>>I've never denied I am a partisan, but an educated one. An open minded one.
With all due respect, I haven't noticed anything in yer comments that strikes me as "educated," and certainly nothing open-minded.
>>I know the Left and their lies. Why would I (or anyone) want to be associated with failure and the lies and deceits used to sell these failures and pervert society?
Pervert? Is that an expression of bigotry? Why would I want to be associated with the lies and deceits of the Right?
"92 million Americans can't find a job."
"Climate Change is a hoax."
"Illegal immigrants are too lazy to work, and they're stealing our jobs."
"Minimum-wage earners are almost all teenagers."
"Obama is a Muslim, Kenyan, commie, terrorist sympathizer who hates America and wants to destroy it. He wasn't really a law professor, he didn't write those books, he did poorly in school, he's paid millions of dollars to have his records sealed, his law license has been revoked, his wife goes on million-dollar shopping sprees with government credit cards, and he murdered both his grandmother and his gay lover."
>>You're not being polite? ROTFLOL...
I don't understand. I'd say I am being polite, as least compared to you.
>>"Spreading the wealth around" is not a winning economic system.
And it's not Obama's policy. That's just right-wing rhetoric. Are you happy with the way income has been distributed in this country for the past thirty years?
>>I've posted what the politicians stated about it.
But what do you know about it?
You must be one of the misinformation voters.
And yes, if someone believes Paul Krugmans accoubt or any other Liberals account of the Sub-Prime crisis they would be less informed than your average American.
Most liberals are ignorant when it comes to how our economy works and how to properly build a economy but when it comes to the Sub-Prime bubble their ignorance is willfull.
They cant accept that their ideology caused it all.
" If no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else ? "
>>we are into June 2014
This may explain why I can't keep up with yer argument. It's still May where I live, and we're still looking at April data.
>>Compare the economic results today with those of Reagan's and get back to me.
I've already posted them in this thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1063275988 (Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%)
>>Due to the high inflation and unemployment then that recession was worse than this one.
Some do argue that, e.g., Sarah Palin. Others point to the fact that Obama was faced with a near-collapse of the financial sector similar to the events that precipitated the Great Depression. See, e.g., PolitiFact.
As that article points out, the economy was not in recession when Mr. Reagan took office. There were two recessions in the early 1980s, one in the the first two quarters of 1980, and another in the last two of 1981. So the economy was expanding for six months before Reagan's term began, and continued to expand for another six months.
I'm willing to go along with those who call those a "double-dip" recession, although I'd say there's good reason not to. i have to wonder if Obama's critics would be as generous.
>>Reagan leadership and Obama's lack of leadership generated significantly different results.
>>When the recession began in 81 there were 99 million working Americans
In July 1981, employment stood at 100.7 million.
>>when Reagan ran for a second term that number was over 7 million more
When his second term began in Jan 1985, the figure was 106.3, so an increase of 5.7 million. More than three million of those jobs had been added in just the previous twelve months. The stimulative effect of the very large deficits the government was running (a total of $335 billion under his first two budgets in '82-'83, after Carter ran up $253 billion in four years — I call it "the Reagan stimulus"), combined with the "snap-back" effect associated with business cycle recessions led to a very rapid expansion in employment.
>>By the end of the second Reagan Term we had 17 million more Americans working than when he took office.
16.7 million. And the per capita national debt had increased by 92% in inflation-adjusted dollars.
>>Too many people bought the rhetoric from the media as to how bad this recession was. Tell me, how did this recession affect you and your family?
Three-year pay freeze. Got the agency-wide 1% this year. Makes those glowing performance evaluations seem a bit irrelevant in terms of compensation. My property value went from $238K down to $160K; it's now rebounded to $180K.
My brothers each lost another small fortune in the stock market, just like they did when the dot com bubble burst in 2000. They're both engineers and seem to think that markets are characterized by the same hyperbolic functions they're so familiar with. "What goes up … keeps on going up, even faster." They don't listen to me when I offer them my advice, based on thirty-five years of looking at economic data, looking for underlying trends. To their credit, they don't whine; they just sock away another small fortune.
>>I am telling you that population growth occurred and the labor force didn't grow in relationship mostly due to discouraged workers. That is a sign of poor leadership and economic policies.
Population growth isn't the number to look at. As you yerself mentioned it's labor force. Population growth outstripped the expansion in the labor force mostly due to demographic and societal shifts — retiring baby boomers, fewer women working, some of them withdrawing temporarily from the market to raise young children. more young people deciding that, given the poor market conditions, their time would be better spent focusing on education than working, in part due to the large number of low-wage jobs that result from a very low inflation-adjusted minimum wage.
The number of "discouraged workers" tends to bounce around. There was a large increase in April to 783K. But I'd say there's good reason to think the annual average for 2014 will fall below the figure for 2009.
>>Compare the labor force growth during the Reagan.
This was a period during which a lot of baby boomers and women were continuing to enter the labor force. It was driven by demographics, not economic policy.
>>The economic results don't agree with you and this list is being given credit for something that no one can quantify.
Which results are those? The 9.2 million private-sector jobs that have been added in four-and-a-half years? The decline in deficits from 10% of GDP to 2.8%. A profit on TARP?
>>QE has done more for Wall Street than any economic policies to help the American people.
For one thing, I don't see a sharp distinction between them. And moreover, I think QE has benefited the economy broadly. It certainly has helped the government control the deficit. As I see things, we the People are the government. Government accounts belong to us.
>>The rich have gotten richer and the poor poorer.
The rich have gotten much richer. This is due largely to tax policies in place for the past thirty years, made worse by the Bush-era tax cuts, that I expect you support.
In 2010, as the nation continued to recover from the recession, a dizzying 93 percent of the additional income created in the country that year, compared to 2009 — $288 billion — went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers, those with at least $352,000 in income. That delivered an average single-year pay increase of 11.6 percent to each of these households.
Still more astonishing was the extent to which the super rich got rich faster than the merely rich. In 2010, 37 percent of these additional earnings went to just the top 0.01 percent, a teaspoon-size collection of about 15,000 households with average incomes of $23.8 million. These fortunate few saw their incomes rise by 21.5 percent.
The bottom 99 percent received a microscopic $80 increase in pay per person in 2010, after adjusting for inflation. The top 1 percent, whose average income is $1,019,089, had an 11.6 percent increase in income. — The Rich Get Even Richer, NYT, March 25, 2012
Obama has indeed been unable to reverse this trend, and for a very simple reason — opposition to his policies by the Republican majority in the House. To anyone concerned about this, and I agree we should be very concerned, my suggestion would be to vote for Democrats in the mid-term.
>>What people want to ignore is that Bush took over an economy in recession, had 9/11, had a Democrat Congress from 2007-2009 and yet grew GDP 4.5 trillion dollars.
He also had a federal budget that was in much better shape.
Yer choice of a passive verb — "had" 9/11 — is an interesting one. He also "had" a clear wraning presented to him in a PDB that Al Qaeda was "determined to strike inside the US." Fwiw, I blame Chaingang, Mr. National Security, more than I blame Bush.
$4.4 trillion, to be more precise, and only $1.7 trillion if you adjust for inflation. He did a lot better than Mr. Reagan on deficits — the per capita national debt under Mr. Bush increased by only 45%, half of Reagan's number.
>>The stimulus plan was a payoff to Obama economic supporters, ie unions. Tell me how much of a tax cut did you get?
The tax cuts in that legislation went mostly to businesses and investors. I guess I missed out on those. I did get a check for, what was it, $300? I don't where yer getting the union stuff? Construction projects? I suppose we could have had the Girl Scouts do the work.
>>Again, you buy what you are told
Pretty funny coming from the Right.
>>how many House passed bills are sitting in Harry Reid's desk and not being debated? Reid is much more of a problem than the House.
How is the Senate more of a problem? Those House bills are largely tax give-aways. The American people don't support that nonsense anymore.
>>That is a pipe dream. We have a 17.3 trillion dollar debt and this adds to it thus the debt service is going up. How does a bill that costs this much and yet leaves 31 million people uninsured benefit the economy and American People?
It's true that the ACA is projected to add to the deficits in the future. This should be balanced out, at least in part, by reduced healthcare costs. And in my view, there is a societal benefit involved in providing millions of Americans affordable health insurance. In general, it will be very difficult to determine the costs and benefits.
>>Ask the people of W. Va. about regulations on Coal production. How could a Democrat state of W. Va. be so anti Obama now? How about the Keystone Pipeline? I could go on.
Poeple are always telling me they could go on about the terrible regulations. My guess is they don't have any to talk about.
West Virginia. Isn't that the state where all those people had their water supply contaminated by a chemical spill from a coal mining company? About 100K people got sick. I hear that the Right blames the EPA because the chemical that was leaked is used in washing clay and rock from coal so that it will burn cleaner.
WV voted for Bush in 2004. Should Democrats "pay off their economic supporters" by favouring the coal industry at the expense of the health of human beings and the environment in general?
>>So what? Is the cost of living the same in each state? States can raise the minimum wage so why is this something the Federal Govt. should get involved in?
Because it's in the national interest. The feds should set a minimum and states with a higher cost-of-living can set a higher level.
>>You think it is the Federal Responsibility to tell a private sector business what to pay its worker? What investment does the Federal Govt. have in that business in terms of actual dollars?
Is it a federal responsibility to tell a private-sector business that it can't legally operate with unsafe working conditions? Minimum wage standards protect workers from exploitation, like other labor laws.
>>Global Warming is a hoax
Not according to 97% of climatologists. I suppose you know better.
>>What you show are examples of brainwashing.
Not the most convincing argument.
>>You don't think Obama has lied? Wow, you haven't been paying attention and are going to believe exactly what you want to believe. This is the most corrupt Administration and one of the least transparent in history. IRS, Benghazi, ACA, Economic predictions, again I could go on but you are only going to believe what you want to believe.
You could go on and on, and yet you don't list a single alleged "lie." It's all rhetoric.
Well, it depends.
Before I educate you on the Sub-Prime bubble, from its genesis to its conclusion, to who started it and who perpetuated it and who lied to keep the truth hidden, are you going to even keep an open mind ?
Because this subject has been discussed ad nauseam on this forum, and the typical Liberal rebut to pages and pages of sourced data is to stick their heads in the sand and repeat talking points.
I understand the implications of accepting the truth when it comes to this issue.
You have to accept that Liberal policies implemented by Bill Clinton and carried out by a unprecedented level of Government corruption are in fact, responsible for nearly collapsing the US economy and also responsible for collapsing Capital Markets all over the world.
I've got all the proof I need ready to go with links.
Im not going to waste my time if all your'e going to do is ignore it and repeat the typical blame the banks and Bush nonsense that typifies the Liberal account of what happened in 2008.
" If no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else ? "
'What kind of sick and twisted toy factory is this?'
'We are all the sum of our tears. Too little and the ground is not fertile, and nothing can grow there. Too much, the best of us is washed away.'
"Better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool."