• 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!

Report: Economists Say Recession Over, Want Bernanke to Stay

Excellent discussion thus far. Thank you all.
 
celticlord said:
The best possible scenario now is a U shaped recovery. The more likely scenario is a W-shaped double dip.
Click to expand...

I am in agreement with the "w" concept with a very tiny uptick in the "w".

Again, there are looming issues that have NOT been addressed; another housing bubble popping, the deficit, the future insolvency of Medicare and SS and the fact that this administration wants to spend trillions more without any HONEST debate about how they will pay for it all.

With a National Debt figure that is soon to equal GDP will only make the US currency even weaker which can only mean more inflation and higher debt.
 
Truth Detector said:
I find the notion that the recession is over stunning. It is almost as laughable as getting giddy over the fact that last month we ONLY shed 250K jobs.
Click to expand...

One supposes we'll know soon enough.

What is perhaps NOT being factored in is the cost of paying for a $1.8 trillion deficit which apparently is of no concern of the current Administration who wants to add trillions more to it without a single HONEST debate about how to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Not to get all factual here, but we started running large deficits starting with Reagan. It cooled under Clinton, but then went back full throttle again under W. They never worried about it, either. So I see little reason to call out Obama. He's just one of many. Further, a recession in 2010 has nothing to do with 2010's deficit. The economic problems with having a large national debt and running current deficits are felt way later. So any recovery right now will not be hampered by the deficit. You are confusing the short term with the long term.

I find it stunning that ANY economist can claim the worst is behind us based on the current administrations policy of spending vast sums of money they do not have, demagogue major US industries like Insurance, Finance and automobile companies and which hasn't had one honest discussion of how they plan to pay for all this for purely partisan political purposes; the midterms.
Click to expand...

Short term versus long term confusion again! In terms of this recession the worst is very likely behind us. However, the worst is also in front of us. It's just decades off.
 
Morality Games said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/business/economy/07stimulus.html

Apparently the stimulus package has been a mixed bag so far.
Click to expand...

The problem with the stimulus package is that it simply was not needed. So even if you say it worked on any level (and, no, I don't care how well it did or did not work) I can only say, "so what"? They spent $1 trillion to help an economy improve when it would have improved anyway. Sort of like going to the doctor and paying money to be treated for the flu. That's the part that's always left out when people debate its effectiveness. Who cares?
 
Lerxst said:
Excellent discussion thus far. .
Click to expand...

thus far it was.............. now hide.
donsutherland1 said:
IMO, the economy is showing growing signs of stabilization and modest growth should occur during the second half of 2009, even if GDP bottoms in Q3 rather than Q2. I suspect that the Fed's monetary policy statement to be released this afternoon will note growing indications of economic stabilization and reaffirm prospects for moderate growth in the second half.

With respect to the President's fiscal stimulus, I believe it has also helped contribute to the recent stabilization and possible imminent recovery. A fiscal stimulus increases aggregate demand. Risks associated with the stimulus e.g., timing of withdrawal, are farther ahead.

Today, Bloomberg.com quotes a number of economists or trade group representatives who give some credit to the stimulus. One such person is Kenneth Goldstein, an economist at the Conference Board stated, “We’ve averted the worst, and there are clear signs the stimulus is working.”

As so often happens in political battles, the reasonable case that could have been made against a stimulus (increased debt burden, poor track record of reversing the stimulus later, etc.) is discarded for apocalyptic rhetoric e.g., the economy will not revive, or superficial fallacies e.g., each dollar spent by the government is taken from the private sector and that amounts to a wash or worse (as the private sector is more efficient than the government). Of course, the fallacy is just that. When the private sector is hoarding cash out of fear, the hoarded cash is not contributing to economic growth. So, when the government borrows from the private sector, and then spends the money, that translates into an increase in growth. In addition, the federal government borrows from abroad.

In the long-term, if the deficits are not reduced, the stimulus is not adequately withdrawn, and the additional debt incurred from the stimulus is not paid off, that situation will make an adverse contribution to the economy e.g., in the form of higher long-term interest rates than might otherwise be the case. However, that's another issue that is beyond the scope of whether the President's fiscal stimulus played a role in stabilizing the economy.
Click to expand...


Don,

You are bad. I cannot even express how bad you are. You are as bad as Obama supporters are. You are even worse because they cannot think and you can… sometimes. 2 things are standing out in your post.

1. You, like everyone else, make an assumption that the historical rule of thumb is the rule we should follow without any doubt. The rule says that economy always recovers. Thus Obama can abuse it for personal and ideological purposes and that would result only in some delay, but economy will recover. Economy will still start recovering on his watch and will grant him the 2nd term (especially if to consider the massive brainwashing campaign in media and Internet). However this rule is accepted by everyone as the rule of the thumb there is always one justone who has no problems of challenging it. It has to be challenged at least because of the position taken by everyone except for one justone. The position is that everyone is sitting and guessing – have we hit the bottom yet? Are we seeing the signs of recovery? Can we call it recovery or sluggish growth or another BS? All of it begs one justone question – do we have to sit on our hands, pick our noses and, looking at the content, keep on guessing when Obama says it is enough for him?

2. The question 1. may take time to discuss. The 2nd thought standing out in you post represents the logic of supporters of Obama, the deeply fallacious logic.

You have expressed the extremism of such a magnitude that it can be only compared if not with the extremism of the Obama’s administration then at least with extremism of Muslim terrorists. As any extremism it is not arguable because it not only lacks any rational (the less it does when you take the rule above as the rule of the thumb) but it also ignores the facts of reality. Generally in the bolded part you are conducting the war on the private sector blaming it in all sins and saying that the Messiah is here to save it and the economy.

As the matter of the fact the apocalyptic rhetoric was brought in by the gov-nt but not by the private sector. It was the gov-nt which screamed the end of the world, - the banks falling and failing, Wall Street going down, credits disappearing – the end of the world, an emergency, TARP as soon as possible, - now, $700B! Of course, this scream was full of superficial fallacies as I pointed to you at that time, and explained some irrational and obviously wrong calculations. (In one instance the calculation of $700B was done with the false assumption that the price of oil was reflecting the real value of oil which was there to stay or go up. In reality the fall of the speculated price by itself put $700B in pockets of consumers. In another instance you did not answer the question - What was bad in the Wall Street falling and breaking into pieces, - we wouldn’t see savages taking and saving each and every valuable piece? Was it better to keep on spending on the pieces which were no value even to the last savages?) I pointed to many other totally irrational apocalyptic rhetoric which IN FACT came from the gov-nt and caused the slow down to dive into the deepest recession.


The fact is, - it was gov-nt which injected fear and the apocalyptic rhetoric on the 1st place, but not other way around as you and other extremists tell us.

When the gov-nt acts so irrational, so mad, it causes a deep recession. The private sector is hoarding cash out of fear, as it is the only rational choice it has when the gov-nt runs amok on the healthy part of the private sector. The private sector is not supposed to contribute to economic growth, it is there to make profits. The gov-nt propaganda against the private sector you introduce here is neither factual nor logical.

When the gov-nt ‘’borrows’’ money from the private sector, it is not borrowing, it is extraction and extortion, - for the simple reason that gov-nt expects the private sector to pay money back to itself. The private sector is not supposed to contribute to economic growth, it is there to make profits. Making profits constitutes economic growth. When the gov-nt spends the extorted money with NO PROFIT the economic growth is false, it is should be called the growth of deficit. The apocalyptic rhetoric was introduced almost a year ago, the program of gov-nt spending and running the deficit high started almost a year ago, and still you are guessing the present results and close your eyes on the unstoppable debt as on “another question”. Don, it is an undividable question, pointing only to the tip of the iceberg and not payning attention to the rest of it you are to bring the Titanic to the bottom. How things could be worse and will be worse if the gov-nt did not go into the spending madness a year ago? You are telling the private sector – ‘you are bad you are not contributing to the economic growth in your fears, look we will teach you how to make economic growth, how to spend.’ The private sector wants to be thought how to invest money for profit, how to make money, not how to spend. As money spent by the gov-nt return NO PROFIT and are not spent for the goal of making profit, I wouldn’t know what the gov-nt will call to be recovery when it will call something to be recovery.

We had the Internet bubble, we had Housing bubble, when economy will enter the same cycle of intensive production of goods and services, call me so I would call it recovery. But isn’t it your goal – not to have such intensive cycle of production of goods and services anymore? In your war on the private sector – who will be there to make profits?
 
Last edited:
justone said:
thus far it was.............. now hide.



Don,

You are bad. I cannot even express how bad you are. You are as bad as Obama supporters are. You are even worse because they cannot think and you can… sometimes. 2 things are standing out in your post.

1. You, like everyone else, make an assumption that the historical rule of thumb is the rule we should follow without any doubt. The rule says that economy always recovers. Thus Obama can abuse it for personal and ideological purposes and that would result only in some delay, but economy will recover. Economy will still start recovering on his watch and will grant him the 2nd term (especially if to consider the massive brainwashing campaign in media and Internet). However this rule is accepted by everyone as the rule of the thumb there is always one justone who has no problems of challenging it. It has to be challenged at least because of the position taken by everyone except for one justone. The position is that everyone is sitting and guessing – have we hit the bottom yet? Are we seeing the signs of recovery? Can we call it recovery or sluggish growth or another BS? All of it begs one justone question – do we have to sit on our hands, pick our noses and, looking at the content, keep on guessing when Obama says it is enough for him?

2. The question 1. may take time to discuss. The 2nd thought standing out in you post represents the logic of supporters of Obama, the deeply fallacious logic.

You have expressed the extremism of such a magnitude that it can be only compared if not with the extremism of the Obama’s administration then at least with extremism of Muslim terrorists. As any extremism it is not arguable because it not only lacks any rational (the less it does when you take the rule above as the rule of the thumb) but it also ignores the facts of reality. Generally in the bolded part you are conducting the war on the private sector blaming it in all sins and saying that the Messiah is here to save it and the economy.

As the matter of the fact the apocalyptic rhetoric was brought in by the gov-nt but not by the private sector. It was the gov-nt which screamed the end of the world, - the banks falling and failing, Wall Street going down, credits disappearing – the end of the world, an emergency, TARP as soon as possible, - now, $700B! Of course, this scream was full of superficial fallacies as I pointed to you at that time, and explained some irrational and obviously wrong calculations. (In one instance the calculation of $700B was done with the false assumption that the price of oil was reflecting the real value of oil which was there to stay or go up. In reality the fall of the speculated price by itself put $700B in pockets of consumers. In another instance you did not answer the question - What was bad in the Wall Street falling and breaking into pieces, - we wouldn’t see savages taking and saving each and every valuable piece? Was it better to keep on spending on the pieces which were no value even to the last savages?) I pointed to many other totally irrational apocalyptic rhetoric which IN FACT came from the gov-nt and caused the slow down to dive into the deepest recession.


The fact is, - it was gov-nt which injected fear and the apocalyptic rhetoric on the 1st place, but not other way around as you and other extremists tell us.

When the gov-nt acts so irrational, so mad, it causes a deep recession. The private sector is hoarding cash out of fear, as it is the only rational choice it has when the gov-nt runs amok on the healthy part of the private sector. The private sector is not supposed to contribute to economic growth, it is there to make profits. The gov-nt propaganda against the private sector you introduce here is neither factual nor logical.

When the gov-nt ‘’borrows’’ money from the private sector, it is not borrowing, it is extraction and extortion, - for the simple reason that gov-nt expects the private sector to pay money back to itself. The private sector is not supposed to contribute to economic growth, it is there to make profits. Making profits constitutes economic growth. When the gov-nt spends the extorted money with NO PROFIT the economic growth is false, it is should be called the growth of deficit. The apocalyptic rhetoric was introduced almost a year ago, the program of gov-nt spending and running the deficit high started almost a year ago, and still you are guessing the present results and close your eyes on the unstoppable debt as on “another question”. Don, it is an undividable question, pointing only to the tip of the iceberg and not payning attention to the rest of it you are to bring the Titanic to the bottom. How things could be worse and will be worse if the gov-nt did not go into the spending madness a year ago? You are telling the private sector – ‘you are bad you are not contributing to the economic growth in your fears, look we will teach you how to make economic growth, how to spend.’ The private sector wants to be thought how to invest money for profit, how to make money. As money spend by the gov-nt return NO PROFIT and are not spent for the goal of making profit, I wouldn’t know what the gov-nt will call to be recovery when it will call something to be recovery.

We had the Internet bubble, we had Housing bubble, when economy will enter the same cycle of intensive production of goods and services, call me so I would call it recovery. But isn’t it your goal – not to have such intensive cycle of production of goods and services anymore? In your war on the private sector – who will be there to make profits?
Click to expand...


I see you attack Don without looking in the mirror at your own biases that you have plainly laid on the table with this post. You clearly are defining Obama as a socialist, when there is no proof of such a thing, but rather the new "negative" campaigne that the GOP uses rather than solid answers to problems the nation is facing. Conservatives had their chance and led us to the mess we are in, why take your advice now?
 
stekim said:
One supposes we'll know soon enough.
Click to expand...

Yes, at least within the next four years and I actually hope my pessimism, which is rare, is actually misplaced and unwarranted and wrong. My fear is that it is not.

stekim said:
Not to get all factual here, but we started running large deficits starting with Reagan. It cooled under Clinton, but then went back full throttle again under W. They never worried about it, either. So I see little reason to call out Obama. He's just one of many. Further, a recession in 2010 has nothing to do with 2010's deficit. The economic problems with having a large national debt and running current deficits are felt way later. So any recovery right now will not be hampered by the deficit. You are confusing the short term with the long term.
Click to expand...

I am amused when you talk of getting factual then attempt to compare the deficits of Reagan and Bush to what we are witnessing right now.

It begs the question; you are kidding right?

Let me clarify this for you; Bush, or rather the Republican led Congress ran up a $200 billion deficit which at the end of their control was heading DOWN to $168 billion in 2006.

Putting that into perspective with the $1.8 trillion today it once more begs the question; you are kidding right?

Now let's review Reagan's Presidency; it was under a Democrat controlled Congress so it happens to be Democrats who again ran up deficits. Remember Presidents cannot write legislation.

Now let's re-visit Clinton's Presidency; it was under Republican control and the FIRST time in decades the Government actually balanced its budget. Remember Presidents cannot write legislation.

stekim said:
Short term versus long term confusion again! In terms of this recession the worst is very likely behind us. However, the worst is also in front of us. It's just decades off.
Click to expand...

There is no confusion here, I am looking at this as a four year realization while you are pretending it is decades off.

Perhaps I am wrong; we shall all see won't we?
 
stekim said:
The problem with the stimulus package is that it simply was not needed. So even if you say it worked on any level (and, no, I don't care how well it did or did not work) I can only say, "so what"? They spent $1 trillion to help an economy improve when it would have improved anyway. Sort of like going to the doctor and paying money to be treated for the flu. That's the part that's always left out when people debate its effectiveness. Who cares?
Click to expand...

I think the proper analogy would be this: There is a lake and this lake represents the American economy. Democrats are dipping their buckets into the water on one side of the lake, walking to the other side with great media fanfare and saying to Americans; "see, we are adding water to the lake."

Essentially, Government is taking money OUT of the economy and competing with private markets for scarce financial resources and claiming that they are putting money back in. It is far from the truth and when the bill becomes due and payable, before our currency becomes the laughing stock of the world, the effects of this pushing us back into the abyss will become a sad reality.

Again, I only hope that I am wrong; my fear is that I am not being overly pessimistic.
 
Truth Detector said:
Yes, at least within the next four years and I actually hope my pessimism, which is rare, is actually misplaced and unwarranted and wrong. My fear is that it is not.
Click to expand...

We will certainly be in recovery in 2010. You'll be fine.

I am amused when you talk of getting factual then attempt to compare the deficits of Reagan and Bush to what we are witnessing right now.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are talking about. I merely pointed out a simple fact. You don't like deficits. They ran up huge deficits. Sorry that bothers you. But it's not my problem. Obama is indeed running a record deficit. Following Bush's record deficits. Keeping the trend going, so to speak. So feel free to criticize him. AFTER you do the same starting in 1981.

Now let's review Reagan's Presidency; it was under a Democrat controlled Congress so it happens to be Democrats who again ran up deficits. Remember Presidents cannot write legislation.
Click to expand...

Refer to yesterday's thread about partisan bull**** posts. It should link to this post. It's getting hard to take you seriously at this point. I see what others have pointed out now. Great stuff there.

Now let's re-visit Clinton's Presidency; it was under Republican control and the FIRST time in decades the Government actually balanced its budget. Remember Presidents cannot write legislation.
Click to expand...

