• 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. Economy Up 3.5% in 3rd Quarter, Capping Best 6 Months in Over a Decade[W:75]

Considering the ****hole we were in just before Bush left office I'd say pretty damn good!

I see. So, the Bush economy was good for longer than the Obama economy can be considered good...two years from now, results in Bush bad, Obama good.

The Bush economy was good for roughly 7 of 8 years, while at best (assuming constant growth from now on) you could say that Obama's was good for two years.
 
There's no substance to the energy independence argument. International firms produce, refine and sell oil on the international market at international market prices. Even with more production and refining happening in the US, the supplies are still subject to the international economy, including price swings due to middle eastern oil production/sales. It doesn't matter where the oil is coming from: when there is a sharp drop in supply, oil prices will spike. So energy independence is impossible, for any country.

The why is an increase in US oil production a major factor in this recent growth?
 
LOL....sure...your view of "Obama is stopping US oil production" is not an ideological argument.

No. The fact that the Obama administration has sought to restrict and slow domestic energy production is history, not ideological.

Similarly, your inability to accurately cite what was stated is unsurprising and partisan, but not ideological.

:) Hope that helps.
 
That's a good number. What exactly did Obama have to do with it though?

Isn't it great that you can blame Obama for a bad economy and in the same breath deny Obama any credit when things improve?
 
"The bad buck stops there, the good one doesn't".......or....."You didn't (build) earn that!"

I get that the president gets the credit/blame for the economy but that doesn't mean it is deserved. I think if we were seeing these kinds of numbers early in Obamas term the link to his particular policies would be more direct. But economic growth occurring now when Obama hasn't had an economic initiative of any kind in several years is a bit more dubious.
 
Isn't it great that you can blame Obama for a bad economy and in the same breath deny Obama any credit when things improve?
Except I didn't do that. I personally don't think the economy is all that bad. In fact, I thinks its quite good. It is not growing as rapidly as I think it should but the economy overall is quite strong. I give credit for that to the American free market system, not Obama.
 
There's no substance to the energy independence argument. International firms produce, refine and sell oil on the international market at international market prices. Even with more production and refining happening in the US, the supplies are still subject to the international economy, including price swings due to middle eastern oil production/sales. It doesn't matter where the oil is coming from: when there is a sharp drop in supply, oil prices will spike. So energy independence is impossible, for any country.

From a national security perspective, you are incorrect - there are many benefits of energy independence, or, at least, dependence upon non-psychotic dictatorships. If you disagree, feel free to question Eastern Europe about their relations with Russia.

From an economic standpoint, GDP is increased (note: title of the thread) when exports rise relative to imports. So reducing imports of oil does indeed increase GDP relative to baseline, especially in the context of rising domestic production.

From a supply/demand standpoint, increasing supply also reduces gas prices relative to the baseline of where they would otherwise be, given demand.


So...... in fact, it turns out, there is quite a lot of substance to the energy independence argument.
 
Actually, right now and for the past few years, the GOP controlled House has had more of an impact on US demand than the POTUS.

:lol: the House can't do anything - you can't govern from one half of one branch of the three branches of the Federal Government. Furthermore, this President has overseen a vast expansion of the Executive into Legislative powers.

Again, the US House has had more impact on US demand. An ideological view that ignores the global macro realities.

which is A) false, B) does not speak to whether or not businesses were succeeding in spite of the Administration, and C) does not speak to the specific example of the Fracking industry, which is.

Um, the Dick Cheney is notorious for his rejection of reducing oil consumption, and like you, wants to focus on supply.

I'm on board with Dick then. I could care less about which form of energy we are consuming - only that it is plentiful, cheap, and safe.
 
From a national security perspective, you are incorrect - there are many benefits of energy independence, or, at least, dependence upon non-psychotic dictatorships. If you disagree, feel free to question Eastern Europe about their relations with Russia.

But that isn't really true given the fact that should there be any supply shocks due to national security issues, the price of oil is still going to go up pretty significantly.

From an economic standpoint, GDP is increased (note: title of the thread) when exports rise relative to imports. So reducing imports of oil does indeed increase GDP relative to baseline, especially in the context of rising domestic production.

Yes but that isn't really relevant as I said earlier, because the price of oil is independent from where it is produced/refined.

From a supply/demand standpoint, increasing supply also reduces gas prices relative to the baseline of where they would otherwise be, given demand.

So...... in fact, it turns out, there is quite a lot of substance to the energy independence argument.

Obviously an increase in the supply of oil, ceteris paribus, will reduce the price. However, now you're just stating truisms that aren't relevant to the fact that the US will always and forever be dependent on the international economy for its oil, as will every other country on earth.
 
Isn't it great that you can blame Obama for a bad economy and in the same breath deny Obama any credit when things improve?

Because the increase is only on private lands that the administration cant inhibit.
And as we have begun exporting so much it conceals the sinking exports of everything else.
the inly impact the administration has had is negative.
 
No. The fact that the Obama administration has sought to restrict and slow domestic energy production is history, not ideological.
Yes, the framing of the argument, ignoring any causes of any past decisions, is ideologically driven. But go ahead and continue to reduce your argument to avoid the appearance of ideology.

Similarly, your inability to accurately cite what was stated is unsurprising and partisan, but not ideological.
Your semantic nonsense shot itself in the foot, partisanship (which your posts are ironically filled with) is ideological.
Hope that helps.
Your argument, as usual, needs work.
 
Yes, the framing of the argument, ignoring any causes of any past decisions, is ideologically driven.

Let me get this straight. Are you arguing that referencing the Administrations' stated goal of hampering US energy production is an ideological argument?

But go ahead and continue to reduce your argument to avoid the appearance of ideology.

Dude.
Define: Ideology
i·de·ol·o·gy
ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/
noun
noun: ideology; plural noun: ideologies

  • 1.
    a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
    "the ideology of republicanism"
    synonyms:beliefs, ideas, ideals, principles, ethics, morals; Moredoctrine, creed, credo, faith, teaching, theory, philosophy;
    tenets, canon(s);
    conviction(s), persuasion;
    informalism
    "the party has to jettison outdated ideology and give up its stranglehold on power"




    • the ideas and manner of thinking characteristic of a group, social class, or individual.
      "a critique of bourgeois ideology"


    • archaic
      visionary speculation, especially of an unrealistic or idealistic nature.





  • 2.
    archaic
    the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature.






You fail.
 
:lol: the House can't do anything - you can't govern from one half of one branch of the three branches of the Federal Government. Furthermore, this President has overseen a vast expansion of the Executive into Legislative powers.
Uh....the context was economic activity, specifically demand....and the GOP House has been THE stumbling block to any and all significant measures to increase demand.



which is A) false, B) does not speak to whether or not businesses were succeeding in spite of the Administration, and C) does not speak to the specific example of the Fracking industry, which is.
You are still ignoring that macro environment drives the decisions whether to frack or not, those far outstrip what the admin has or has not done in regard to fracking. Further, local and state govt decisions on the banning or allowance of fracking has had much more direct effect on whether it happens or not....at all. And again, as the price of oil comes down, the economics of fracking become less profitable. From what I have read, it only makes sense in the lowest cost areas when the price remains above $80-$85....that is when the locals allow the depletion/polluting of ground water and the burning off of NG (no capture), etc....the "externalities" that some want to ignore.



I'm on board with Dick then. I could care less about which form of energy we are consuming - only that it is plentiful, cheap, and safe.
I know you are with the Dick (again, "not" ideologically driven!), and are want to ignore externalities (they aren't cheap).
 
Uh....the context was economic activity, specifically demand....and the GOP House has been THE stumbling block to any and all significant measures to increase demand.

Ah. You are blaiming the House for solidifying astronomically high spending rates because they didn't agree with the President to implement super astronomically high spending rates? :lol: yeah. That'll fly.

POTUS ramped up federal expenditures, and the House GOP at best stopped him from doing any more. So even your own argument leaves POTUS holding the bag on that front :)

You are still ignoring that macro environment that drives the decisions whether to frack or not, those far outstrip what the admin has or has not done in regard to fracking.

I think you are either deliberately misreading, or suffering from short-term memory loss. The point is not that US Fracking has failed, it is that it has succeeded in spite of the President.
 
This is good news.
Hey, though, how does this compare to other Recoveries?
It doesn't, as the 2008 - 2009 economic & financial crisis was a once in a generation event.
Exactly right.
This was no ordinary recession.
2008 was a Mitigated-1929 event because the FED knew what to do this time.
Ergo we did MUCH better than the 'Dead Decade' of the 30s.

It's especially good in the face of/despite the Rest of the Planet being Dead in the water.
However, I don't know how long it can continue with that Int'l circumstance.
Fracking/O&G production has been our ace-in-the-hole. Maybe half the growth.

And low Oil prices are a Net stimulus to the rest of our and many economies. IOW, a Stealth QE4 has begun.
 
Last edited:
Let me get this straight. Are you arguing that referencing the Administrations' stated goal of hampering US energy production is an ideological argument?
I'm sure you can find some out of context absolutist "statement" to "justify" your ideologically driven argument....of this I have no doubt.



Dude.
You fail.
Dude, you failed to show that your argument is not ideologically driven....or that partisanship is not at base about ideology.
 
I'm sure you can find some out of context absolutist "statement" to "justify" your ideologically driven argument....of this I have no doubt.

Dude. If I was attempting to explain how things happened, that would be an ideological argument. Here I am pointing out that things happened. That is a historical argument.

You seem to have confused "ideology" with "partisanship".

Dude, you failed to show that your argument is not ideologically driven....or that partisanship is not at base about ideology.

Partisanship is about loyalty to a group. Ideology is a set of beliefs.
 
Ah. You are blaiming the House for solidifying astronomically high spending rates because they didn't agree with the President to implement super astronomically high spending rates? :lol: yeah. That'll fly.
Whu...? I thought the GOP crowing about limiting the budget to near austerity levels....was being done by the GOP.

The argument is, that when an economy is experiencing slack demand, the govt should step up, otherwise you experience long extended slow recoveries. I really hope you are not going to require graphs to show the flattening of spending to see this basic fact.

POTUS ramped up federal expenditures, and the House GOP at best stopped him from doing any more. So even your own argument leaves POTUS holding the bag on that front :)
If you are admitting what I said, I'm fine with that. The "ramping" was emergency short term increases in response to the bag Bush handed off.

CBO2.jpg


Do we REALLY have this discussion AGAIN?



I think you are either deliberately misreading, or suffering from short-term memory loss. The point is not that US Fracking has failed, it is that it has succeeded in spite of the President.
Irony again, there was never an argument that "fracking failed" in any aspect from me. Maybe you need to brush up on your own advice.
 
Except I didn't do that. I personally don't think the economy is all that bad. In fact, I thinks its quite good. It is not growing as rapidly as I think it should but the economy overall is quite strong. I give credit for that to the American free market system, not Obama.

That argument can be applied to all presidents. If that's your point, then we agree.
 
Dude. If I was attempting to explain how things happened, that would be an ideological argument. Here I am pointing out that things happened. That is a historical argument.
That is assuming that you have either a clear, partisan free non ideological driven historical analysis.....and when you admit that your argument has the Dick as guiding base....well frankly duder...it is not.

You seem to have confused "ideology" with "partisanship".
Partisanship is about loyalty to a group. Ideology is a set of beliefs.
Um, you are leaving out the fact that the partisan "group" is united ....wait for it.....under an ideology.
 
That is assuming that you have either a clear, partisan free non ideological driven historical analysis.....and when you admit that your argument has the Dick as guiding base....well frankly duder...it is not.

:roll: whatever. Enjoy your troll.
 
:roll: whatever. Enjoy your troll.
Wow, as if your posts are not designed to express your ideological views and to attempt to skewer the opposition.

FFS, if you think I'm just trolling, report me....otherwise, it is just the last refuge of a coward.
 
Wow, as if your posts are not designed to express your ideological views and to attempt to skewer the opposition.

FFS, if you think I'm just trolling, report me....otherwise, it is just the last refuge of a coward.

Dude you are deliberately misquoting me and refusing to answer whether or not you think it is an ideological position that the Obama administration has been doing what Obama has said it would be doing. Report you? nah - the credibility you are hurting is your own.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cut out the personal stuff and stick to the topic.
 
Back
Top Bottom