forward.

In the 85 years for which BEA has calculated the annual change in real GDP there is only one ten-year stretch—2006 through 2015—when the annual growth in real GDP never hit 3 percent. During the last ten years, real annual growth in GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent. It has never been that high again, according to the BEA.
U.S. Has Record 10th Straight Year Without 3% Growth in GDP

AND remember since 2008... not one single hurricane. Not one single attack equal to 9/11!
NOT one major issue that Obama has had to confront. YET GDP is stymied.
When Obama has signed the fewest oil leases then Bush did by over 61%...that affects the economy!
View attachment 65162

YET GDP is stymied.

GDP growth under Obama has exceeded that under Scrub by roughly 30%.......

and the spread would be even greater but for THIS

and if you read Terence Jeffrey, you are an imbecile...

Government does contribute squat to real GDP growth.

You're an imbecile...

GDP is the sum of Consumption (C), Investment (I), Government Spending (G) and Net Exports (X – M): Y = C + I + G + (X - M). ...

You can't count government spending unless you subtract taxing and government borrowing. The net is less than zero.

Sez who?

Says any honest economist. How is government spending a contribution to GDP? Note the "P" stands for "production." What does the government produce?

 

[IcebergSlim]

This is epic....

Your Federal Reserve data doesn't prove a damn thing, moron


dayum..........

How does it prove that Obama's economic performance was better than Reagan's?

That is an entirely different argument......Reagan would be appropriately compared to those of his era......

you wanna take a look at jobs, gdp, federal spending, deficits/debt?

Only one rule.......you gotta post actual figures......

 

[IcebergSlim]

Bri,

Where did you get the idea that your Bold Assertions carry any weight?

Do you understand how argument works?

They aren't mere "assertions." I posted the damning evidence. You continue to ignore it.

Nah.....you posted some idiocy sourced from an illiterate calling itself "robo" something.....

and dated crap from "Liberty Works" or whatever....

Here's me doing you a massive solid

Federal Reserve Economic Data - FRED - St. Louis Fed

Whenever you are looking for information about the economy......unless, of course, you prefer it predigested.....

Your Federal Reserve data doesn't prove a damn thing, moron.

Where do you think the idiots you cribbed from got THEIR data?

Seriously......you are a 4 Sigma to the Left of the Mean.......

So, are you saying the graphs I posted are accurate, or are they not?

Posting a column of numbers doesn't prove a damn thing.

How do you think those graphs are constructed?

Do you work with your hands, Bri?

 

[bripat9643]

This is epic....

Your Federal Reserve data doesn't prove a damn thing, moron


dayum..........

How does it prove that Obama's economic performance was better than Reagan's?

That is an entirely different argument......Reagan would be appropriately compared to those of his era......

you wanna take a look at jobs, gdp, federal spending, deficits/debt?

Only one rule.......you gotta post actual figures......

What the fuck does "those of his era" mean? Are you saying we can't compare Obama with Reagan?

You are positively comical!

 

[bripat9643]

They aren't mere "assertions." I posted the damning evidence. You continue to ignore it.

Nah.....you posted some idiocy sourced from an illiterate calling itself "robo" something.....

and dated crap from "Liberty Works" or whatever....

Here's me doing you a massive solid

Federal Reserve Economic Data - FRED - St. Louis Fed

Whenever you are looking for information about the economy......unless, of course, you prefer it predigested.....

Your Federal Reserve data doesn't prove a damn thing, moron.

Where do you think the idiots you cribbed from got THEIR data?

Seriously......you are a 4 Sigma to the Left of the Mean.......

So, are you saying the graphs I posted are accurate, or are they not?

Posting a column of numbers doesn't prove a damn thing.

How do you think those graphs are constructed?

Do you work with your hands, Bri?

Then construct them. Don't expect me to do your work for you.

 

[IcebergSlim]

YET GDP is stymied.

GDP growth under Obama has exceeded that under Scrub by roughly 30%.......

and the spread would be even greater but for THIS

and if you read Terence Jeffrey, you are an imbecile...

Government does contribute squat to real GDP growth.

You're an imbecile...

GDP is the sum of Consumption (C), Investment (I), Government Spending (G) and Net Exports (X – M): Y = C + I + G + (X - M). ...

You can't count government spending unless you subtract taxing and government borrowing. The net is less than zero.

Sez who?

Says any honest economist. How is government spending a contribution to GDP? Note the "P" stands for "production." What does the government produce?

Name an economist who says any such thing......

It means PRODUCT.......when the government buys, and consumes, something, it is no different than when anyone else does it, with respect to calculating GDP......

Bri......level with me......have you ever actually studied economics?

 

[IcebergSlim]

This is epic....

Your Federal Reserve data doesn't prove a damn thing, moron


dayum..........

How does it prove that Obama's economic performance was better than Reagan's?

That is an entirely different argument......Reagan would be appropriately compared to those of his era......

you wanna take a look at jobs, gdp, federal spending, deficits/debt?

Only one rule.......you gotta post actual figures......

What the fuck does "those of his era" mean? Are you saying we can't compare Obama with Reagan?

You are positively comical!

Not directly........post Reagan's numbers for the categories I provided, and let's compare them to Carter and Clinton.....

Don't blow a lot of smoke.....just ankle over to FRED and pull the numbers, and we can go through them together...