|
|
On October 14 2012 17:00 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:16 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On October 14 2012 05:06 sam!zdat wrote:
Can we give up this idea that there is a meaningful correlation between who's president and the "state of the economy" (expressed, of course, as a one-dimensional value)? There have been 21 major recession in the US. The first 18 happened in the first 150 years, and all of them ended in under 4 years from their peaks without any government help. When the stock market crashed in the 20's, unemployment spiked to 9.8%, and then 6 months later, it was down to 6%. Then the government passed a 20% tariff on all imports, and unemployed shot up to double digits, and didn't leave for the next decade. Then we had the Reagan recession, in which unemployment went back to relatively normal levels 4 years after its peak. So we have 19 recessions that all had unemployment coming down from its peak in 4 or less years, often with double digit unemployment. We have a 20th where unemployment came down in 6 months, and then skyrocketed when the government decided to do something. And now we have today's unemployment. Given the history of recessions in this country, who do you think is to blame, and what "should" the unemployment rate be? The answer is Bush, and every single republican and democrat that voted with him, and Obama, and every republican and democrat that voted with him. Also note that presidents and other politicians aren't really empowered enough to create unemployment, but they can extended by about 15-20 years if you look at FDR. (not that any of this is directed at you, just yours seems to be the latest post on this subject). Recession caused by financial crisses are different: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=717#14332And the Great Depression was getting better until FDR pivoted to austerity in 1937, which turned a recovering economy into a double-dip recession. It was ended by the biggest fiscal stimulus ever -- WW2. Last I checked, that's exactly Romney wants going to do.
You realize that this is not only a terrible mischaracterization of events but that you're also implying a solution that is totally unacceptable, yes?
|
On October 15 2012 00:48 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 00:27 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 00:20 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2012 00:07 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 23:32 kwizach wrote:On October 14 2012 22:51 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 21:22 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 19:57 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 16:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 03:13 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
I agree, I think people will be very shocked at how hilarious all of this seems to Biden.
[quote]
Because Biden only tells the truth?
"We weren't told they wanted more security " for diplomatic facilities in Libya.
BULL SHIT. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/oct/11/fact-checking-vice-presidential-debate-between-joe/http://factcheck.org/2012/10/veep-debate-violations/When we were accusing Romney and Ryan of lying in the debates, you guys didn't seem to want to talk about the truth back then, only the optics. Oh, so you suddenly want to talk about the truth now? Before the debates, I haven't seen team Republican in this thread arguing that Romney won't give tax cuts to rich people or that Romney is going to cover preexisting conditions. Since then, I've seen some of you guys parroting these new campaign lies as if they always were. For example, the latter is disgraceful. Romney's plan doesn't cover preexisting conditions. It's only if you have continuous coverage, which is the same as the law before Obamacare, it's not what is meant and understood by "covering preexisting conditions", the way Obamacare does. So people could die and be denied medical treatment, if they voted for Romney believing his plan covers preexisting conditions. People could die because of this Romney lie. That's how shameful and shocking this lie is. Do you honestly and seriously believe that Biden is laughing at the issues as that ad alleges? Also, there's no evidence that requests for extra security at the Libyan embassy made it to Biden's or Obama's desk. Is it even standard protocol that the president needs to approve requests for extra embassy security? There doesn't need to be evidence that the extra security at the Libyan embassy made it to Biden's or Obama's desk. If it isn't standard protocol for the president needing to approve those requests, why would he even say "we never knew about that"? That sounds like a pretty irrelevant thing to say if it isn't standard protocol. "We didn't know about those things that don't come to the execute desk." No fucking shit? Your administration still knows asshole. "It's possible that Biden and Obama were unaware of that request. Still, it was made in the State Department, which is part of the Obama administration. Even if it didn't make its way up through the bureaucracy, a request was made." Biden said: "We weren't told they wanted more security there." The state department was told, as documented in the recent hearing. But there's nothing to suggest Biden and Obama were told, or that it is normal procedure that they should be told. Why didn't he say "Our State Department officials were told, but it never reached us"? Why didn't he say "that kind of information doesn't reach the President or myself normally"? Simply saying "we didn't know" is the most dishonest and disgusting answer for a failed foreign policy. First of all, you don't even know if requests were made specifically about the Bengazi facility (it's very possible, but nobody so far in this thread seems to have posted evidence that this was the case). From the politifact article: "the number of guards at the Benghazi consulate when the attack occurred was at or near the number Nordstrom said were needed for that site". Second, Republicans are directly blaming Obama and Biden for decisions made by low-level Department of State employees who probably would be doing the exact same job if McCain and Sarah Palin were in office. I therefore find it perfectly normal for Biden to reply in the name of the White House, which the Republicans are blaming for the requests being denied. Finally, regarding what you call "a failed foreign policy", you have simply no idea what you're talking about. I call a foreign policy that involves covering up terrorist attacks by blaming it on an anti-islamic video a failed one Except that's not what we were talking about, since we were talking about Biden saying "we didn't know" with regards to the security requests. Also, in case you didn't follow the news, that terrorists are responsible for the death of the ambassador doesn't change the fact that there were plenty of protests (and violence during those protests) at the same time and in the days that followed against the US in several Arab countries, notably because of the video. And you still don't understand what "foreign policy" means. Actually what we are talking about is Joe Biden lying as a rebuttal to all the people crying "Lyin Ryan" as if the Obama administration is somehow about pure truth telling and "facts". Ryan said almost nothing accurately. People are used to misinformation and half-truths by politicians, but literally everything Ryan was saying was absolute bullshit. And he was planning on spewing out bullshit. That was his strategy going into the debate. He went on the news beforehand saying that "Well, I think their strategy is just going to be to call us liars." Why would you say that if you weren't planning on lying your ass off completely? And you're defending him. It's absolutely astonishing.
He was completely correct in his assessment of Biden's strategy:
"With all due respect, that’s a bunch of malarkey....not a single thing he said is accurate." At the outset of the debate, Biden tried to paint Ryan as a liar--when Biden, in fact, was the one lying. Ryan had pointed out: 1) that the White House had distanced itself from the Cairo embassy's apologies on 9/11; 2) that Obama had failed to speak up for Iranian protestors in 2009; 3) that the Obama administration called Syria's dictator a "reformer"; 4) and that the Obama administration is imposing defense cuts and projecting weakness. All of that is true.
I found Biden's lies about voting against funding the Iraq/Afghanistan wars and the Dem's portraying the terrorist attacks as protests to an anti-islamic video pretty astonishing.
|
On October 15 2012 01:33 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 00:48 DoubleReed wrote:On October 15 2012 00:27 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 00:20 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2012 00:07 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 23:32 kwizach wrote:On October 14 2012 22:51 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 21:22 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 19:57 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 16:49 paralleluniverse wrote:[quote] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/oct/11/fact-checking-vice-presidential-debate-between-joe/http://factcheck.org/2012/10/veep-debate-violations/When we were accusing Romney and Ryan of lying in the debates, you guys didn't seem to want to talk about the truth back then, only the optics. Oh, so you suddenly want to talk about the truth now? Before the debates, I haven't seen team Republican in this thread arguing that Romney won't give tax cuts to rich people or that Romney is going to cover preexisting conditions. Since then, I've seen some of you guys parroting these new campaign lies as if they always were. For example, the latter is disgraceful. Romney's plan doesn't cover preexisting conditions. It's only if you have continuous coverage, which is the same as the law before Obamacare, it's not what is meant and understood by "covering preexisting conditions", the way Obamacare does. So people could die and be denied medical treatment, if they voted for Romney believing his plan covers preexisting conditions. People could die because of this Romney lie. That's how shameful and shocking this lie is. Do you honestly and seriously believe that Biden is laughing at the issues as that ad alleges? Also, there's no evidence that requests for extra security at the Libyan embassy made it to Biden's or Obama's desk. Is it even standard protocol that the president needs to approve requests for extra embassy security? There doesn't need to be evidence that the extra security at the Libyan embassy made it to Biden's or Obama's desk. If it isn't standard protocol for the president needing to approve those requests, why would he even say "we never knew about that"? That sounds like a pretty irrelevant thing to say if it isn't standard protocol. "We didn't know about those things that don't come to the execute desk." No fucking shit? Your administration still knows asshole. "It's possible that Biden and Obama were unaware of that request. Still, it was made in the State Department, which is part of the Obama administration. Even if it didn't make its way up through the bureaucracy, a request was made." Biden said: "We weren't told they wanted more security there." The state department was told, as documented in the recent hearing. But there's nothing to suggest Biden and Obama were told, or that it is normal procedure that they should be told. Why didn't he say "Our State Department officials were told, but it never reached us"? Why didn't he say "that kind of information doesn't reach the President or myself normally"? Simply saying "we didn't know" is the most dishonest and disgusting answer for a failed foreign policy. First of all, you don't even know if requests were made specifically about the Bengazi facility (it's very possible, but nobody so far in this thread seems to have posted evidence that this was the case). From the politifact article: "the number of guards at the Benghazi consulate when the attack occurred was at or near the number Nordstrom said were needed for that site". Second, Republicans are directly blaming Obama and Biden for decisions made by low-level Department of State employees who probably would be doing the exact same job if McCain and Sarah Palin were in office. I therefore find it perfectly normal for Biden to reply in the name of the White House, which the Republicans are blaming for the requests being denied. Finally, regarding what you call "a failed foreign policy", you have simply no idea what you're talking about. I call a foreign policy that involves covering up terrorist attacks by blaming it on an anti-islamic video a failed one Except that's not what we were talking about, since we were talking about Biden saying "we didn't know" with regards to the security requests. Also, in case you didn't follow the news, that terrorists are responsible for the death of the ambassador doesn't change the fact that there were plenty of protests (and violence during those protests) at the same time and in the days that followed against the US in several Arab countries, notably because of the video. And you still don't understand what "foreign policy" means. Actually what we are talking about is Joe Biden lying as a rebuttal to all the people crying "Lyin Ryan" as if the Obama administration is somehow about pure truth telling and "facts". Ryan said almost nothing accurately. People are used to misinformation and half-truths by politicians, but literally everything Ryan was saying was absolute bullshit. And he was planning on spewing out bullshit. That was his strategy going into the debate. He went on the news beforehand saying that "Well, I think their strategy is just going to be to call us liars." Why would you say that if you weren't planning on lying your ass off completely? And you're defending him. It's absolutely astonishing. He was completely correct in his assessment of Biden's strategy: "With all due respect, that’s a bunch of malarkey....not a single thing he said is accurate." At the outset of the debate, Biden tried to paint Ryan as a liar--when Biden, in fact, was the one lying. Ryan had pointed out: 1) that the White House had distanced itself from the Cairo embassy's apologies on 9/11; 2) that Obama had failed to speak up for Iranian protestors in 2009; 3) that the Obama administration called Syria's dictator a "reformer"; 4) and that the Obama administration is imposing defense cuts and projecting weakness. All of that is true.
I have no idea what you're talking about with the White House distancing itself from the Cairo embassy's apologies. Are you talking about this? Because that's a lie.
I'll give you the Iran 2009 thing, fine. Although Obama toughened the talk when it became more clear how severe the human rights violations were.
Hillary Clinton said that members of both parties in Congress said that Syria's dictator was a 'reformer'. The Obama Administration didn't say that at all. That's a lie.
The Obama Administration is not projecting weakness. I have no idea what you're talking about. Making "cuts" to the military that the military itself asked for is not weakness. Imposing the toughest sanctions on Iran (I heard the rial is doing pretty good nowadays) is not projecting weakness. Gathering your allies back from the idiotic Bush Administration is not weakness. That is also a lie.
And those were probably the most factual things he said about the entire foreign policy conversation.
I found Biden's lies about voting against funding the Iraq/Afghanistan wars and the Dem's portraying the terrorist attacks as protests to an anti-islamic video pretty astonishing.
What lies about funding the Iraq/Afghan wars?
Edit: I also never understand the phrase "Four years closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon." It's so nonsensical, but I've heard being parroted by Ryan and some of the others.
|
People trot out the same sad attacks (or rather slander) on the Obama Administration's foreign policy day after day.
I'm getting increasingly irritated and want to know how ANY part of the very thin platform the Republicans have come up with is even viable. Foreign policy, economics, social policy (okay, some of that is up for debate) none of makes any sense.
|
In 2008 Obama had no record to speak of(which the media should have knocked into people but didn't) and that has definitely shown in his Presidency so don't be surprised if there's a lot of attacking.
|
Apologizing to Muslims for an individual's exercise of his free speech rights smells like weakness to me. Blaming the death of our ambassador on that video instead of terrorism also smells like weakness. Lying for weeks about the circumstances of the ambassador's death smells like weakness and incompetence.
|
On October 15 2012 02:18 ticklishmusic wrote:
People trot out the same sad attacks (or rather slander) on the Obama Administration's foreign policy day after day.
I'm getting increasingly irritated and want to know how ANY part of the very thin platform the Republicans have come up with is even viable. Foreign policy, economics, social policy (okay, some of that is up for debate) none of makes any sense.
It is a viable platform as long as you promise "Change"! There is a lot of entrenchment happening in this thread at the moment and a general lack of overall views.
Ryan was not very convincing in that debate with Biden, but calling any of them liars is just mudslinging. Ryan did not seem to have the numbers to throw back in the face of Biden and he waded through the debate on pure ideology. On the other hand Biden threw out numbers left and right with less of an eye at what they really were showing.
The real issue with foreign policy is that the wars are not really interesting. The real meat is on their relations with UN, NATO, EU and Israel regarding things like climate change, economic policy, trade, subsidies/support and syncronisation of laws. Without those issues the foreign policy will be about specific wordings in declarations and when to leave a country and when to invade a country. All of that is more speculative than realistically necessary.
|
|
|
On October 15 2012 03:44 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 02:18 ticklishmusic wrote:
People trot out the same sad attacks (or rather slander) on the Obama Administration's foreign policy day after day.
I'm getting increasingly irritated and want to know how ANY part of the very thin platform the Republicans have come up with is even viable. Foreign policy, economics, social policy (okay, some of that is up for debate) none of makes any sense. It is a viable platform as long as you promise "Change"! There is a lot of entrenchment happening in this thread at the moment and a general lack of overall views.
Correct. As I have been blue in the face saying, this election is a referendum on Obama. His record and performance are at issue. Romney just has to be a plausible alternative -- a very low threshold that he had crossed by the time that the first debate was over.
In fairness though, Obama hasn't done himself any favors with his completely inexplicable bungling of this mess in Libya. He has given Romney a very large opening to hit him on, particularly when anti-American sentiment has dramatically risen in the Middle East despite Obama's promises to restore our stature there.
Ryan was not very convincing in that debate with Biden, but calling any of them liars is just mudslinging. Ryan did not seem to have the numbers to throw back in the face of Biden and he waded through the debate on pure ideology. On the other hand Biden threw out numbers left and right with less of an eye at what they really were showing.
Yes, Ryan was very disappointing with his command of the facts given that he is supposed to be a policy wonk.
The real issue with foreign policy is that the wars are not really interesting. The real meat is on their relations with UN, NATO, EU and Israel regarding things like climate change, economic policy, trade, subsidies/support and syncronisation of laws. Without those issues the foreign policy will be about specific wordings in declarations and when to leave a country and when to invade a country. All of that is more speculative than realistically necessary.
I don't know about wars not being interesting and being a focal point of the foreign policy issues. Besides, the Obama administration has not exactly been good on the other items. For the most part, he has been absent.
|
On October 15 2012 00:27 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 00:20 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2012 00:07 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 23:32 kwizach wrote:On October 14 2012 22:51 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 21:22 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 19:57 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 16:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 03:13 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 02:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
I think this is going to be a really effective add. watching the debate, I didn't even realize that it was that bad; it's pretty clear that either 1) Biden is laughing at everything incredulously so as to create the image of Ryan being too ridiculous even to argue with, or 2) he seriously thinks all that stuff is funny.
I'm gonna channel Paul Ryan here real quick:
"The problem, Mr. Vice-President, is that the American people don't find lackluster job growth and dishonesty to be all that funny." I agree, I think people will be very shocked at how hilarious all of this seems to Biden. On October 14 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:
He's laughing at Ryan and his lies, not laughing at the issues.
I also don't recall you complaining about his laughing during the debate. Because Biden only tells the truth? "We weren't told they wanted more security " for diplomatic facilities in Libya. BULL SHIT. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/oct/11/fact-checking-vice-presidential-debate-between-joe/http://factcheck.org/2012/10/veep-debate-violations/When we were accusing Romney and Ryan of lying in the debates, you guys didn't seem to want to talk about the truth back then, only the optics. Oh, so you suddenly want to talk about the truth now? Before the debates, I haven't seen team Republican in this thread arguing that Romney won't give tax cuts to rich people or that Romney is going to cover preexisting conditions. Since then, I've seen some of you guys parroting these new campaign lies as if they always were. For example, the latter is disgraceful. Romney's plan doesn't cover preexisting conditions. It's only if you have continuous coverage, which is the same as the law before Obamacare, it's not what is meant and understood by "covering preexisting conditions", the way Obamacare does. So people could die and be denied medical treatment, if they voted for Romney believing his plan covers preexisting conditions. People could die because of this Romney lie. That's how shameful and shocking this lie is. Do you honestly and seriously believe that Biden is laughing at the issues as that ad alleges? Also, there's no evidence that requests for extra security at the Libyan embassy made it to Biden's or Obama's desk. Is it even standard protocol that the president needs to approve requests for extra embassy security? There doesn't need to be evidence that the extra security at the Libyan embassy made it to Biden's or Obama's desk. If it isn't standard protocol for the president needing to approve those requests, why would he even say "we never knew about that"? That sounds like a pretty irrelevant thing to say if it isn't standard protocol. "We didn't know about those things that don't come to the execute desk." No fucking shit? Your administration still knows asshole. "It's possible that Biden and Obama were unaware of that request. Still, it was made in the State Department, which is part of the Obama administration. Even if it didn't make its way up through the bureaucracy, a request was made." Biden said: "We weren't told they wanted more security there." The state department was told, as documented in the recent hearing. But there's nothing to suggest Biden and Obama were told, or that it is normal procedure that they should be told. Why didn't he say "Our State Department officials were told, but it never reached us"? Why didn't he say "that kind of information doesn't reach the President or myself normally"? Simply saying "we didn't know" is the most dishonest and disgusting answer for a failed foreign policy. First of all, you don't even know if requests were made specifically about the Bengazi facility (it's very possible, but nobody so far in this thread seems to have posted evidence that this was the case). From the politifact article: "the number of guards at the Benghazi consulate when the attack occurred was at or near the number Nordstrom said were needed for that site". Second, Republicans are directly blaming Obama and Biden for decisions made by low-level Department of State employees who probably would be doing the exact same job if McCain and Sarah Palin were in office. I therefore find it perfectly normal for Biden to reply in the name of the White House, which the Republicans are blaming for the requests being denied. Finally, regarding what you call "a failed foreign policy", you have simply no idea what you're talking about. I call a foreign policy that involves covering up terrorist attacks by blaming it on an anti-islamic video a failed one Except that's not what we were talking about, since we were talking about Biden saying "we didn't know" with regards to the security requests. Also, in case you didn't follow the news, that terrorists are responsible for the death of the ambassador doesn't change the fact that there were plenty of protests (and violence during those protests) at the same time and in the days that followed against the US in several Arab countries, notably because of the video. And you still don't understand what "foreign policy" means. Actually what we are talking about is Joe Biden lying as a rebuttal to all the people crying "Lyin Ryan" as if the Obama administration is somehow about pure truth telling and "facts".
I explained to you why he wasn't lying in the case we were discussing.
|
On October 14 2012 16:28 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 02:55 kwizach wrote:On October 14 2012 02:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 02:14 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 02:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 01:51 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 00:46 coverpunch wrote:On October 13 2012 17:55 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 13 2012 14:55 Silidons wrote:
[quote]
I'd say it looks pretty fucking amazing considering what happened in 07/08. What's amazing? That government employment ever since 1950 has never decreased with only 2 exceptions: the 80s recession and under Obama (spikes due to census hiring are ignored). The private sector is recovering strongly, stronger than under Bush in the 2000 recession, whereas government employment is falling due to state and local government austerity. Wait a second. You need to clarify a couple points in this post. For one, government employment has only decreased in two instances, but that's not by choice. Obama didn't say "I'm making sacrifices of public jobs for the greater good", just like Reagan didn't say that. Government employment decreased by necessity because tax revenues have dried up so much that the government has no choice but to trim jobs to salvage the budget. It's not a praiseworthy event, it's a measure of just how bad the recession was and how slow the recovery has been that tax revenue has not returned to pre-crisis levels. And on that note, by what measure has the private sector recovered more strongly than Bush in the 2001 recession? Because the government should be measuring it by tax revenue, since the rest of the presidential discussion is moot unless it can get the taxes to pay for any of it. On the first point, yes. There wasn't enough stimulus money given to state and local governments to retain public sector workers. But look at the other recessions (grey shaded areas). Every other recession, except the 80's one, didn't see a fall in public sector employment. On the second point, the measure is employment. See previous post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=781#15613 If I'm not mistaken the graph you previously posted shows employment since the start of presidential terms - not since the start of the recessions / recoveries. So it isn't apples to apples. There was a recession at the start of both the Bush and Obama term. Or should I just replace the word "recession" with "presidency" in my above post? No, the latest recession didn't start when Obama took office. According to the NBER the economy peaked in Dec. of '07 and if you look at BLS data employment started to tank in Feb. of '08. Conversely the NBER says that the economy peaked in Mar. of '01 for Bush and employment started to tank at that time too. So, there's about a 1 year timing issue just using presidential terms. He didn't say the recession started when Obama took office, he said there was a recession when he took office. Yes, but there wasn't a recession when Bush first took office. When Bush first took office the economy was at its peak. When Obama took office the economy was far closer to its bottom than its peak. So it isn't apples to apples. When you show a graph of employment by term you show the entire downturn in the '01 recession but you do not show the entire downturn of the latest recession. Can you stop nitpicking minor details that will change nothing? You can't change the fact that there is a upward trend under Bush and a downward trend under Obama for public sector employment to anything else by fudging with the dates. In fact, looking at the start of the recession isn't even useful, because the recession started before Obama, so you can't blame Obama for what happened then. But I've done it anyway, and as I've said above, it can't possibly change anything. The conclusion is the same, public sector employment fell under Obama and rose under Bush, whereas private sector employment recovered stronger under Obama. Data is from FRED as always.
You can't blame either Bush or Obama for either recession occurring. Presidents simply do not control economies to that extent. What you can be critical of a president over is how well they get the economy back on its feet.
Bush was criticized at the time for job growth being sluggish - it was called a "jobless recovery".
Job growth under Obama is even worse - so he should be criticized as well.
Does separating private from public employment change that fact? Nope.
|
Ryan's not actually a policy wonk. His 'plans' make no sense economically from any standpoint. Dig into any of his policy and they are completely unworkable. He doesn't deserve the title that's been bestowed to him. He's just a pretty face.
On October 15 2012 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 16:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 02:55 kwizach wrote:On October 14 2012 02:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 02:14 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 02:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 01:51 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 00:46 coverpunch wrote:On October 13 2012 17:55 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
What's amazing?
That government employment ever since 1950 has never decreased with only 2 exceptions: the 80s recession and under Obama (spikes due to census hiring are ignored).
The private sector is recovering strongly, stronger than under Bush in the 2000 recession, whereas government employment is falling due to state and local government austerity. Wait a second. You need to clarify a couple points in this post. For one, government employment has only decreased in two instances, but that's not by choice. Obama didn't say "I'm making sacrifices of public jobs for the greater good", just like Reagan didn't say that. Government employment decreased by necessity because tax revenues have dried up so much that the government has no choice but to trim jobs to salvage the budget. It's not a praiseworthy event, it's a measure of just how bad the recession was and how slow the recovery has been that tax revenue has not returned to pre-crisis levels. And on that note, by what measure has the private sector recovered more strongly than Bush in the 2001 recession? Because the government should be measuring it by tax revenue, since the rest of the presidential discussion is moot unless it can get the taxes to pay for any of it. On the first point, yes. There wasn't enough stimulus money given to state and local governments to retain public sector workers. But look at the other recessions (grey shaded areas). Every other recession, except the 80's one, didn't see a fall in public sector employment. On the second point, the measure is employment. See previous post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=781#15613 If I'm not mistaken the graph you previously posted shows employment since the start of presidential terms - not since the start of the recessions / recoveries. So it isn't apples to apples. There was a recession at the start of both the Bush and Obama term. Or should I just replace the word "recession" with "presidency" in my above post? No, the latest recession didn't start when Obama took office. According to the NBER the economy peaked in Dec. of '07 and if you look at BLS data employment started to tank in Feb. of '08. Conversely the NBER says that the economy peaked in Mar. of '01 for Bush and employment started to tank at that time too. So, there's about a 1 year timing issue just using presidential terms. He didn't say the recession started when Obama took office, he said there was a recession when he took office. Yes, but there wasn't a recession when Bush first took office. When Bush first took office the economy was at its peak. When Obama took office the economy was far closer to its bottom than its peak. So it isn't apples to apples. When you show a graph of employment by term you show the entire downturn in the '01 recession but you do not show the entire downturn of the latest recession. Can you stop nitpicking minor details that will change nothing? You can't change the fact that there is a upward trend under Bush and a downward trend under Obama for public sector employment to anything else by fudging with the dates. In fact, looking at the start of the recession isn't even useful, because the recession started before Obama, so you can't blame Obama for what happened then. But I've done it anyway, and as I've said above, it can't possibly change anything. The conclusion is the same, public sector employment fell under Obama and rose under Bush, whereas private sector employment recovered stronger under Obama. Data is from FRED as always. You can't blame either Bush or Obama for either recession occurring. Presidents simply do not control economies to that extent. What you can be critical of a president over is how well they get the economy back on its feet. Bush was criticized at the time for job growth being sluggish - it was called a "jobless recovery". Job growth under Obama is even worse - so he should be criticized as well. Does separating private from public employment change that fact? Nope.
Could you please actually discuss what's being said rather than going all over the place? You're making me dizzy.
|
On October 14 2012 17:00 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:16 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On October 14 2012 05:06 sam!zdat wrote:
Can we give up this idea that there is a meaningful correlation between who's president and the "state of the economy" (expressed, of course, as a one-dimensional value)? There have been 21 major recession in the US. The first 18 happened in the first 150 years, and all of them ended in under 4 years from their peaks without any government help. When the stock market crashed in the 20's, unemployment spiked to 9.8%, and then 6 months later, it was down to 6%. Then the government passed a 20% tariff on all imports, and unemployed shot up to double digits, and didn't leave for the next decade. Then we had the Reagan recession, in which unemployment went back to relatively normal levels 4 years after its peak. So we have 19 recessions that all had unemployment coming down from its peak in 4 or less years, often with double digit unemployment. We have a 20th where unemployment came down in 6 months, and then skyrocketed when the government decided to do something. And now we have today's unemployment. Given the history of recessions in this country, who do you think is to blame, and what "should" the unemployment rate be? The answer is Bush, and every single republican and democrat that voted with him, and Obama, and every republican and democrat that voted with him. Also note that presidents and other politicians aren't really empowered enough to create unemployment, but they can extended by about 15-20 years if you look at FDR. (not that any of this is directed at you, just yours seems to be the latest post on this subject). Recession caused by financial crisses are different: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=717#14332And the Great Depression was getting better until FDR pivoted to austerity in 1937, which turned a recovering economy into a double-dip recession. It was ended by the biggest fiscal stimulus ever -- WW2. Last I checked, that's exactly Romney wants going to do.
If I'm not mistaken both Obama and Romney want to cut the deficit.
WW2 is the best example of the folly of fiscal stimulus that I can think of.
|
On October 15 2012 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 16:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 02:55 kwizach wrote:On October 14 2012 02:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 02:14 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 02:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 01:51 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 00:46 coverpunch wrote:On October 13 2012 17:55 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
What's amazing?
That government employment ever since 1950 has never decreased with only 2 exceptions: the 80s recession and under Obama (spikes due to census hiring are ignored).
The private sector is recovering strongly, stronger than under Bush in the 2000 recession, whereas government employment is falling due to state and local government austerity. Wait a second. You need to clarify a couple points in this post. For one, government employment has only decreased in two instances, but that's not by choice. Obama didn't say "I'm making sacrifices of public jobs for the greater good", just like Reagan didn't say that. Government employment decreased by necessity because tax revenues have dried up so much that the government has no choice but to trim jobs to salvage the budget. It's not a praiseworthy event, it's a measure of just how bad the recession was and how slow the recovery has been that tax revenue has not returned to pre-crisis levels. And on that note, by what measure has the private sector recovered more strongly than Bush in the 2001 recession? Because the government should be measuring it by tax revenue, since the rest of the presidential discussion is moot unless it can get the taxes to pay for any of it. On the first point, yes. There wasn't enough stimulus money given to state and local governments to retain public sector workers. But look at the other recessions (grey shaded areas). Every other recession, except the 80's one, didn't see a fall in public sector employment. On the second point, the measure is employment. See previous post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=781#15613 If I'm not mistaken the graph you previously posted shows employment since the start of presidential terms - not since the start of the recessions / recoveries. So it isn't apples to apples. There was a recession at the start of both the Bush and Obama term. Or should I just replace the word "recession" with "presidency" in my above post? No, the latest recession didn't start when Obama took office. According to the NBER the economy peaked in Dec. of '07 and if you look at BLS data employment started to tank in Feb. of '08. Conversely the NBER says that the economy peaked in Mar. of '01 for Bush and employment started to tank at that time too. So, there's about a 1 year timing issue just using presidential terms. He didn't say the recession started when Obama took office, he said there was a recession when he took office. Yes, but there wasn't a recession when Bush first took office. When Bush first took office the economy was at its peak. When Obama took office the economy was far closer to its bottom than its peak. So it isn't apples to apples. When you show a graph of employment by term you show the entire downturn in the '01 recession but you do not show the entire downturn of the latest recession. Can you stop nitpicking minor details that will change nothing? You can't change the fact that there is a upward trend under Bush and a downward trend under Obama for public sector employment to anything else by fudging with the dates. In fact, looking at the start of the recession isn't even useful, because the recession started before Obama, so you can't blame Obama for what happened then. But I've done it anyway, and as I've said above, it can't possibly change anything. The conclusion is the same, public sector employment fell under Obama and rose under Bush, whereas private sector employment recovered stronger under Obama. Data is from FRED as always. You can't blame either Bush or Obama for either recession occurring. Presidents simply do not control economies to that extent. What you can be critical of a president over is how well they get the economy back on its feet. Bush was criticized at the time for job growth being sluggish - it was called a "jobless recovery". Job growth under Obama is even worse - so he should be criticized as well. Does separating private from public employment change that fact? Nope.
You don't think Bush deserves any blame?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=0
Trillions in war and tax cuts probably had something to do with it.
|
On October 15 2012 04:27 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 16:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 02:55 kwizach wrote:On October 14 2012 02:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 02:14 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 02:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 01:51 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 00:46 coverpunch wrote:
[quote]
Wait a second. You need to clarify a couple points in this post.
For one, government employment has only decreased in two instances, but that's not by choice. Obama didn't say "I'm making sacrifices of public jobs for the greater good", just like Reagan didn't say that. Government employment decreased by necessity because tax revenues have dried up so much that the government has no choice but to trim jobs to salvage the budget. It's not a praiseworthy event, it's a measure of just how bad the recession was and how slow the recovery has been that tax revenue has not returned to pre-crisis levels.
And on that note, by what measure has the private sector recovered more strongly than Bush in the 2001 recession? Because the government should be measuring it by tax revenue, since the rest of the presidential discussion is moot unless it can get the taxes to pay for any of it. On the first point, yes. There wasn't enough stimulus money given to state and local governments to retain public sector workers. But look at the other recessions (grey shaded areas). Every other recession, except the 80's one, didn't see a fall in public sector employment. On the second point, the measure is employment. See previous post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=781#15613 If I'm not mistaken the graph you previously posted shows employment since the start of presidential terms - not since the start of the recessions / recoveries. So it isn't apples to apples. There was a recession at the start of both the Bush and Obama term. Or should I just replace the word "recession" with "presidency" in my above post? No, the latest recession didn't start when Obama took office. According to the NBER the economy peaked in Dec. of '07 and if you look at BLS data employment started to tank in Feb. of '08. Conversely the NBER says that the economy peaked in Mar. of '01 for Bush and employment started to tank at that time too. So, there's about a 1 year timing issue just using presidential terms. He didn't say the recession started when Obama took office, he said there was a recession when he took office. Yes, but there wasn't a recession when Bush first took office. When Bush first took office the economy was at its peak. When Obama took office the economy was far closer to its bottom than its peak. So it isn't apples to apples. When you show a graph of employment by term you show the entire downturn in the '01 recession but you do not show the entire downturn of the latest recession. Can you stop nitpicking minor details that will change nothing? You can't change the fact that there is a upward trend under Bush and a downward trend under Obama for public sector employment to anything else by fudging with the dates. In fact, looking at the start of the recession isn't even useful, because the recession started before Obama, so you can't blame Obama for what happened then. But I've done it anyway, and as I've said above, it can't possibly change anything. The conclusion is the same, public sector employment fell under Obama and rose under Bush, whereas private sector employment recovered stronger under Obama. Data is from FRED as always. You can't blame either Bush or Obama for either recession occurring. Presidents simply do not control economies to that extent. What you can be critical of a president over is how well they get the economy back on its feet. Bush was criticized at the time for job growth being sluggish - it was called a "jobless recovery". Job growth under Obama is even worse - so he should be criticized as well. Does separating private from public employment change that fact? Nope. You don't think Bush deserves any blame? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=0Trillions in war and tax cuts probably had something to do with it.
Blame for the recession? Very little. The wars and tax cuts really had little to do with why the recession and financial crisis happened (overbuilding of houses, high commodity prices and mortgage fraud).
|
If anyone deserves blame for the housing bubble, it is all of the democrats who pushed the subprime market by encouraging mortgagors to give loans to unqualified homeowners.
|
On October 15 2012 04:06 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 00:27 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 00:20 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2012 00:07 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 23:32 kwizach wrote:On October 14 2012 22:51 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 21:22 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 19:57 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 16:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 03:13 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
I agree, I think people will be very shocked at how hilarious all of this seems to Biden.
[quote]
Because Biden only tells the truth?
"We weren't told they wanted more security " for diplomatic facilities in Libya.
BULL SHIT. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/oct/11/fact-checking-vice-presidential-debate-between-joe/http://factcheck.org/2012/10/veep-debate-violations/When we were accusing Romney and Ryan of lying in the debates, you guys didn't seem to want to talk about the truth back then, only the optics. Oh, so you suddenly want to talk about the truth now? Before the debates, I haven't seen team Republican in this thread arguing that Romney won't give tax cuts to rich people or that Romney is going to cover preexisting conditions. Since then, I've seen some of you guys parroting these new campaign lies as if they always were. For example, the latter is disgraceful. Romney's plan doesn't cover preexisting conditions. It's only if you have continuous coverage, which is the same as the law before Obamacare, it's not what is meant and understood by "covering preexisting conditions", the way Obamacare does. So people could die and be denied medical treatment, if they voted for Romney believing his plan covers preexisting conditions. People could die because of this Romney lie. That's how shameful and shocking this lie is. Do you honestly and seriously believe that Biden is laughing at the issues as that ad alleges? Also, there's no evidence that requests for extra security at the Libyan embassy made it to Biden's or Obama's desk. Is it even standard protocol that the president needs to approve requests for extra embassy security? There doesn't need to be evidence that the extra security at the Libyan embassy made it to Biden's or Obama's desk. If it isn't standard protocol for the president needing to approve those requests, why would he even say "we never knew about that"? That sounds like a pretty irrelevant thing to say if it isn't standard protocol. "We didn't know about those things that don't come to the execute desk." No fucking shit? Your administration still knows asshole. "It's possible that Biden and Obama were unaware of that request. Still, it was made in the State Department, which is part of the Obama administration. Even if it didn't make its way up through the bureaucracy, a request was made." Biden said: "We weren't told they wanted more security there." The state department was told, as documented in the recent hearing. But there's nothing to suggest Biden and Obama were told, or that it is normal procedure that they should be told. Why didn't he say "Our State Department officials were told, but it never reached us"? Why didn't he say "that kind of information doesn't reach the President or myself normally"? Simply saying "we didn't know" is the most dishonest and disgusting answer for a failed foreign policy. First of all, you don't even know if requests were made specifically about the Bengazi facility (it's very possible, but nobody so far in this thread seems to have posted evidence that this was the case). From the politifact article: "the number of guards at the Benghazi consulate when the attack occurred was at or near the number Nordstrom said were needed for that site". Second, Republicans are directly blaming Obama and Biden for decisions made by low-level Department of State employees who probably would be doing the exact same job if McCain and Sarah Palin were in office. I therefore find it perfectly normal for Biden to reply in the name of the White House, which the Republicans are blaming for the requests being denied. Finally, regarding what you call "a failed foreign policy", you have simply no idea what you're talking about. I call a foreign policy that involves covering up terrorist attacks by blaming it on an anti-islamic video a failed one Except that's not what we were talking about, since we were talking about Biden saying "we didn't know" with regards to the security requests. Also, in case you didn't follow the news, that terrorists are responsible for the death of the ambassador doesn't change the fact that there were plenty of protests (and violence during those protests) at the same time and in the days that followed against the US in several Arab countries, notably because of the video. And you still don't understand what "foreign policy" means. Actually what we are talking about is Joe Biden lying as a rebuttal to all the people crying "Lyin Ryan" as if the Obama administration is somehow about pure truth telling and "facts". I explained to you why he wasn't lying in the case we were discussing.
You didn't explain anything, you are just ignoring the facts.
|
On October 15 2012 05:04 xDaunt wrote:
If anyone deserves blame for the housing bubble, it is all of the democrats who pushed the subprime market by encouraging mortgagors to give loans to unqualified homeowners.
So if I encouraged you to jump off a bridge would I be blamed for your death? Same logic right? The only people to blame for the mortage crisis are the companies and banks giving the loans. No one held a gun to their head and they are responsible for their own decisions.
|
On October 15 2012 04:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 04:27 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 15 2012 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 16:28 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 02:55 kwizach wrote:On October 14 2012 02:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 02:14 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 02:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 01:51 paralleluniverse wrote:[quote] On the first point, yes. There wasn't enough stimulus money given to state and local governments to retain public sector workers. But look at the other recessions (grey shaded areas). Every other recession, except the 80's one, didn't see a fall in public sector employment. On the second point, the measure is employment. See previous post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=781#15613 If I'm not mistaken the graph you previously posted shows employment since the start of presidential terms - not since the start of the recessions / recoveries. So it isn't apples to apples. There was a recession at the start of both the Bush and Obama term. Or should I just replace the word "recession" with "presidency" in my above post? No, the latest recession didn't start when Obama took office. According to the NBER the economy peaked in Dec. of '07 and if you look at BLS data employment started to tank in Feb. of '08. Conversely the NBER says that the economy peaked in Mar. of '01 for Bush and employment started to tank at that time too. So, there's about a 1 year timing issue just using presidential terms. He didn't say the recession started when Obama took office, he said there was a recession when he took office. Yes, but there wasn't a recession when Bush first took office. When Bush first took office the economy was at its peak. When Obama took office the economy was far closer to its bottom than its peak. So it isn't apples to apples. When you show a graph of employment by term you show the entire downturn in the '01 recession but you do not show the entire downturn of the latest recession. Can you stop nitpicking minor details that will change nothing? You can't change the fact that there is a upward trend under Bush and a downward trend under Obama for public sector employment to anything else by fudging with the dates. In fact, looking at the start of the recession isn't even useful, because the recession started before Obama, so you can't blame Obama for what happened then. But I've done it anyway, and as I've said above, it can't possibly change anything. The conclusion is the same, public sector employment fell under Obama and rose under Bush, whereas private sector employment recovered stronger under Obama. Data is from FRED as always. You can't blame either Bush or Obama for either recession occurring. Presidents simply do not control economies to that extent. What you can be critical of a president over is how well they get the economy back on its feet. Bush was criticized at the time for job growth being sluggish - it was called a "jobless recovery". Job growth under Obama is even worse - so he should be criticized as well. Does separating private from public employment change that fact? Nope. You don't think Bush deserves any blame? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=0Trillions in war and tax cuts probably had something to do with it. Blame for the recession? Very little. The wars and tax cuts really had little to do with why the recession and financial crisis happened (overbuilding of houses, high commodity prices and mortgage fraud).
Obama is still blaming Bush for the economy even though he himself said that if he doesn't turn things around it is going to be a one term Presidency. He refuses to take responsibility for his own reckless spending, the stimulus NOT doing enough and his incompetence especially showed in his debate with Romney.
|
On October 15 2012 05:10 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 05:04 xDaunt wrote:
If anyone deserves blame for the housing bubble, it is all of the democrats who pushed the subprime market by encouraging mortgagors to give loans to unqualified homeowners. So if I encouraged you to jump off a bridge would I be blamed for your death? Same logic right? The only people to blame for the mortage crisis are the companies and banks giving the loans.
No. Lenders, borrowers, regulators, the Fed and law enforcement are all to blame to differing extents. The big two are the lenders and borrowers.
Edit: Add rating agencies into the long list of blame.
Edit 2: Add in the GSE's - Fannie and Freddie
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
