This message has been edited by Poetse12 on Aug 27, 2009 4:58 PM This message has been edited by Poetse12 on Aug 27, 2009 4:47 PM This message has been edited by Poetse12 on Aug 27, 2009 12:14 PM
With the stock market now up solidly since Obama's inauguration, consumer confidence nearing pre-crisis levels, and the banking crisis now in the rear-view mirror, the economy is Obama's to own.
If we'd just kept going down and down, then it'd still be on Bush, and anything bad that happaned could be laid at the feet of the prior administration.
But with even Austan Goolsbee comparing the actions of the government to heroic fire fighters, it's clear who'll be taking the blame from here on out.
We hope the green shoots turn to be real and that the stock market really is six-months ahead of the recovery and that a raft of green jobs restore a sense of pride to our ailing industrial sectors. We hope the states find a way to balance the budgets without bubble-level revenues, and on and on. Seriously. But if not, we think Barack Obama will have to take some blame, not because of any particular relationship between his policies and the economy (after all the gears of this decline have been in motion for years, if not decades as we built up a monster addiction to credit), but because that's how the media and the short-attentioned minds of the public work.
Sorry, frogprince. I haven't seen any URLs you posted regarding that matter.
sure you have, i have posted that URL, which goes to a chart of the national debt, showing especially reagan's, and the two shrubs' contribution to that debt, in more than one of your threads. however, i included that url in one of your threads yeasterday - but i guess it DOES take a certain amount of intelligence, even to click on a post.
but, i do understand your ignorance, so here it is again - try to keep up from now on: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
look familiar?? just follow the red lines. btw, obama has contributed a bit more than that chart indicates - the cutoff was in feb. if you wish to argue about feb-aug, have at it, just supply documentation for your figures.
Can't get by with that one, frogprince. You are neglecting business cycles and booking gimmickry to prove your point. The deficit express=ed as a percentage of the GDP relates gives credit to the administration for something for which the president has done nothing to receive the credit. And to say the debt did not go up during the Clinton years is a lie. You are trying to deceive us with nonsense.
So I repeat, you are the one who is ignorant because you hae been deceived.
Of course, sandy. you could not join in the thread if you had to think for yourself. You simply want to point out my typos. But congratulations, you are doing something right. Npot that it takes a great deal of intelligence.
You are neglecting business cycles and booking gimmickry to prove your point.
what is your point? how do "business cycles" affect the debt, in any way not reflected in the graph?
The deficit express=ed as a percentage of the GDP relates gives credit to the administration for something for which the president has done nothing to receive the credit.
explain that!!! are you trying to say that, because the president did not "participate" in the generation of GDP, that he is not responsible for the debt? or that the ratio is off, because of your perceived "responsibility" issue?
does that "analysis" also extend to obama?
And to say the debt did not go up during the Clinton years is a lie.
got proof?
You are trying to deceive us with nonsense.
nope, i posted a chart, from a respected website, that shows that about 80% of the debt belongs to reagan, and the two shrubs.
You are neglecting business cycles and booking gimmickry to prove your point.
what is your point? how do "business cycles" affect the debt, in any way not reflected in the graph?
Let's assume that You have a GDP of 100 and a debt of 5. The debt would be 5% of the GDP
If the debt remains a 5 and the GDP increases to 105, the percentage decreses to 4.76.
If the GDP falls to 95 and the debt remains at 5, the percentage rises to 5.26.
Notice that the debt never changed. But if the administration changes, it will appear that one was average, one did a great job and the other overspent. That is what happens with your graph of percentage of GDP.
The deficit express=ed as a percentage of the GDP relates gives credit to the administration for something for which the president has done nothing to receive the credit.
explain that!!! are you trying to say that, because the president did not "participate" in the generation of GDP, that he is not responsible for the debt? or that the ratio is off, because of your perceived "responsibility" issue?
Notice the example of how percentages change the perceived increse or decreas of the debt. But the debt remains the same.
does that "analysis" also extend to obama?
It applies to every president when his budget is espressed as a percentage of the GDP.
And to say the debt did not go up during the Clinton years is a lie.
got proof?
All you hav3 to do is look at the Amount of the natiuonal Debt for each year. It constantly increases. Amounts are always stactic and percentages are dynamic.
You are trying to deceive us with nonsense.
nope, i posted a chart, from a respected website, that shows that about 80% of the debt belongs to reagan, and the two shrubs.
Yes you did post a chart, and I pointed out the flaws in your chart. It is deception. I'll bet you still don't understand it, do you?
You are neglecting business cycles and booking gimmickry to prove your point.
what is your point? how do "business cycles" affect the debt, in any way not reflected in the graph?
The busi9ness cycle affects the debt because it is stated as a percentage of GDP. That means when business cycles are high the percentage is low and when the business cycle is low, the debt becomes a higher percentage. And tax revenues increase when profits are made and decrease when losses are made. Prosperity and recession affect the debt as a percentage of the GDP.
The deficit express=ed as a percentage of the GDP relates gives credit to the administration for something for which the president has done nothing to receive the credit.
explain that!!! are you trying to say that, because the president did not "participate" in the generation of GDP, that he is not responsible for the debt? or that the ratio is off, because of your perceived "responsibility" issue?
T^he president does not create business cycles. they occur naturlly. But the president does have something to do with the budget and spending. The prosperity or resecession make that a pe5rcentage of the GDP.
does that "analysis" also extend to obama?
And to say the debt did not go up during the Clinton years is a lie.
got proof?
You are trying to deceive us with nonsense.
nope, i posted a chart, from a respected website, that shows that about 80% of the debt belongs to reagan, and the two shrubs.
No where in the history of this country in the past fifty yearws has the national debt decreased. You chart shows that it has. But if you look at the actual numbers, you will see the amount of the debt has gone up every year.
Ok for the current budget year how much have the programs Obama has added to the Bush budget increased the deficit?
That would be the amount that Obama should be held responsible for.
The stimulus bill appropriated $787 billion of which a little over 10% has actually been spent.
What other programs should be considered?
You should look at the Obama budget for the first year of his admninistration. The money that Bush spent belongs to him. The budget that Obama presents is strictly his. We cannot have a deficit in 2010 and blame Bush for that can we?
This is the Obama budget and Bush has nothing to do with it. 3.6 tril. Nothing that Bush has said or spent. Unless you want to count entitlements.
Very good, AJ. You prove that you do not really think ahead, don't you. You always look behind and blame Bush. that's why you cannot underston that we are headed for bankruptchy. Right?
I hate to say it but there's not enough band width for the liberals to answer that question. I would like to suggest that to save locking-up the system they answer by using starting letter of their last names to describe just how stupid they are (try to keep it under 25000 words if possible):
Monday....A-G
Tuesday...H-M
Wednesday...N-P
Thursday....Q-T
Friday...U-Z
We can use Saturday to correct the ones that got the letter and day wrong and Sunday to come-up with another plan! LOL!
The language of priorities is the religion of Socialism.....Aneurin Bevan