More Economic Bias

ALiberalModerate · Nov 14, 2007

aquapub said:
Not that I would ever disagree that conservatives are right about slashing government budgets helping the economy (remember this point you've just made the next time you're smearing me for saying liberals have to pretend to be conservatives to get or stay in office), but that must have been a neat trick since it started when he first took office, as we were coming out of the recession, before anything he did could have possibly been the cause. All the major economic indicators I've seen started improving dramatically right when he took office.

Again, posting opinions from other people agreeing with your speculation just makes you guilty of an ad verecundium fallacy.

Example:

"Using the Washington University Macro Model (WUMM)1 -- a major economic model of the U.S. economy also used by the federal government and many Fortune 500 companies -- economists at The Heritage Foundation investigated how the economy would likely be performing today had Congress not raised taxes in 1993 as the nation was coming out of the 1990-1991 recession...compared with how the economy would have performed without the 1993 tax legislation, Clinton's 1993 tax and budget plan will have:

-Cost the economy $208 billion in output from 1993 through 1996,4 in today's dollars.5 This lost output is equal to nearly $2,100 for every household in America. Last year, without the 1993 economic package, gross domestic product (GDP) would have grown $66 billion more than it actually did absent the change.

-Cut the number of private jobs created by 1.2 million between 1993 and the end of 1996. Including the forecast for 1997, the total employment cost of the 1993 tax increase grows to nearly 1.4 million lost job opportunities.6
Delivered only 49 percent of the new revenues predicted by the Congressional Budget Office from the increase in personal and corporate tax rates between FY 1994 and FY 1996. When compared with the 1.2 million lost jobs, the tax hike has depressed potential employment growth by 17,600 jobs for every $1 billion it achieved in deficit reduction.

-Cut $112 billion, in today's dollars, out of potential employee wages and salaries between 1993 and 1996.

-Cut the growth in real personal disposable income of Americans by $264 billion in today's dollars between 1993 and 1996 -- equal to over $2,600 less disposable income for every household in America.

-Cut the potential sale of automobiles by 773,700 and light trucks by 504,000 between 1993 and 1996. Some 1.1 million of the nearly 1.3 million lost vehicle sales would have been produced domestically. In 1996, Heritage calculates that this loss in auto and truck sales will cost a projected 60,100 jobs across all industries.

-Cut the value of business investment in durable goods by $42.5 billion in today's dollars; $15.4 billion of this is lost investment in computers."

Finding economics experts to agree with you is never difficult. It doesn't mean a thing.

What "happened" was Katrina, corporate scandals, the Democrats' al Qaida mess coming back to bite us, the resulting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc.

So, in Aquapub's world, the Clinton era economic policies resulted in:

A reduction in real wages, jobs, and gdp growth.

Unfortunately, that just does not square with reality. As was pointed out earlier in the thread.

Real GDP increased more in the Clinton years than in the Bush years.

22 Million new jobs were created in the Clinton years (over twice as many created since Bush took office).

And median household income increased every single year Clinton was in office. Until last year, median household income declined every year Bush has been in office. Today, its only reached the level it was when Clinton left office.

Someone would have to be born in 2001 or later for them to buy this crap your spewing about the Clinton years. The fact is, the economy simply could not have been better than it was in the 90s. Hence the reason economists refer to it as the Clinton Economic Miracle. By any measure, the Clinton years economy outperformed both the Reagan and the Bush years.

aquapub · Nov 14, 2007

SouthernDemocrat said:
So, in Aquapub's world, the Clinton era economic policies resulted in:

A reduction in real wages, jobs, and gdp growth.

Unfortunately, that just does not square with reality. As was pointed out earlier in the thread.

Actually I was just demonstrating that I can find experts to agree with me too, that your argument is invalid. But it does make sense to me that if Clinton had not enacted that staggering tax hike, the growth would have been greater.

SouthernDemocrat said:
Real GDP increased more in the Clinton years than in the Bush years.

And?

SouthernDemocrat said:
22 Million new jobs were created in the Clinton years (over twice as many created since Bush took office).

And?

SouthernDemocrat said:
And median household income increased every single year Clinton was in office.

And?

SouthernDemocrat said:
Until last year, median household income declined every year Bush has been in office.

And?

SouthernDemocrat said:
Today, its only reached the level it was when Clinton left office.

And? None of this establishes causation.

SouthernDemocrat said:
Someone would have to be born in 2001 or later for them to buy this crap your spewing about the Clinton years.

Or they would just have to understand that tax hikes on those who create all the jobs slow down job creation.

SouthernDemocrat said:
The fact is, the economy simply could not have been better than it was in the 90s.

Once again, if you could establish causation, this would matter.

SouthernDemocrat said:
Hence the reason economists refer to it as the Clinton Economic Miracle. By any measure, the Clinton years economy outperformed both the Reagan and the Bush years.

Look it up. It's called cum hoc, ergo propter hoc (if two things happen at once, like Clinton being in office and the economy doing well, then Clinton must have caused the economy to be well), and it will still be a fallacy, no matter how many times you use it. Learn how to debate. :2wave:

ALiberalModerate · Nov 15, 2007

aquapub said:
Actually I was just demonstrating that I can find experts to agree with me too, that your argument is invalid. But it does make sense to me that if Clinton had not enacted that staggering tax hike, the growth would have been greater.

You claim to be a chemist in your profile. If thats the case, then you ought to know this fundimental rule of science:

Correlation does not prove causation, but lack of correlation disproves causation.

Taxes were raised in 1993, year from 1993 through 2000, we had one of the strongest periods of economic growth in U.S. history, it was the strongest peacetime growth in U.S. history. Therefore, one can conclude that those tax increases did not present any drag upon economic growth at all because their is no correlation at all.

Similarly, we had tax cuts in 2001 and in 2003, yet the economy while it has performed fairly well has not performed as well as it did in the 90s. Therefore their is a lack of direct correlation between those tax cuts and increased economic growth as the economy did not grow faster after the tax cuts than it did before them. Therefore, no correlation = no causation.

Where we can demonstrate correlation with economic performance is in free trade, monetary policy, and to a lesser degree, fiscal restraint.

Iriemon · Nov 15, 2007

aquapub said:
:liar2

This lie has been corrected repeatedly, yet it makes things look the way you need them to look, so you keep telling it anyway. The issue isn't about some great conspiracy. It's about objectivity, and the obvious reality that it is unwise to put people in charge of disseminating legtitimate news who have a vested interest in making one side look good (our media is run overwhelmingly by admitted far left-wingers and partisan Democrat operatives).

How long do you plan on waiting before repeating this lie again as if it had never been corrected?

Ha ha as always Aquapub resort to childish name calling when he is backed into a corner by his fibs.

It is about objectivity, and why your whining about unfair media treatnment of an unnewsworthy subject is objectively baseless.

:bs

DOUBLE the projected job creation. That's newsworthy, according to the far lower standards the media had for reporting positive economic news when Clinton was president.

Zzzzzzzzz.

Nobody needs to. It's common sense that job creation requires more money not less. But please, keep taunting me over this hilarious "mystery" of whether or not taking more money from those who create all the jobs makes it harder or easier to create jobs. It makes my work of discrediting you effortless.
:lol:

Aquapub's proof = Aquapub's blather.

How exactly does cutting an individual's income taxes make is possible for a business to hire more employees?

Iriemon · Nov 15, 2007

aquapub said:
Actually I was just demonstrating that I can find experts to agree with me too, that your argument is invalid. But it does make sense to me that if Clinton had not enacted that staggering tax hike, the growth would have been greater.

And?

And?

And?

And?

And? None of this establishes causation.

Iit certainly proves the economy was doing a lot better when we had a fiscally responsibile president in power in 1993-2000 than when we had a Republican in the WH in 2001.

Or they would just have to understand that tax hikes on those who create all the jobs slow down job creation.

Because Aquapub says so. Meanwhile, the fact that 3x more jobs were created when Clinton was president with higher taxes than Bush with lower taxes is meaningless because tax cuts increases job creation. Because Aquapub says so.

Once again, if you could establish causation, this would matter.

If you could establish logic, much less causation, it would be astounding.

Look it up. It's called cum hoc, ergo propter hoc (if two things happen at once, like Clinton being in office and the economy doing well, then Clinton must have caused the economy to be well), and it will still be a fallacy, no matter how many times you use it. Learn how to debate. :2wave:

Which perfectly explains why your claims about the "Clinton recession" are bullshit.

Stinger · Nov 15, 2007

SouthernDemocrat said:
Isn't the historical average job creation at about 225,000 per month?

And what specifically to you credit Clinton with? He fought for higher spending, he fought welfare reform, he tried to shut down Microsoft and had he been successful who knows who his next target would have been.

Thorgasm · Nov 15, 2007

Stinger said:
And what specifically to you credit Clinton with? He fought for higher spending, he fought welfare reform, he tried to shut down Microsoft and had he been successful who knows who his next target would have been.

I think he was going to outlaw spaying and neutering pets. He was going to abolish handicapped parking. After that he was going to make gay marriage mandatory.:shock:

Iriemon · Nov 15, 2007

Stinger said:
And what specifically to you credit Clinton with? He fought for higher spending, he fought welfare reform,

That is the Stingerpedia version of history.

A somewhat less blatantly partisan version:

... these continued in the 1990s, with Presidential candidate Bill Clinton vowing to "end welfare as we know it." Clinton, once elected, worked with a Democratic congress and met with considerable success in moving people from welfare to work through state waiver programs. These programs allowed states to experiment with various welfare reform measures. The system became a common target of Newt Gingrich and other Republican leaders, though changes had already been set in motion by Clinton and the Democrats. Toughening the criteria for receiving welfare was the third point (out of ten) in the Republicans' Contract with America. The tide of public opinion in favor of some change to the welfare system was considerable. The stage was already set by 1996. The welfare reform movement reached its apex on August 22, 1996, when President Clinton signed a welfare reform bill, officially titled the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The bill was hammered out in a compromise with the Republican-controlled Congress, and many Democrats were critical of Clinton's decision to sign the bill, saying it was much the same as the two previous welfare reform bills he had vetoed. In fact, it emerged as one of the most controversial issues for Clinton within his own party.[Haskins 2006]
Welfare reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iriemon · Nov 15, 2007

SouthernDemocrat said:
You claim to be a chemist in your profile. If thats the case, then you ought to know this fundimental rule of science:

Correlation does not prove causation, but lack of correlation disproves causation.

Taxes were raised in 1993, year from 1993 through 2000, we had one of the strongest periods of economic growth in U.S. history, it was the strongest peacetime growth in U.S. history. Therefore, one can conclude that those tax increases did not present any drag upon economic growth at all because their is no correlation at all.

Based on GDP data, I'd say it is more accurate to say the longest growth, not necessarily strongest. Growth periods in the 50s and 60s, when we had low top tax rates of 91% and 70%, were periods of stronger growth, measured by real GDP.

SFLRN · Nov 19, 2007

Stinger said:
And what specifically to you credit Clinton with? He fought for higher spending, he fought welfare reform, he tried to shut down Microsoft and had he been successful who knows who his next target would have been.

If I remember correctly a certain someone credits every piece of positive economic news to the Bush Tax Cuts. Clinton, along with the Republican Congress, have had as much to do with the economy they presided over as Bush has,which is to say they had a limited impact compared to developments in the market.

Iriemon · Nov 19, 2007

SFLRN said:
If I remember correctly a certain someone credits every piece of positive economic news to the Bush Tax Cuts. Clinton, along with the Republican Congress, have had as much to do with the economy they presided over as Bush has,which is to say they had a limited impact compared to developments in the market.

Though both Clinton and Bush had significant influence over the Govt's budgets and the deficits.

SFLRN · Nov 19, 2007

Iriemon said:
Though both Clinton and Bush had significant influence over the Govt's budgets and the deficits.

That is correct, but the effect that deficits have on the economy are usually delayed, and cannot always be attributed to their policies. It is probable, however, that the Clinton budget balancing helped lower interest rates. Whether or not the deficits under Bush would have caused higher interest rates (with the effect of Federal Reserve Meddling removed and the effect of the massive securitization of debt also removed) is currently hard to definitively answer.

Stinger · Nov 20, 2007

SFLRN said:
It is probable, however, that the Clinton budget balancing helped lower interest rates.

:rofl had he gotten his budgets there would have been no balanced budget. But what you fail to take note of is that as the budget deficits fell interest rates trickled up.

Whether or not the deficits under Bush would have caused higher interest rates

They have been low.

Same under Reagan, as deficits went up interest rates came down.

Mortgage (ARM) Indexes: Prime Rate: Historical Data

I will attempt to post them but tables never cut and paste and keep their formats for me.

January 2, 1991 9.50 February 4, 1991 9.00 April 24, 1991 9.00 May 1, 1991 8.50 September 13, 1991 8.00 November 6, 1991 7.50 December 23, 1991 6.50 July 2, 1992 6.00 March 24, 1994 6.25 April 19, 1994 6.75 May 17, 1994 7.25 August 16, 1994 7.75 November 15, 1994 8.50 February 1, 1995 9.00 July 7, 1995 8.75 December 20, 1995 8.50 February 1, 1996 8.25 March 26, 1997 8.50 September 30, 1998 8.25 October 16, 1998 8.00 November 18, 1998 7.75 July 1, 1999 8.00 August 25, 1999 8.25 November 17, 1999 8.50 February 3, 2000 8.75 March 22, 2000 9.00 May 17, 2000 9.50 January 4, 2001 9.00 February 1, 2001 8.50 March 21, 2001 8.00 April 19, 2001 7.50 May 16, 2001 7.00 June 28, 2001 6.75 August 22, 2001 6.50 September 18, 2001 6.00 October 3, 2001 5.50 November 7, 2001 5.00 December 12, 2001 4.75 November 7, 2002 4.25 June 27, 2003 4.00 July 1, 2004 4.25 August 11, 2004 4.50 September 21, 2004 4.75 November 11, 2004 5.00 December 15, 2004 5.25

SFLRN · Nov 20, 2007

Stinger said:
:rofl had he gotten his budgets there would have been no balanced budget. But what you fail to take note of is that as the budget deficits fell interest rates trickled up.

I used the term Clinton Budget Balancing loosely. The Republican Congress played a large role in it. However, I do not care exactly which party should be credited for doing what. In light of the recent evidence, I revise my statement relating to interest rates, all else being held constant, the deficit reduction by our government in 1994 led to increased investment expenditures, which may or may not have been the result of (ceteris paribus) interest rates that were kept lower than under normal circumstances (with debt involved). The most important effect was that investment spending was able to increase, and that helped spur a massive economic expansion. "Between 1994 and 1998, the share of investment in real GDP increased from 15 to 18 percent as the share of government in real GDP decreased from 19 to 17 percent ((Taylor 160)."

Stinger said:
They have been low.

Same under Reagan, as deficits went up interest rates came down.

Mortgage (ARM) Indexes: Prime Rate: Historical Data

I will attempt to post them but tables never cut and paste and keep their formats for me.

January 2, 1991 9.50 February 4, 1991 9.00 April 24, 1991 9.00 May 1, 1991 8.50 September 13, 1991 8.00 November 6, 1991 7.50 December 23, 1991 6.50 July 2, 1992 6.00 March 24, 1994 6.25 April 19, 1994 6.75 May 17, 1994 7.25 August 16, 1994 7.75 November 15, 1994 8.50 February 1, 1995 9.00 July 7, 1995 8.75 December 20, 1995 8.50 February 1, 1996 8.25 March 26, 1997 8.50 September 30, 1998 8.25 October 16, 1998 8.00 November 18, 1998 7.75 July 1, 1999 8.00 August 25, 1999 8.25 November 17, 1999 8.50 February 3, 2000 8.75 March 22, 2000 9.00 May 17, 2000 9.50 January 4, 2001 9.00 February 1, 2001 8.50 March 21, 2001 8.00 April 19, 2001 7.50 May 16, 2001 7.00 June 28, 2001 6.75 August 22, 2001 6.50 September 18, 2001 6.00 October 3, 2001 5.50 November 7, 2001 5.00 December 12, 2001 4.75 November 7, 2002 4.25 June 27, 2003 4.00 July 1, 2004 4.25 August 11, 2004 4.50 September 21, 2004 4.75 November 11, 2004 5.00 December 15, 2004 5.25

The problem with using those numbers is that there is no control for the policy of the Federal Reserve, and how the securitization of mortgages affected interest rates. Therefore, it's hard to truly pinpoint deficits as the reason interest rates went down (and it is similarly hard to control for those variables and determine what effect it did have). However, deficits, whether they exert any significant short-run impact is less important when compared to their negative long-term effects (this is mostly true when deficits cause the debt to GDP ratio to change). Deficits do matter, the real question is when they drag an economy down and how severely they do it.

Stinger · Nov 20, 2007

SFLRN said:
I used the term Clinton Budget Balancing loosely.

Extremely so.

The Republican Congress played a large role in it.

They drove it, Clinton fought them tooth and nail for higher spending and expansion of programs and fought and void to rescind wel-fare reform if reelected.

However, I do not care exactly which party should be credited for doing what.

You should, you're about to make that decision again.

In light of the recent evidence, I revise my statement relating to interest rates, all else being held constant, the deficit reduction by our government in 1994 led to increased investment expenditures,

What? If you are talking Clinton's tax increase, it took capital out of the market and slowed the recovery.

which may or may not have been the result of (ceteris paribus) interest rates that were kept lower than under normal circumstances (with debt involved).

Lower than "normal" circumstances?

The most important effect was that investment spending was able to increase, and that helped spur a massive economic expansion.

Actually that started before his tax increase, was slowed by it and then recouped after the Republicans started passing tax cuts and reformed wel-fare and prevented the Clinton budget request.

The problem with using those numbers is that there is no control for the policy of the Federal Reserve,

"Those numbers" are THE numbers which are effect by a host of things but rather than wandering off on your meandering discourse here the fact is rates increased as the deficits came down and decrease when the deficits started back up.

Deficits do matter,

Less than we previously though and not always as expected especially when they are as low as they are now and falling.

Iriemon · Nov 20, 2007

Stinger said:
The Republican Congress played a large role in it.

Click to expand...

They drove it, Clinton fought them tooth and nail for higher spending and expansion of programs and fought and void to rescind wel-fare reform if reelected.

A-yep. We can tell the Republicans were responsible for fiscal responsibility in the 90s because gosh, look how carefully they managed the budget when they also got control of the WH in 2000.

What an inane assertion to make.

SFLRN · Nov 24, 2007

Stinger said:
Extremely so.
They drove it, Clinton fought them tooth and nail for higher spending and expansion of programs and fought and void to rescind wel-fare reform if reelected.
.

I care very little who passed the policy; my only real concern is the merits of the policy.

Stinger said:
You should, you're about to make that decision again.
.

That was well over ten years ago, and few Republicans have followed that example since that time. However, I am only stating that debating which party did what is a rather dull; therefore, I don't really care exactly who one credits for balancing the deficit nearly thirteen years ago.

Stinger said:
What? If you are talking Clinton's tax increase, it took capital out of the market and slowed the recovery.
.

I did not mean to imply anything about Clinton’s tax increase. I am not in favor of those tax increases.

Stinger said:
Lower than "normal" circumstances?
.

It is possible that the balancing prevented interest rates from going higher. However, that supposition would need more research.

Stinger said:
Actually that started before his tax increase, was slowed by it and then recouped after the Republicans started passing tax cuts and reformed wel-fare and prevented the Clinton budget request.
.

Could you provide some empirical proof that would negate the statements of Dr. John B. Taylor of Stanford?

Stinger said:
"Those numbers" are THE numbers which are effect by a host of things but rather than wandering off on your meandering discourse here the fact is rates increased as the deficits came down and decrease when the deficits started back up. .

That is correlative analysis, not causative. You cannot reliably establish a meaningful relationship between the two (other than correlation) using such analysis. I am not ‘wandering off,” I am simply stating that there are factors other than deficits that would have changed the interest rate of the time. Therefore, it is harder to attribute the lower interest rates to one presidency or one policy. This really isn’t an argument against you as much as it is a comment on the difficulty of establishing causality with such figures.

Stinger said:
Less than we previously though and not always as expected especially when they are as low as they are now and falling.

No, luckily deficits do have a limited impact, but that doesn’t mean they are desirable. I think you would agree that deficits in and of themselves are not good for the economy. Sorry for the lateness of this post, I have been busy.

Stinger · Nov 26, 2007

When was the last time you heard the Federal Reserve Board announce it was raising interest rates becaue the deficit was high?

SFLRN · Nov 26, 2007

Stinger said:
When was the last time you heard the Federal Reserve Board announce it was raising interest rates becaue the deficit was high?

I was saying that the general interest rate would likely change if there were an increase in overall government expenditures. The Fed can counteract this effect by lowering the discount rate.

Capitalitz · Nov 30, 2007

aquapub said:
MRC-When the Labor Department on Friday announced a strong gain of 166,000 jobs during October, double expectations, ABC and CBS gave it a few seconds while NBC ignored the good news altogether.

Yet when any negative news surfaces, as it did yesterday, the networks connect it with every other piece of bad news they can and make it look like the sky is falling.

-With "DANGER SIGNS" on screen, Williams announced: "Good evening. The following sounds pretty awful -- and we take no pleasure in reporting it -- but today Wall Street fell, the U.S. dollar fell, GM is in bad shape and the housing market continues to be in big trouble."

-CBS displayed "MARKET TURMOIL" on screen as Katie Couric opened with how "investors were carrying a world of worries on their shoulders today" because of "the falling dollar, record high oil prices, the mortgage mess, the housing slump, and a possible economic slowdown. And they responded by dumping stocks. That sent the Dow plummeting more than 300 points for the second time in a week."

-ABC: "Tonight, oil gushes and Wall Street plunges...Wall Street today took a nose dive sharp enough to make investors' ears pop."

Like night and day. This is the left's cue for ad hominems and red herrings.

The only news anyone is interested in theses days is bad news. Which is kinda sad.

cuongnet · Dec 7, 2007

ok ! numberone you

More Economic Bias

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist

aquapub

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist

Iriemon

Iriemon

Stinger

Thorgasm

Bus Driver to Hell

Iriemon

Iriemon

SFLRN

Iriemon

SFLRN

Stinger

SFLRN

Stinger

Iriemon

SFLRN

Stinger

SFLRN

Capitalitz

New member

cuongnet

New member