See above.
 
Last edited:
Truth Detector said:
Essentially, Government is taking money OUT of the economy and competing with private markets for scarce financial resources and claiming that they are putting money back in.
Click to expand...

Technically, that is not the case. Of course they take money out, but the stimulus money was not taken out of the economy.

It is far from the truth and when the bill becomes due and payable, before our currency becomes the laughing stock of the world, the effects of this pushing us back into the abyss will become a sad reality.
Click to expand...

When the bill comes due we are indeed in trouble.

Again, I only hope that I am wrong; my fear is that I am not being overly pessimistic.
Click to expand...

Long run, you are not. Short run, likely so.
 
stekim said:
The problem with the stimulus package is that it simply was not needed. So even if you say it worked on any level (and, no, I don't care how well it did or did not work) I can only say, "so what"? They spent $1 trillion to help an economy improve when it would have improved anyway. Sort of like going to the doctor and paying money to be treated for the flu. That's the part that's always left out when people debate its effectiveness. Who cares?
Click to expand...
Following on that analogy, going to the doctor every time you have a touch of flu over time weakens the immune system, resulting in more trips to the doctor. Sometimes the best medicine is to let nature take its course. In the case of the flu, that means feeling like crap for a week. In the case of a recession, it means people having less money and less work for a few months to a year.

For all the apocalyptos who talked about the end of the financial system last fall, one thing bears remembering--there is no historical evidence to support their scenario of a banking götterdämmerung.

In evaluating the choice to apply stimulus vs doing nothing, we have to ask the question: what if those "worst case" scenarios were wrong?
 
celticlord said:
Following on that analogy, going to the doctor every time you have a touch of flu over time weakens the immune system, resulting in more trips to the doctor. Sometimes the best medicine is to let nature take its course. In the case of the flu, that means feeling like crap for a week. In the case of a recession, it means people having less money and less work for a few months to a year.

For all the apocalyptos who talked about the end of the financial system last fall, one thing bears remembering--there is no historical evidence to support their scenario of a banking götterdämmerung.

In evaluating the choice to apply stimulus vs doing nothing, we have to ask the question: what if those "worst case" scenarios were wrong?
Click to expand...

Bravo...... :applaud
 
celticlord said:
Following on that analogy, going to the doctor every time you have a touch of flu over time weakens the immune system, resulting in more trips to the doctor. Sometimes the best medicine is to let nature take its course. In the case of the flu, that means feeling like crap for a week. In the case of a recession, it means people having less money and less work for a few months to a year.

For all the apocalyptos who talked about the end of the financial system last fall, one thing bears remembering--there is no historical evidence to support their scenario of a banking götterdämmerung.

In evaluating the choice to apply stimulus vs doing nothing, we have to ask the question: what if those "worst case" scenarios were wrong?
Click to expand...

Do you take cover when a tornado is predicted, or just assume that they may be wrong and act later? Potential emergencies are dealt with as if they will occur. If you take the position that the bottom may not fall out, and do nothing, there is nothing to save your ass if the bottom falls out.
 
tlmorg02 said:
I see you attack Don without looking in the mirror at your own biases that you have plainly laid on the table with this post. You clearly are defining Obama as a socialist, when there is no proof of such a thing, but rather the new "negative" campaigne that the GOP uses rather than solid answers to problems the nation is facing. Conservatives had their chance and led us to the mess we are in, why take your advice now?
Click to expand...

You clearly define yourself as an Obama supporter.
1. You are engaging in a disorderly conduct. You shouldn't quote a whole post and not to address anything said in the post, but just to define yourself as an Obama supporter.
2. I don't attack Don, I submit my arguments. I exactly bold his statements and submit my arguments against.

3. I do not single out Obama, obviously Bush hated by you is specifically put in the 1st place.

4. I do not define Obama as a socialist, for 2 simple reasons, - 1.because I do not define what is socialist 2. Don knows that I stated many times that such definitions were meaningless.

If you gather that Obama fits your definition of a socialist be so, but don't forget that Don calls it state capitalism, other call it national socialism, others call it fascism, other call it the right thing to do. For me it does not matter how you call it, but only the effect it produces matters.

5. When the conservatives did have their chance, - when the last two years of liberal Bush was pushed around by the Democratic majority? You are clearly deceptive.


As you have submitted at least 5 fallacies, deceptions and false statements in 3 sentences and have addressed no points made by me you are proven to be an Obama supporter. Did you say you were not biased? Can you repeat, please?




Obama supporters are such an entertainment.
 
Last edited:
celticlord said:
Following on that analogy, going to the doctor every time you have a touch of flu over time weakens the immune system, resulting in more trips to the doctor. Sometimes the best medicine is to let nature take its course. In the case of the flu, that means feeling like crap for a week. In the case of a recession, it means people having less money and less work for a few months to a year.
Click to expand...

Even if you assumed the "treatment" would work, you were essentially trading $1.0 trillion for a few extra months of recovery. It's hardly worth the effort. The economy is slowly getting better and will come out on the other side. That would have been the case without the $1.0 trillion.

For all the apocalyptos who talked about the end of the financial system last fall, one thing bears remembering--there is no historical evidence to support their scenario of a banking götterdämmerung.
Click to expand...

Well, we're dealing with two separate matters. The "bailout" and the stimulus package are not two peas in a pod. I work in the bowels of the finance industry (although not as an economist anymore. Yes, companies actually hire those), so I was a bit closer to the bomb than most. But like I said, it's two different issues. Although I'm happy to debate the bailout.

uating the choice to apply stimulus vs doing nothing, we have to ask the question: what if those "worst case" scenarios were wrong?
Click to expand...

The stimulus was not about financial armageddon. That was the bailout. The stimulus was about getting out of the muck caused by the financial crisis. The problem is, it just was not needed. As for the "worst case" scenarios regarding the financial system: They were not wrong. At least not in terms of the worst case or or something slightly less than that being a realistic and somewhat likely scenario.
 
Last edited:
tlmorg02 said:
Do you take cover when a tornado is predicted, or just assume that they may be wrong and act later? Potential emergencies are dealt with as if they will occur. If you take the position that the bottom may not fall out, and do nothing, there is nothing to save your ass if the bottom falls out.
Click to expand...
Tornado watch == potential crisis.
Tornado warning == real crisis.

You don't run to the cellar when there's a tornado watch, but when there's a tornado warning--the difference being that the latter means the funnel cloud is real and approaching real fast.

Additionally, if the potential crisis that had everyone in a panic last fall was mountains of toxic debt, then we still have that potential crisis because banks still have those mountains of toxic debt--and Ginnie Mae is doing all it can to build its own mountain of toxic debt. So we've run to the cellar, drunk all our bottled water and used up all our batteries, and have to go back topside.....just as the funnel cloud touches down and starts heading towards the house.

Doesn't strike me as effective crisis response.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Do you take cover when a tornado is predicted, or just assume that they may be wrong and act later? Potential emergencies are dealt with as if they will occur. If you take the position that the bottom may not fall out, and do nothing, there is nothing to save your ass if the bottom falls out.
Click to expand...

The point was that tornado couldn't be predicted because the only experience of the nature which had been known to the time of the prediction did not observe any occurence of tornados. The prediction that something can happen which has never happened before is... it ...is... celticlord should help to find a German expression...it is... it is not germane to basic logic.
 
celticlord said:
Anyone living in Michigan is experiencing something close to outright economic depression, with a 15% unemployment rate.
Click to expand...

That unemployment rate is most likely well over 20% when you include people that stopped looking for work....I've read that the total US unemployment rate is actually close to 16% when this standard is applied.
 
justone said:
You clearly define yourself as an Obama supporter.
1. You are engaging in a disorderly conduct. You shouldn't quote a whole post and not to address anything said in the post, but just to define yourself as an Obama supporter.
2. I don't attack Don, I submit my arguments. I exactly bold his statements and submit my arguments against.

3. I do not single out Obama, obviously Bush hated by you is specifically put in the 1st place.

4. I do not define Obama as a socialist, for 2 simple reasons, - 1.because I do not define what is socialist 2. Don knows that I stated many times that such definitions were meaningless.

If you gather that Obama fits your definition of a socialist be so, but don't forget that Don calls it state capitalism, other call it national socialism, others call it fascism, other call it the right thing to do. For me it does not matter how you call it, but only the effect it produces matters.

5. When the conservatives did have their chance, - when the last two years of liberal Bush was pushed around by the Democratic majority? You are clearly deceptive.


As you have submitted at least 5 fallacies, deceptions and false statements in 3 sentences and have addressed no points made by me you are proven to be an Obama supporter. Did you say you were not biased? Can you repeat, please?




Obama supporters are such an entertainment.
Click to expand...


You are creating the fallacies out of thin air. First of all, I am not an Obama supporter, I am a common sense supporter. If tragedy can be avoided, then I am all aboard. By the way, what facts did you present in your entire post? I saw assertions, but no links or articles for reference.
 
celticlord said:
Tornado watch == potential crisis.
Tornado warning == real crisis.

You don't run to the cellar when there's a tornado watch, but when there's a tornado warning--the difference being that the latter means the funnel cloud is real and approaching real fast.

Additionally, if the potential crisis that had everyone in a panic last fall was mountains of toxic debt, then we still have that potential crisis because banks still have those mountains of toxic debt--and Ginnie Mae is doing all it can to build its own mountain of toxic debt. So we've run to the cellar, drunk all our bottled water and used up all our batteries, and have to go back topside.....just as the funnel cloud touches down and starts heading towards the house.

Doesn't strike me as effective crisis response.
Click to expand...

You may have gone a little too technical there buddy, but I get your point. What I am saying though, is that all in all you may be right and the market would have indeed corrected itself without stimulus and more public debt. However, if jobs are saved because the government invested enough to prop companies up long enough to avoid closing their doors forever, then crisis avoided as best as can be. This is not an isolated economy anymore, and with most manufacturing jobs going abroad anyway, markets like Detroit are going to suffer in economic booms.

I digress. Ultimately, Bush and Obama reacted to a forcast of a potential second depression by trying to knock the edge off. If it all goes to nothing in the end, then we live and learn and avoid the same mistakes again. If the market is saved and future revenues take care of future debt, then we will have come out in the plus.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Ultimately, Bush and Obama reacted to a forcast of a potential second depression by trying to knock the edge off. If it all goes to nothing in the end, then we live and learn and avoid the same mistakes again. If the market is saved and future revenues take care of future debt, then we will have come out in the plus.
Click to expand...

The stimulus was not meant to keep us from the next great depression. It was designed to kick start the economy and get it out of the deep recession. That's not the same thing at all. And even assuming it did that (and I don't care either way) it wasn't worth what we spent. The price was simply too steep.
 
Last edited:
Lerxst said:
Report: Economists Say Recession Over, Want Bernanke to Stay.

Economists date the start of the recession to December 2007 -- defining much of Ben Bernanke's term as Federal Reserve chairman -- and a majority in a Wall Street Journal survey agree that the recession is coming to an end.

FOXNews.com

Tuesday, August 11, 2009


Obviously I'm not an economist, so I'm curious as to what you all think of this? Do you think those interviewed by the WSJ are full of it? Do you all believe any of this can be attributed to Obama's policies/appointments?

You always hear "it happened on his watch, it's his doing." An example that is recent would be the DOJ issues regarding the voter intimidation issue.

So in this case, if you give any credence to these claims by economists as reported by Fox and the WSJ, do you associate this with President Obama? If not, why? If you don't lend any credence to these claims, please explain why you don't.

Personally I'm going to have give the nod to the economists on this. I can't prove them wrong so I'll agree I think it's starting to turn around. But I have no idea if Obama's policies had anything to do with this. That said, since he gets credit for things other people do when they screw up, I'll have to wonder if his detractors give him credit for this whether or not he actually had anything to do with it. Seems only fair right?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

The recession isn't over until there's been a full recovery. As long as unemployment is anywhere above 4.5%, nothing has recovered. When people aren't working, there's no cash flow. If there's no cash flow, there's no recovery. IMO, we've only seen the beginning. This winter is going to bad.
 
apdst said:
The recession isn't over until there's been a full recovery. As long as unemployment is anywhere above 4.5%, nothing has recovered. When people aren't working, there's no cash flow. If there's no cash flow, there's no recovery. IMO, we've only seen the beginning. This winter is going to bad.
Click to expand...


Recessions are not defined by the unemployment rate. So your post is meaningless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom