• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

More Economic Bias

Stinger said:
Ahhhhh we have to ask your permission first is it?




Let's see I suggest you debate the subject instead of issuing your invective and I'm the one shuffling..................:rofl you're hilarious.
Click to expand...

No, you're hilarious. :rofl
 
If economic gains under Clinton were all supposedly from the "Tech Boom", wouldn't those late losses aquapub mentioned be the boom subsiding? I suppose he thinks about his posts a lot less when he finds a way to make Clinton look bad.
 
Edify_Always_In_All_Ways said:
If economic gains under Clinton were all supposedly from the "Tech Boom",
Click to expand...

They weren't all from the tech boom and I don't see anyone making that argument. A lot of them were but there were lots of factors.
wouldn't those late losses aquapub mentioned be the boom subsiding?
Click to expand...

You mean crashing, yes some of it was, a lot of it was.

I suppose he thinks about his posts a lot less when he finds a way to make Clinton look bad.
Click to expand...

Why do you think someone is trying to make him look bad? He had little to do with the economy of the 90's other than going after Microsoft which did hurt the tech sector and investors and delaying welfare reform by standing in the way. He didn't get what he wanted, higher spending and higher taxes.
 
aquapub said:
:lol:

I knew there was a reason I was suspicious...well, other than the fact that you're using the same repeatedly corrected fallacy again called com hoc, ergo propter hoc (if Bill Clinton was in office while something happened good with the economy, then Bill Clinton must have caused the change). Still waiting for you to provide an iota of proof that anything he did could have logically caused any of the prosperity (which any economist will tell you was the result of the tech boom, not the staggering Clinton tax hikes).
Click to expand...

Strawman. And repetitive. See response above post #10.

Clinton left us with an economy in decline. Thank you for confirming the Clinton Recession. :lol:
Click to expand...

com hoc, ergo propter hoc :lol:

Unless job creation tops the all time record, no job creation is worth reporting? The problem with that willful blindness is that far smaller bad news is apparently worth reporting...incessantly. You can't have it both ways. Either record-breaking economic news is the only news worth reporting or it isn't.
Click to expand...

What is so impressive about 166,000 jobs created?

I complain that Democrats are convinced of their own arguments? That's news to me. What I complain about is Democrats being constitutionally illiterate hysterics and conspiracy theorists wrecking our economy and undermining national defense at every turn.
Click to expand...

Strawman, irrelevant, non-responsive.

My threads criticizing liberals for their voting records is not ad hominem. Liberals responding to those criticisms with trademark liberal counterpoints like "you're stupid," "you're mean," and "you're a homo" IS ad hominem.

Nice try.
Click to expand...

And droll.
 
Stinger said:
Who blamed him for the recession? Nothing he particularly did although there has been some postulation the he cherry picked and inflated some economic data towards the end of his term to make the economy look stronger than it really was in order to help Gore win the election and then when that came tumbling down in made matters worse. But on the other hand he did nothing to help the economic boom that did occur during the 90's and in fact opposed the measures that made it possible and fought for higher spending than the congress would let him have, if we had listened to him there would not have been the brief surplus on the books.
Click to expand...

Clinton did want government is supposed to do. Be fiscally responsible. The only president of the last four who was not completely irresponsible. The economy reacted with confidence to a government that was for the first time in years acting responsibly.
 
Edify_Always_In_All_Ways said:
If economic gains under Clinton were all supposedly from the "Tech Boom", wouldn't those late losses aquapub mentioned be the boom subsiding? I suppose he thinks about his posts a lot less when he finds a way to make Clinton look bad.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Me pointing out that Bush inherited an economy in decline is not about trying to attribute that decline to Clinton. It's about me demonstrating that liberals cannot claim that Clinton was responsible for the prosperity unless they also claim he was responsible for the decline, considering that their basis is a mere fallacy (cum hoc, ergo propter hoc) "if the economy was good while Clinton was in office, then Clinton must have been what caused the economy to be good."

Apparently Edify thinks about his posts a lot less when he finds a way to smear aquapub. :2wave:
 
Iriemon said:
Strawman. And repetitive. See response above post #10.
Click to expand...

Not a straw man. Translation from Iriemon to honest, accurate English. And if you don't want me to keep debunking the same old lies, then stop telling them.

Iriemon said:
com hoc, ergo propter hoc
Click to expand...

:lol:

I just used your own logic to disprove your assertion and you called it a cum hoc fallacy, after denying that that very same logic was a fallacy when you tried it.

Nevermind. You apparently need to rest your brain. ;)
 
Why are you guys even bothering? No matter what you say to pubby, he's going to come back with a big "nuh-uh" and some nasty comment. It is a wasted effort trying to have an intellectual conversation with a mental midget locked in the throes of a never-ending partisan orgasm.
 
jallman said:
Why are you guys even bothering? No matter what you say to pubby, he's going to come back with a big "nuh-uh" and some nasty comment. It is a wasted effort trying to have an intellectual conversation with a mental midget locked in the throes of a never-ending partisan orgasm.
Click to expand...

I think pubby is actually quite funny. I am laughing at him though. I wonder if he will still be such a partisan hack in ten years?

As I've gotten older I've become much more moderate.
 
aquapub said:
Not a straw man. Translation from Iriemon to honest, accurate English. And if you don't want me to keep debunking the same old lies, then stop telling them.
Click to expand...

Strawman. Repetitive. False.



:lol:

I just used your own logic to disprove your assertion and you called it a cum hoc fallacy, after denying that that very same logic was a fallacy when you tried it.

Nevermind. You apparently need to rest your brain. ;)
Click to expand...

Funny how your own logic doesn't seem to apply to you. ;)
 
aquapub said:
Wrong. Me pointing out that Bush inherited an economy in decline is not about trying to attribute that decline to Clinton. It's about me demonstrating that liberals cannot claim that Clinton was responsible for the prosperity unless they also claim he was responsible for the decline, considering that their basis is a mere fallacy (cum hoc, ergo propter hoc) "if the economy was good while Clinton was in office, then Clinton must have been what caused the economy to be good."

Apparently Edify thinks about his posts a lot less when he finds a way to smear aquapub. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Sure, I will take responsibility for both. So, Clinton is responsible for 22 million new jobs, a loss of about 1.5 million at the end of the Tech Bubble, so thats a net gain of over 20 million.

So, Clinton is responsible for 20 million new jobs in America.

He is also responsible for a lower poverty rate than we have today and the median income rising every year he was in office. In fact, Bush is just now catching up to the median income levels they year Clinton left office.

Even taking the good with the bad, comparing the Bush years thus far to the Clinton years is like comparing a dime to a dollar. Moreover, Alan Greenspan thinks pretty much the same thing.
 
winston53660 said:
I think pubby is actually quite funny. I am laughing at him though. I wonder if he will still be such a partisan hack in ten years?

As I've gotten older I've become much more moderate.
Click to expand...

Yet all you bring to this site is off-topic smears. Sounds like you've just become more simple-minded.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Sure, I will take responsibility for both. So, Clinton is responsible for 22 million new jobs, a loss of about 1.5 million at the end of the Tech Bubble, so thats a net gain of over 20 million.

So, Clinton is responsible for 20 million new jobs in America.
Click to expand...

Or his staggering tax hikes just cut the prosperity from the tech boom far shorter than it would have been. Still waiting on one example of a Clinton policy that could've caused the prosperity. Don't worry. Anyone who's listened to virtually any economist already knows the tech boom caused the prosperity and that it had nothing to do with Clinton.

The fact of the matter is, Democrats had a tech boom to take credit for and pushed off their responsibilities (like actually doing something about al Qaida) onto Bush. Bush has had Katrina, numerous corporate scandals, 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., and Democrats need people to think their economy-raping policies don't rape the economy, so they repeat this lie over and over again until people unwittingly start mistaking the greatest threat to the economy (the Democrat Party) for the solution to its problems.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Sure, I will take responsibility for both. So, Clinton is responsible for 22 million new jobs, a loss of about 1.5 million at the end of the Tech Bubble, so thats a net gain of over 20 million.

So, Clinton is responsible for 20 million new jobs in America.

He is also responsible for a lower poverty rate than we have today and the median income rising every year he was in office. In fact, Bush is just now catching up to the median income levels they year Clinton left office.

Even taking the good with the bad, comparing the Bush years thus far to the Clinton years is like comparing a dime to a dollar. Moreover, Alan Greenspan thinks pretty much the same thing.
Click to expand...

Good point!

The 2001 "recession" if you can call it that was about the mildest on record. Real GDP never went down two consecutive quarters, and was up .8% for the year.
 
Iriemon said:
Good point!

The 2001 "recession" if you can call it that was about the mildest on record. Real GDP never went down two consecutive quarters, and was up .8% for the year.
Click to expand...

Until either of you can establish causation, none of this will amount to anything more than a com hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.
 
aquapub said:
Until either of you can establish causation, none of this will amount to anything more than a com hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Click to expand...

Sure, I'll get right on it. In the meantime, you can establish the causation for your statement:

... Or his staggering tax hikes just cut the prosperity from the tech boom far shorter than it would have been ...

Looking forward to it!
 
Iriemon said:
Sure, I'll get right on it. In the meantime, you can establish the causation for your statement:

... Or his staggering tax hikes just cut the prosperity from the tech boom far shorter than it would have been ...

Looking forward to it!
Click to expand...

I don't need to establish causation. I was presenting an alternate explanation for the timeline of events, thereby disproving that it had to be Clinton's policies that caused any prosperity (which doesn't even make sense in the first place considering that raking taxpayers over the coals couldn't logically make them more prosperous).
 
aquapub said:
I don't need to establish causation. I was presenting an alternate explanation for the timeline of events, thereby disproving that it had to be Clinton's policies that caused any prosperity (which doesn't even make sense in the first place considering that raking taxpayers over the coals couldn't logically make them more prosperous).
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. You don't have to show causation, but everyone else does. You can write your little "cum hoc, ergo propter hoc" whenever someone mentions how well the economy did when Clinton was president, but no one else can.

It's a lot easier to pretend you are winning debates when you get to make up rules as you go along, isn't it?
 
Iriemon said:
Oh, I see. You don't have to show causation, but everyone else does. You can write your little "cum hoc, ergo propter hoc" whenever someone mentions how well the economy did when Clinton was president, but no one else can.
Click to expand...

Well it did so good because every knew Bush 43 was about to get appoint....uhhmm elected. And then it tanked because of Clinton.:2razz:
 
winston53660 said:
Well it did so good because every knew Bush 43 was about to get appoint....uhhmm elected. And then it tanked because of Clinton.:2razz:
Click to expand...

Heh heh. You are showing an astute learning ability.

But, really, if you want to know the whole picture, the economic prosperity of the 90s was all to Reagan's credit, none to Clinton. Except for the recession in 1991, which was Bush1's fault because he raised taxes. And while the 90s was all because of Reagan, the economy was not growing as fast as it should have in 1993-1997, because of Clinton's policies (though it was doing great because of Reagan) when in 1997 the Republicans forced Clinton to pass a tax cut which is why the economy really did well in the 90s. Except for the depression (per Aquapub) in 2001 which was because of Clinton raping the economy with his tax policies. Meanwhile, the Clinton depression in 2001 caused all the deficits and the economy would have been much worse except for the Bush tax cuts, except for the recent and projected slowdowns which are normal as part of the business cycle.

Conserepubliconomics 101. You got all that? There will be a test in the morning.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
Why are you guys even bothering? No matter what you say to pubby, he's going to come back with a big "nuh-uh" and some nasty comment. It is a wasted effort trying to have an intellectual conversation with a mental midget locked in the throes of a never-ending partisan orgasm.
Click to expand...

This was a good example of how the Clintonistas and leftest try to deflect any factual post with thier typical ad hominems.

Try responding to the issue.
 
aquapub said:
Or his staggering tax hikes just cut the prosperity from the tech boom far shorter than it would have been.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Do you honestly believe www.pets.com would have been profitable if only their tax rates would have been slightly lower?

Still waiting on one example of a Clinton policy that could've caused the prosperity. Don't worry. Anyone who's listened to virtually any economist already knows the tech boom caused the prosperity and that it had nothing to do with Clinton.
Click to expand...

Had it not been for the 1996 Telecom Act we would have never had a Tech Boom to begin with. The tech boom essentially was from 1999 through 2000. So how do you explain the record prosperity from 93 to 99?
 
Originally Posted by Iriemon
Good point!

The 2001 "recession" if you can call it that was about the mildest on record. Real GDP never went down two consecutive quarters, and was up .8% for the year.


You>> Until either of you can establish causation, none of this will amount to anything more than a com hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

How about the Bush tax cut which was perfectly timed to keep vital capital in the market place and prevented the business downturn he inherited from being the disaster it would have been had Gore been elected and increased taxes.

For anyone to claim it wasn't a recession simply because it didn't meet the arbitrary measure of 3 consectutive quarters, it was 3 out of 4 I believe, is to engage in folly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom