• 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!

Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

Goodness, you're comparing apples and dump trucks. The recessions had different causes and were completely different in kind. The Reagan era recession was marked by runaway inflation. This last one was a WORLD WIDE credit bubble bursting, with a deflationary spiral the biggest risk. Again, the last time that a credit bubble burst, we had the Great Depression. That's just a start of the differences, in our economy and the worldwide economy, etc.

A worldwide credit bubble that only affected people who owned homes and businesses but not the entire consumer driven economy. Again, leadership and economic policies are being ignored as you simply look at results. Obama prolonged the recession whereas Reagan policies got us out of it. I own a home, I didn't sell my home, I lost nothing just like millions and millions of others.
 
What you are ignoring is leadership and economic policy. Pointing out the worse numbers today are an indication of poor leadership and poor economic policy not the severity of the recession. How can anyone say that this recession with a 12 misery index was worse than the 81-82 recession with a misery index that exceeded 20? We elect leaders to implement economic policies to improve our economy not the incompetent we elected in 2008 who prolonged the recession.

The misery index is ONE number. No serious person looks at one number to compare things like recessions. And the "misery index" hit a peak of 20, then immediately recovered as inflation was brought under control because of tight Federal Reserve policies. Reagan did nothing to bring that part of the "misery index" under control. Furthermore, his approach was classic Keynesian stimulus - increase spending, cut taxes. We did a lot of that in response to the debt bubble bursting.

And what could Bush or Obama have done to bring employment immediately back? The debt bubble was real and simply could not be solved except to let that debt slowly recover to manageable levels. Look around the world. Which countries with a similar debt bubble bursting had quicker recoveries?
 
A worldwide credit bubble that only affected people who owned homes and businesses but not the entire consumer driven economy. Again, leadership and economic policies are being ignored as you simply look at results. Obama prolonged the recession whereas Reagan policies got us out of it. I own a home, I didn't sell my home, I lost nothing just like millions and millions of others.

Say what? "Only" affected home owners and businesses? LMAO. If you didn't buy a house during the late 70s, early 80s interest rate spike, it didn't affect you either. Not many people had credit cards back then or high debt levels, so it only affected those who had to incur or roll over debt during that window. My parents bought their house in 1971. During that spike, they still had their 1971 level mortgage interest rate and didn't suffer a bit. I know they had no credit card debt to speak of...
 
Not that the "misery index" holds any real value, or meaning, but it's funny you went out of your way to bring it up,
and in the process, told a lie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics)#Misery_index_-_era_by_U.S_president

Yes, I made a mistake the misery index did not exceed 20% but came close and was well over 19 compared to the 12 plus Obama inherited. My mistake and my apology. See how easy that was to admit you are wrong? Keep ignoring the point of leadership and economic policy, what was the misery index after Reagan's economic policies were fully implemented? When the banks wouldn't lend money what did Reagan do? Cut taxes that allowed people to keep more of what they earned and that had the same affect. People spent their money which created the save affect as lending money

Liberals always have a problem with people keeping more of what they earn and therein lies the difference in "leaders" Keep buying the rhetoric of this Administration along with the poor economic policies and incompetence.
 
The misery index is ONE number. No serious person looks at one number to compare things like recessions. And the "misery index" hit a peak of 20, then immediately recovered as inflation was brought under control because of tight Federal Reserve policies. Reagan did nothing to bring that part of the "misery index" under control. Furthermore, his approach was classic Keynesian stimulus - increase spending, cut taxes. We did a lot of that in response to the debt bubble bursting.

And what could Bush or Obama have done to bring employment immediately back? The debt bubble was real and simply could not be solved except to let that debt slowly recover to manageable levels. Look around the world. Which countries with a similar debt bubble bursting had quicker recoveries?

while your points have merit, please don't fall victim to Conservative's inane BS. The misery index was never 20 under St. Reagan.
 
Yes, I made a mistake the misery index did not exceed 20% but came close and was well over 19 compared to the 12 plus Obama inherited. My mistake and my apology. See how easy that was to admit you are wrong? Keep ignoring the point of leadership and economic policy, what was the misery index after Reagan's economic policies were fully implemented? When the banks wouldn't lend money what did Reagan do? Cut taxes that allowed people to keep more of what they earned and that had the same affect. People spent their money which created the save affect as lending money

Liberals always have a problem with people keeping more of what they earn and therein lies the difference in "leaders" Keep buying the rhetoric of this Administration along with the poor economic policies and incompetence.

19.33 is "well over 19" but 12.97 is "12 plus"

intellectual dishonesty at its finest, folks.
 
The misery index is ONE number. No serious person looks at one number to compare things like recessions. And the "misery index" hit a peak of 20, then immediately recovered as inflation was brought under control because of tight Federal Reserve policies. Reagan did nothing to bring that part of the "misery index" under control. Furthermore, his approach was classic Keynesian stimulus - increase spending, cut taxes. We did a lot of that in response to the debt bubble bursting.

And what could Bush or Obama have done to bring employment immediately back? The debt bubble was real and simply could not be solved except to let that debt slowly recover to manageable levels. Look around the world. Which countries with a similar debt bubble bursting had quicker recoveries?

Really? so people don't compare the affects of a recession to their own economic conditions? Therein is another difference between conservatives and liberals. conservatives understand leadership and the U.S. economy whereas liberals understand one thing, spending in the name of compassion.

When you get a tax cut what does that do to your paycheck and what do you do with the money? As I stated millions and millions of Americans weren't affected by this recession and you have yet to refute that. You don't get it and never will. This country's economy isn't built on govt. spending whereas most of the world's economy is. That is where austerity and the debt bubble hurt the most.
 
Say what? "Only" affected home owners and businesses? LMAO. If you didn't buy a house during the late 70s, early 80s interest rate spike, it didn't affect you either. Not many people had credit cards back then or high debt levels, so it only affected those who had to incur or roll over debt during that window. My parents bought their house in 1971. During that spike, they still had their 1971 level mortgage interest rate and didn't suffer a bit. I know they had no credit card debt to speak of...

So how did this recession affect your parents? Thanks for confirming that this recession didn't affect them much either whereas interest rates affected everything including costs of good thus the value of their dollar then compared to now.
 
The 2008 Was so bad it is called the Great Recession.

From the following article.

The Great Recession—which officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009—began with the bursting of an 8 trillion dollar housing bubble. The resulting loss of wealth led to sharp cutbacks in consumer spending. This loss of consumption, combined with the financial market chaos triggered by the bursting of the bubble, also led to a collapse in business investment. As consumer spending and business investment dried up, massive job loss followed. In 2008 and 2009, the U.S. labor market lost 8.4 million jobs, or 6.1% of all payroll employment. This was the most dramatic employment contraction (by far) of any recession since the Great Depression. By comparison, in the deep recession that began in 1981, job loss was 3.1%, or only about half as severe.

- See more at: The Great Recession | State of Working America
 
The 2008 Was so bad it is called the Great Recession.

From the following article.



- See more at: The Great Recession | State of Working America

ok, your point? Was there foreclosures during the 81-82? What did Obama do to solve the credit problem? ACA? Keep buying the liberal rhetoric and ignoring the liberal results

Why are you ignoring leadership and economic policies and focusing simply on the numbers? It is the recovery that is the problem and that stems from the lack of Obama and thus incompetence. when it was learned that the stimulus failed what did Obama do? ACA!!!!!! Make sense to you?
 
19.33 is "well over 19" but 12.97 is "12 plus"

intellectual dishonesty at its finest, folks.

Oh, good Lord, the high was 19.7 and even if it was 19.3 that is higher than 13 isn't it? Such passion for liberalism and Obama ignoring his incompetence.
 
Oh, good Lord, the high was 19.7 and even if it was 19.3 that is higher than 13 isn't it? Such passion for liberalism and Obama ignoring his incompetence.

nope

Incompetence ? I'm pretty sure at least Obama can read a simple table on Wiki and not butcher it.
 
nope

Incompetence ? I'm pretty sure at least Obama can read a simple table on Wiki and not butcher it.

I think liberals like you will never get it or understand leadership or the lack of it. What you don't seem to understand is that the misery index under Carter went close to 22 percent in mid 1980 and it was that economy that Reagan inherited and it was Reagan leadership that had the greatest drop in that misery index. It was the misery index that most people felt during both recessions making the 81-82 worse but shorter because of leadership which is why Reagan won 49 states in 1984
 
nope

Incompetence ? I'm pretty sure at least Obama can read a simple table on Wiki and not butcher it.

Maybe Obama can read a chart but sure knows nothing about leading us to change the chart. Obama is incompetent and you don't seem to grasp that reality.
 
I think liberals like you will never get it or understand leadership or the lack of it. What you don't seem to understand is that the misery index under Carter went close to 22 percent in mid 1980 and it was that economy that Reagan inherited and it was Reagan leadership that had the greatest drop in that misery index. It was the misery index that most people felt during both recessions making the 81-82 worse but shorter because of leadership which is why Reagan won 49 states in 1984


What you don't seem to understand is that -- at no point in the last 2 pages of our "debate"--- did you show one ounce of intellectual honesty, refutation of my point, or coherent and germane discussion.
Do you even realize that in the above quote- where you try to demonize carter, you say "almost 22" (rounding up of 21.98), yet the whole thread you've been underselling this metric for Obama (12.97 gets rounded down, you never call it "almost 13").

LMAO
 
What you don't seem to understand is that -- at no point in the last 2 pages of our "debate"--- did you show one ounce of intellectual honesty, refutation of my point, or coherent and germane discussion.
Do you even realize that in the above quote- where you try to demonize carter, you say "almost 22" (rounding up of 21.98), yet the whole thread you've been underselling this metric for Obama (12.97 gets rounded down, you never call it "almost 13").

LMAO

that is your opinion based upon looking through a biased, partisan prism. Nice diversion though, where it is 19+ vs. 13- which one is worse?
 
that is your opinion based upon looking through a biased, partisan prism. Nice diversion though, where it is 19+ vs. 13- which one is worse?

It's not my opinion, they are your words.

Own them, and your intellectual dishonesty.
Quit moving the goalposts.
 
It's not my opinion, they are your words.

Own them, and your intellectual dishonesty.
Quit moving the goalposts.

So it is dishonest to make a mistake and admit it? Liberals certainly have a different standard than most people. The issue is which recession was worse and you base your on the lack of leadership and poor economic policies vs. mine which is based upon good leadership and good economic policies that generated actual positive results. Reagan took a misery index that was 21+ in Mid 1980, 19.3 when he took office down to 9.7 whereas Obama took the misery index from 7.8 to 7.6. now spin that one.
 
So it is dishonest to make a mistake and admit it? Liberals certainly have a different standard than most people. The issue is which recession was worse and you base your on the lack of leadership and poor economic policies vs. mine which is based upon good leadership and good economic policies that generated actual positive results. Reagan took a misery index that was 21+ in Mid 1980, 19.3 when he took office down to 9.7 whereas Obama took the misery index from 7.8 to 7.6. now spin that one.


So the misery index is lower under Obama than Reagan.

Nice argument AGAINST conservatism. WE NEED MORE OBAMAS AND LESS REAGAN MISERY!
 
So it is dishonest to make a mistake and admit it? Liberals certainly have a different standard than most people. The issue is which recession was worse and you base your on the lack of leadership and poor economic policies vs. mine which is based upon good leadership and good economic policies that generated actual positive results. Reagan took a misery index that was 21+ in Mid 1980, 19.3 when he took office down to 9.7 whereas Obama took the misery index from 7.8 to 7.6. now spin that one.

The current misery index is actually 5.2% (5.4% unemployment and a -0.2% inflation rate). Misery Index
 
Last edited:
Really? so people don't compare the affects of a recession to their own economic conditions? Therein is another difference between conservatives and liberals. conservatives understand leadership and the U.S. economy whereas liberals understand one thing, spending in the name of compassion.

When you get a tax cut what does that do to your paycheck and what do you do with the money? As I stated millions and millions of Americans weren't affected by this recession and you have yet to refute that. You don't get it and never will. This country's economy isn't built on govt. spending whereas most of the world's economy is. That is where austerity and the debt bubble hurt the most.

As far as I can tell, that's just you repeating a bunch of right wing talking points. Not a word addresses the two recessions, how they differed, or offers any suggestion about how Obama or any other world leader resolves a gigantic debt bubble bursting in 24 months or so. Again, the last time a debt bubble burst we had the Great Depression that lasted a decade or more, and was only really brought to an end with the massive, years long, debt financed stimulus spending of WWII.
 
Say what? "Only" affected home owners and businesses? LMAO. If you didn't buy a house during the late 70s, early 80s interest rate spike, it didn't affect you either. Not many people had credit cards back then or high debt levels, so it only affected those who had to incur or roll over debt during that window. My parents bought their house in 1971. During that spike, they still had their 1971 level mortgage interest rate and didn't suffer a bit. I know they had no credit card debt to speak of...

Exactly.
We built our first family house 1973.
The high interest rate of the late 70s early 80s did not affect us personally.
 
So the misery index is lower under Obama than Reagan.

Nice argument AGAINST conservatism. WE NEED MORE OBAMAS AND LESS REAGAN MISERY!

Yep, you have been indoctrinated well and Gruber was absolutely correct. I gave you the link to the deficit by day and debt by year. If there was a surplus the debt wouldn't increase but it did, why? If there was a surplus the debt service would be on a lower debt, but it wasn't, why? Why is it that the Treasury Dept. doesn't show the yearly surplus you claim and why is it that the revenue you posted doesn't equal the budget amount as listed on the U.S. Treasury website? Have you called them and told them we paid too much debt service during the Clinton years and to correct their website on actual deficit numbers?

Do you realize that a civics class will give you the definition of public debt and inter-government holdings? You are right, we need bigger govt. and less personal responsibility to create that liberal utopia that I know exists somewhere in the world. Please tell me what country that is, Greece?
 
The current misery index is actually 5.2% (5.4% unemployment and a -0.2% inflation rate). Misery Index

Yeah, that is great it dropped 2 points under Obama and 9.6 under Reagan so obviously we need less Reagan and more Obama, LOL. What people like you do is read the headlines and ignore the content. Do you know what a discouraged worker is? How about what under employed means? That is the Obama economy and the low expectations of liberalism. You represent them well.
 
As far as I can tell, that's just you repeating a bunch of right wing talking points. Not a word addresses the two recessions, how they differed, or offers any suggestion about how Obama or any other world leader resolves a gigantic debt bubble bursting in 24 months or so. Again, the last time a debt bubble burst we had the Great Depression that lasted a decade or more, and was only really brought to an end with the massive, years long, debt financed stimulus spending of WWII.

The credit crisis was averted by TARP, nothing Obama did brought us out of the recession, that is reality. His stimulus led to 1.3 million discouraged workers and didn't create the taxpayers projected yet today you continue to buy the projections from this Administration and CBO which gets their assumptions from this Administration and Congress. What you don't seem to understand is results are generated by economic policies and the fact that the current recession lasted longer and the recovery weak because of economic policies.

Why was Obama elected? you point to the current slow recovery as an indictment of a severe recession and ignore the reason you voted for Obama, to bring us out of that recession, he failed and the recovery was the worst on record due to poor economic policy and incompetence.
 
Back
Top Bottom