• 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!

U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

treedancer said:
I can understand why you don’t like my numbers. National debt total during presidency.
Reagan=189%. Average annual=23.6%:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Yep Reagan added 1.7 trillion to the debt which in the liberal world is worse than the 4.5 trillion Obama has added. Must be liberal math
 
Conservative said:
Yep Reagan added 1.7 trillion to the debt which in the liberal world is worse than the 4.5 trillion Obama has added. Must be liberal math
Click to expand...

if i wasn't so damn lazy i,d would check and see what 1.7 trillion eighties dollars would be in 2011 dollars.:2wave:
 
treedancer said:
if i wasn't so damn lazy i,d would check and see what 1.7 trillion eighties dollars would be in 2011 dollars.:2wave:
Click to expand...

Does it matter? You think debt service on the 1.7 trllion dollar debt during the Reagan years is paid in 2011 dollars?
 
AdamT said:
Yes, that's my point. And the main reason unemployment fell from mid-03 to late '06 was the real estate/construction/financial bubble. IOW, it was a house of cards that collapsed on Bush's watch.
Click to expand...
Stop being so childish, it was 30 years coming. With your teary-eyed crying about how mean Republicans are to the poor; you think anyone will believe for a minute that it was the Republicans who pushed to stuff all those poor people into their very own homes??? Dude, get a ****ing clue about your own party, and face the music. It was Carter and Clinton that started the problem, and Barney Frank standing for his committee denying it that caused that ****.
 
Conservative said:
Does it matter? You think debt service on the 1.7 trllion dollar debt during the Reagan years is paid in 2011 dollars?
Click to expand...

Just gettin a perspective. How’s the ole obtuse debate technique working out for ya? anyone buying it?
 
treedancer said:
Just gettin a perspective. How’s the ole obtuse debate technique working out for ya? anyone buying it?
Click to expand...

You think anyone here is buying that we paid debt service on the 80's debt in 2011 dollars? The liberal educational elites are making you look foolish. They need to teach more logic and common sense and you would be better off.
 
Conservative said:
You think anyone here is buying that we paid debt service on the 80's debt in 2011 dollars?
Click to expand...


Damn!! I didn’t think that you were dumb enough to not see where I was going. I guess I was wrong eh?:shock:
When I said I was getting a perspective, what I meant was that I was wondering what $1.7 trill would be in today’s dollars.
Went right over the ole dome eh? Sorry about that.
 
treedancer said:

Damn!! I didn’t think that you were dumb enough to not see where I was going. I guess I was wrong eh?:shock:
When I said I was getting a perspective, what I meant was that I was wondering what $1.7 trill would be in today’s dollars.
Went right over the ole dome eh? Sorry about that.
Click to expand...

calling me dumb? LOL, what does the 1.7 trillion dollar debt that Reagan generated have to do with 2011 dollars? You think the debt service is paid on 2011 dollars? Where is the answer?
 
Conservative said:
calling me dumb? LOL, what does the 1.7 trillion dollar debt that Reagan generated have to do with 2011 dollars? You think the debt service is paid on 2011 dollars? Where is the answer?
Click to expand...


$1.00 in 1981 has the same buying power as $2.50 in 2010.

SOoo...that $1.7 trillion is $4.5 trillion in 2011.Like i said i kinda like to put things in perspective. Just think, the gipper managed all of that without two and a half (unfunded) wars, as well as without an unfunded prescription drug plan.Hope that puts things in perspective for ya.:2wave:
 
Conservative said:
calling me dumb? LOL, what does the 1.7 trillion dollar debt that Reagan generated have to do with 2011 dollars? You think the debt service is paid on 2011 dollars? Where is the answer?
Click to expand...

Um, please tell me you're not that dim. You can't compare raw numbers across a 30-year time span without converting them into constant dollars.

So, adjusted for inflation, Reagan's debt comes out to about $3 trillion. And of course the cost to service it was much much higher due to the much higher interest rates.
 
treedancer said:
$1.00 in 1981 has the same buying power as $2.50 in 2010.

SOoo...that $1.7 trillion is $4.5 trillion in 2011.Like i said i kinda like to put things in perspective. Just think, the gipper managed all of that without two and a half (unfunded) wars, as well as without an unfunded prescription drug plan.Hope that puts things in perspective for ya.:2wave:
Click to expand...

You really have no idea what you are talking about as apparently your youth prevents you from knowing what Reagan inherited. It does appear that like far too many you will do anything to divert from the Obama record and I don't blame you. What you failed to recognize is that Reagan economy generated 17 million jobs, doubled GDP, and had a 60% increase in Income Tax revenue. Interesting how you tell only part of the story.
 
AdamT said:
Um, please tell me you're not that dim. You can't compare raw numbers across a 30-year time span without converting them into constant dollars.

So, adjusted for inflation, Reagan's debt comes out to about $3 trillion. And of course the cost to service it was much much higher due to the much higher interest rates.
Click to expand...

What was the doubling of GDP and 17 million jobs created equate to in 2011 dollars and numbers? Why are you so concerned about what you perceive that Reagan did when you ignore what Obama is doing? You can run and you can divert, but you cannot hide the Obama record.
 
AdamT said:
Um, please tell me you're not that dim. You can't compare raw numbers across a 30-year time span without converting them into constant dollars.

So, adjusted for inflation, Reagan's debt comes out to about $3 trillion. And of course the cost to service it was much much higher due to the much higher interest rates.
Click to expand...

Its been a long day Adam.No nap, worked thru lunch fighten the good fight for rush and glen.:mrgreen:
 
Conservative said:
You really have no idea what you are talking about as apparently your youth prevents you from knowing what Reagan inherited. It does appear that like far too many you will do anything to divert from the Obama record and I don't blame you. What you failed to recognize is that Reagan economy generated 17 million jobs, doubled GDP, and had a 60% increase in Income Tax revenue. Interesting how you tell only part of the story.
Click to expand...

Here, do the math for yourself before you go to bed.


DollarTimes.com | Inflation Calculator
 
PeteEU said:
Conservative rule 1.

Deny everything and blame everyone else.
Click to expand...

If true then the one term Marxist president Obama must be a conservative. Please remember to apologize often, bow to foreign leaders and kiss the backsides of this nation's enemies.
 
Conservative said:
What exactly was the Democrat position on subprime mortgages? Keep digging and continue to divert from the Hope and Change President and his disastrous results.
Click to expand...
Hope and Change!

I thought it was Hoax and Chains.
 
Yeah I looked at it and I noticed something very peculiar. The adjusted amounts are lower than the actual amounts. In other words, they are using the increases in inflation via cranking the printing presses to show a gamed decrease when adjusted. Id hate to think anyone would try to say with a straight face that spending decreased under Obama. Thats farcical on the face of it.

You have to be kidding me with those numbers, they are a joke.
 
AFAIK it is common practice to adjust for inflation, which, in any case, is very low.
 
*1 the vast majority of subprime was issued by non-CRA banks;
* 2what little subrime regulated banks did issue strongly outperformed non-regulated loans;
* 3no one had to twist the banks arms to give out loans; they were giving them to anyone who breathed (and I'm sure some who didn't).
Click to expand...

1. Thats not important. The percentage of failures is whats important. CRA driven loans had a substantially higher fail rate.
2. Not true. Did you read the article I cited? WaMu wrote $1 billion and caved. BofA showed the 3% of CRA regulated loans were causing 29% of their loan failures. You can twist the metrics to make it appear that CRA regulated banks and loans did perform better but reality is that did not.
3. Again reading comprehension---if you mandate targets for fed prime rates, banks will comply.

Stop relying on sources based only in government (which wants more than anything to sweep this under the rug) and far left sites that want to blame it on the right. Look at sites that truly want to understand the root causes and avoid them in the future. Which you decidedly are not doing.

My last point would be along these lines...if the CRA didnt cause the housing bubble and subsequent failure, what exactly did?
Dont go for predatory lending, being able to bundle loans to GSEs was part and parcel of the CRA scheme so banks had somewhere to dump loans.
Go look at a comparison of the pricing index versus home prices and you will see exactly when it leaps off and why the correction is taking so long.
 
AdamT said:
AFAIK it is common practice to adjust for inflation, which, in any case, is very low.
Click to expand...

LOL...3091 adjusted to 2392. Thats a 22% adjustment. Along those lines they adjusted 2.6 trillion off Obamas debt in that chart. I think Ill just call shenanigans, seems like someone cooked the numb....oh wait its based on government figures isn't it? Of course its cooked.


-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom