Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Guy, you aren't presenting facts.
You are trying to lie with charts.
The thing is, the economy went south in 2008, when that idiot Bush, after 8 years of letting Wall Street run amok and bleeding money on wars we had no business fighting, finally had enough.
I mean, I don't know where you were in the OUghts, but no one I know of remembers it as "Good times".
LOL! So now charts are not facts but lies? I love it. Anything that contradicts your world view cannot by definition be a fact. The classic low information pose.
It's easy to lie with Chart. For instance, you can make 2005 look not quite as sucky if you leave out anything before 2001 when Bush came along and fucked everything up.
So what if 2005 was less sucky than 2002 or 2008, it was nowhere near as good as 1998 when the worst thing we had to worry about was whether the President was lying about a blow job.
Media Matters for America
The conservative media isn't telling you this, but economists say that under Scott Walker's proposed tax plan, Wisconsin's structural deficit would grow to a whopping $725 million. What Fox Won't Tell You About Scott Walker's Economic Record | Research | Media Matters for America
I chose Minnesota because that's where I live. I also own property in Wisconsin which of course prompts me to watch what's going on in that state. I also am very aware of how similair their demographics are, they mirror each other.
Walker and Dayton assumed their governorship at the same time. So they have had equal time to do their thing.
Dayton faced a $6.2 billion deficit in the upcoming biennium where as Walker faced a $3.3 billion deficit when he assumed office. It seems that Walker had it easy compared to Dayton. (As a side-note , I'm amazed you threw out such as positive view of Pawlenty, when he was running for prez, the far right was calling him a liberal!)
Below is a chart that compares Wisconsin, Minnesota, California and the US. As we can see, when both Dayton and Walker started their governorship (2011), they were on equal grown. At this point Dayton and Walker aren't on equal grown.
Not quite on equal ground one was facing a recall and vehement opposition by liberals bring in people from other states to protest.
I thought the recall was a bad idea, it was like Walker's opposition shot themselves in the foot. But I'm pretty sure the recall didn't stop Wisconsin in it's tracks economically.
If 2005 was sucky then 2013 has been sheer disaster.LOL! So now charts are not facts but lies? I love it. Anything that contradicts your world view cannot by definition be a fact. The classic low information pose.
It's easy to lie with Chart. For instance, you can make 2005 look not quite as sucky if you leave out anything before 2001 when Bush came along and fucked everything up.
So what if 2005 was less sucky than 2002 or 2008, it was nowhere near as good as 1998 when the worst thing we had to worry about was whether the President was lying about a blow job.
[
It's easy to lie with Chart. For instance, you can make 2005 look not quite as sucky if you leave out anything before 2001 when Bush came along and fucked everything up.
So what if 2005 was less sucky than 2002 or 2008, it was nowhere near as good as 1998 when the worst thing we had to worry about was whether the President was lying about a blow job.
And 1998 isn't near as bad as 2000 when the economy was dropping because of the dot com failure. And of course 2001 economy was Clinton's but because of your politics it would be Bush's fault.
The soon to be indicted (liberals tell us this) Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker announced a plan for returning almost a billion dollars to the taxpayers.
Give the surplus back to Wisconsin taxpayers
How much this must hurt the liberals and the collective bargaining unions.
Since Wisconsin is over 300 billion in debt, this means the governor is increasing the debt to Wisconsin grandchildren in order to hand out candy to voters. For the Left, it means something different. It reflects a belief in the power of deficit spending to stimulate the economy.
Keynes advocated lower taxes during a recession because it increases consumer spending, which the economy needs. His Rightwing opponents said that you can't simply hand out money to people without a dollar for dollar spending reduction in other areas. Keynes and Walker think differently. They believe that you can most certainly add to the debt and run large deficits during a recession because the economy benefits when people have more money in their wallets. Keynes and Gov. Walker believe we can deal with the debt after the patient gets better. This is why the government ran massive deficits during WWII. The result was spectacular economic growth, the sort which allowed us to pay down the deficit very quickly.
"But it's their money in the first place."
Nope, not until they pay for the trillions of dollars in services and infrastructure which they use. If you're going to use water, energy, roads, sewers, dams, plowing and informational services during a storm, schools, and the billions of dollars in subsidies given to local Wisconsin businesses, than that stuff needs to be paid for before you talk about "your money", which was partly enabled by stuff that needs to be paid for. (Republicans love using government services and infrastructure, but they hate paying for it. One of the reasons they hate paying for it is because none of them can give you a list of what services/infrastructure they use. This is because they get all their information from people like Rush Limbaugh. Republicans are and always have been naïve about, say, where our satellite system came from, and how much they use it.)
"But Cleetus, I reckon the money fer police, schools, roads, fireman and such just fell out of the sky"
[
It's easy to lie with Chart. For instance, you can make 2005 look not quite as sucky if you leave out anything before 2001 when Bush came along and fucked everything up.
So what if 2005 was less sucky than 2002 or 2008, it was nowhere near as good as 1998 when the worst thing we had to worry about was whether the President was lying about a blow job.
And 1998 isn't near as bad as 2000 when the economy was dropping because of the dot com failure. And of course 2001 economy was Clinton's but because of your politics it would be Bush's fault.
Actually, 2000 was still a pretty good year. Unemployment was around 3.9 when Clinton left office.
Of course, the tech buble was a correction, but Bush's answer was like Corky the Retard trying to drive in a nail.
"Dooooy, Tax Cut for Rich People".
Which wasn't the problem. The problem was not that the rich had too little. It was that there were too much inventory and not enough consumption, none of which was helped by giving the rich more.
And then he put a war on a credit card. Brilliant!!!
[
For the record, Walker and the state legislature curtailed the ability to collectively bargain only for some public sector employees...something darling-or-the-left FDR supported. Further, those curtailments were only over pensions and health care...they remain free to collectively bargain over other things.
Private sector employees and some public sector employees like the unions of public safety officers, including police, firefighters, and state troopers are free to collectively bargain.
Hardly the end-of-world scenario you paint.
Any curtailing of worker's rights is a bad thing. I'm sorry you are so disconnected from reality to see that.
You obviously don't spend a lot of time in Wisconsin, do you?
Or you'd know how silly you sound.
Wisconsin's economy is entirely supported by IL residents going there on vacation.
And Milwaukee and Green Bay are really pretty dismal places.
Wow you're clueless.
Manufacturing is the top industry in Wisconsin you idiot.
Wisconsin Economy at a Glance
Actually Trade Transportation and utilities was the largest industry(according to your link) which I assume would include people traveling to Wisconsin.
Wow, that was like 90% wrong. It ignores the oil boom, the 1973 recession, the failure of the S&Ls, the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s, the big inflation of the late 1970s, and a host of other economic happenings.
But have it your way.
Wow, that was like 90% wrong. It ignores the oil boom, the 1973 recession, the failure of the S&Ls, the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s, the big inflation of the late 1970s, and a host of other economic happenings.
But have it your way.
It also ignores going of the gold standard, borrowing from SSI, the boom created with Bank of Americard, MasterCard, American Express and then Discovery.
The move of a car payment to 10 years. Lenders lending 125% of a home value. The dot com bust, the 9/11 debacle.
To over simplify how we got to the current mess will doom us to repeat this mess in the near future. Hard lessons need to be learned and the laws of economics obeyed.
For people not see beyond Obama, Bush, Clinton and Reagan is simply stupid.
Of course, the liberals on this site, are very simple minded.
Notice how right wingers don't even question where the surplus came from?
If you cut a billion from education, it's remarkable how easy it is to end up with a billion dollar surplus.
Course, you end up with a failed southern state. Perhaps it's Republicans doing what they do best. Keeping people ignorant while they ruin the economy.
That's because we've paid attention to the articles which describe perfectly where the surplus was coming from. Including the information on how it's unexpected because of job growth being significantly higher than expected.
See that's what happens when conservatives are in charge. The government gets out of things, people have jobs, and everyone gets more money back because there are more people working.
Minimum wage jobs actually cost the country more. Because those people need health care and food stamps.
Wow, that was like 90% wrong. It ignores the oil boom, the 1973 recession, the failure of the S&Ls, the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s, the big inflation of the late 1970s, and a host of other economic happenings.
But have it your way.
Obviously it was a short history. I didn't ignore the inflation of the 70s. Everything else you mentioned is minor happening from a big picture perspective. I didn't go back to the 60's.
Either way the point was to understand large economic trends that have lead us to where we are now.
That's because we've paid attention to the articles which describe perfectly where the surplus was coming from. Including the information on how it's unexpected because of job growth being significantly higher than expected.
See that's what happens when conservatives are in charge. The government gets out of things, people have jobs, and everyone gets more money back because there are more people working.
Minimum wage jobs actually cost the country more. Because those people need health care and food stamps.
All of them? Most? Some? Quantify the costs to back up your claim.
Wow, that was like 90% wrong. It ignores the oil boom, the 1973 recession, the failure of the S&Ls, the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s, the big inflation of the late 1970s, and a host of other economic happenings.
But have it your way.
Obviously it was a short history. I didn't ignore the inflation of the 70s. Everything else you mentioned is minor happening from a big picture perspective. I didn't go back to the 60's.
Either way the point was to understand large economic trends that have lead us to where we are now.
Vietnam and the spending on the Great Society, which led directly to the decoupling of the dollar from gold and the inflation of the 1970s was minor? Tell us.
Reagan cut taxes for everyone, a fact the left gets wrong all the time.
Large economic trends have gotten us where we are today? Is that a blinding flash of the obvious? Or merely stupid. Because in many respects individual policies of the Democrats have gotten us where we are today.
Obviously it was a short history. I didn't ignore the inflation of the 70s. Everything else you mentioned is minor happening from a big picture perspective. I didn't go back to the 60's.
Either way the point was to understand large economic trends that have lead us to where we are now.
Vietnam and the spending on the Great Society, which led directly to the decoupling of the dollar from gold and the inflation of the 1970s was minor? Tell us.
Reagan cut taxes for everyone, a fact the left gets wrong all the time.
Large economic trends have gotten us where we are today? Is that a blinding flash of the obvious? Or merely stupid. Because in many respects individual policies of the Democrats have gotten us where we are today.
LOL, it is hard to argue with someone when they so clearly ignore what you said.
I didn't ignore the inflation of the 70's. The 70's mark one of the bigger mistakes made by the Federal Reserve since the Great Depression. It also set the stage for what happened in the 80s.
Spending trends and more specifically debt spending trends mostly happened under Reagan but if you look at the trends you will see the trend starting under Carter.
So Johnson's spending and Nixon's growth of gov't via alphabet agencies is irrelevant?
You're clearly out of your depth here, presenting a one dimensional view of the economy with the theme: Republicans have screwed us.
So Johnson's spending and Nixon's growth of gov't via alphabet agencies is irrelevant?
You're clearly out of your depth here, presenting a one dimensional view of the economy with the theme: Republicans have screwed us.
Neither are as significant with regards to the problems the US is facing as the things I mentioned. I was not blaming Republicans or Democrats.
Medicare is obviously very important but in the context of understanding large scale economic trends it fits into the topic of US health care more so than US government. How the US treats health care in general is of significance as it relates to how US labor competes in a world of global trade. There are a lot of issues there but obviously I was placing plenty of emphasis on the importance of that market.
[
It's easy to lie with Chart. For instance, you can make 2005 look not quite as sucky if you leave out anything before 2001 when Bush came along and fucked everything up.
So what if 2005 was less sucky than 2002 or 2008, it was nowhere near as good as 1998 when the worst thing we had to worry about was whether the President was lying about a blow job.
And 1998 isn't near as bad as 2000 when the economy was dropping because of the dot com failure. And of course 2001 economy was Clinton's but because of your politics it would be Bush's fault.
Actually, 2000 was still a pretty good year. Unemployment was around 3.9 when Clinton left office.
Of course, the tech buble was a correction, but Bush's answer was like Corky the Retard trying to drive in a nail.
"Dooooy, Tax Cut for Rich People".
Which wasn't the problem. The problem was not that the rich had too little. It was that there were too much inventory and not enough consumption, none of which was helped by giving the rich more.
And then he put a war on a credit card. Brilliant!!!
