02-11-2009, 11:52 AM
Finally, a well thought out, articulate point...however .. please.. allow me to retort!
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The fact is we haven't come close to reaching the bottom yet, so if we haven't reached the level of the 1980's recession, it's only a matter of time. The idea that things were MUCH worse in the 80's is laughable. I suppose it's possible we could pull out of this before things get as bad as the 80's, but I've yet to hear ONE sensible economist who believes that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really? And you know this how? Please, tell me exactly where we are going in the stock market, and unemployment, please also tell me when we'll see recovery. <b>This is part of the problem, the bottom line is WE DONT KNOW....NO ONE KNOWS...AND OBAMA PRETENDING LIKE HE DOES KNOW ISN'T LEADERSHIP!</b> What crystal ball do you have that we don't have? What FACTUAL evidence rather than conjecture do you have to support such a claim? Other than someone telling you that we're in the worst situation we could be in (and yes I agree with you that it's bad out there). The bottom line remains sir, that things were WORSE in the early 1980's than they are RIGHT now.
Here are some facts rather than stated opinions:
TODAY's Unemployement Rate: 7.6%
Early 1980's unemployement Rate: High Marker 10.8% (80's were worse)
SOURCE: [http]http://www.miseryindex.us/URbymonth.asp[/http]
GDP: [http]http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2008/1/30/gdpannualized1_2.png[/http]
As you'll see the 80's were worse than things are currently.....once again...Gross Domestic Product losses were worse then, than they currently are so the statement that it's "since the great depression" are false. Could it get there? Sure, probably, maybe, but we just dont know. What we do know are the facts and the facts are, he's lying......or simply isn't doing his homework.
Couple that with current home ownership rates, average income, personal wealth, and you pretty much realize that not only are we in a much better situation currently than we were then but oh yah, what was that thing we were going through at the time....um...oh that's right The Cold War.
Bottom line, the only way to say this correctly is that we THINK this COULD get as bad as the Great Depression if something isn't done. Unfortunately he didn't say that, he said it IS ... much different statement and only supports my claim that he's using fear to quickly get his bill passed. Congratulations Obama, you now have your near 1 trillion dollars.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->After living through 8 years of Bush explaining that if we don't elect him/invade Iraq/let him listen to our phone conversations/lock people up indefinitely/lock people up without trial/torture people/ etc etc/ then we are ALL GOING TO DIE, I find it hard to believe that someone is going to accuse the evil Liberals of having a fear based agenda.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The statement I made sir, was that the Liberals were pointing fingers at Bush for using fear, and now they are doing the same thing....please don't misquote me and frame your statements in a manner in which you feel is appropriate for you....that being said.
Yes, I've heard this arguement over and over. While <b>I agree with you that Bush had MANY problems</b>, as ALL presidents do, I was never a fan of the Patriot act but I do have one simple question for you...just one.
After Bush was in office on 9/11, 9 months into his presidency and we were attacked by foriegn invaders for only the second time in modern history........<b>How many times were we attacked after 9/11?</b>
Hate the guys policies, hate the way he was smug and treated the media, hate how he was VASTLY too lax on regulation.....but as with all things...taking a step back....seems to me that he defended our way of life pretty god damn well..which is any presidents #1 priority.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->NO, that's not what he said. In fact, it's nowhere close to what he said. He said "tax cuts alone can't solve all of our economic problems". That's a reasonable statement. And it's pretty much supported by most economists.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>You're right, I should have qualified my interperitation of the statement better. I concede your point.</b>
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The rest of his statement mostly consists of him swearing at Obama, and calling him a fear monger. To that, let me just make some points I find glaringly obvious.
1. He has been in power less than a month, and in that month he has done far more than just talk pretty.
2. It IS a very FUCKING SCARY time. Obama has every right to be trying to scare us.
3. If the stimulus isn't passed, and passed soon, things will get much worse. THAT is why he is scaring us. Waiting does us no good.
4. The Republicans don't know their heads from their asses on this particular subject. If we listen to John McCain, he will make the stimulus smaller, which by definition, would provide less stimulus, and he would make it with more tax cuts, which any economist will tell you is about the most inefficient way possible to stimulate the economy. Listening to them is a spectacularly bad idea.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I'm not calling him a fear monger, again, don't frame your statements. I was simply making the point that he campaigned on Bush's use of fear to drive policy...and he's doing the same thing.
1. <b>I'll concede that he hasn't been in office long enough yet to see any sort of recovery.</b> That however doesn't mean that I have to like the way that he is handling the situation. To your point however, I agree, it'll take far more time than this. But you must be willing to concede that he's only going to be able to blame someone else for this for about a year. He's pinning everything on this stimulous working, and if it does...he'll get reelected..and if it doesn't..he won't.
2. Yes, absolutely, it's a very scary time....but please tell me where in the constitution his job is to scare the American people? Justification of his actions after he specifically campaigned against it makes him a hypocrit....or just a standard politician. That's what worries me most about this guy. People actually believe that he's not a typical politicain, when he is. Please don't hide behind the term "right" because what you mean is it's his job to do what he's doing.
Funny, I always thought the job of a leader was to A. Formulate plans and a way to execute them B. Avoid disaster C. Instill CONFIDENCE and many other attributes that come along with such a vast position of power and responsibility. <b>The point remains however that he critisized the Bush administration for using fear as a political tactic to get his agenda through and he's doing the SAME exact thing (by your own admission!)</b>
3. The stimulous was passed yesterday.....I think both sides can agree on one thing..that something must be done. What we don't agree on is HOW it's done. I do find it a bit curious though that you're speaking on an item in that was already passed as if it hasn't been.
4. McCain proposed a smaller incremental approach to stimulous. You're framing your statement where McCain was clear that what he wanted was to start out smaller, and come back as the need arises. <b>What the true comparision is, is direct spending : tax cuts. Democrats want 2:1 in favor of direct spending, Republians want 2:1 in favor of tax cuts. </b> Now we can go round and round on this subject but the bottom line is that none of us know and I will concede that it's just as much opinion and conjecture as anything else. To think that any political party is anymore or less informed than their counter-party constituants sir is blatantly absurd. I do not think you are less informed or more informed than me because you may or may not be Jewish, and I certainly don't think that you are or are not as informed as me because I'm a Republican. Statements like that only lend credo to biggotry.
To address my rant relative to Geithner, TurboTax Tim is obviously a bright guy but a man preaching transparency and showing up to a press conference (which I think we can agree are mostly left leaning) with such a small amount of detail was foolish and short sighteted. That's why the media lit into him yesterday.
Keep in mind, this is the same guy that presided over the Lehman Brothers debacle....
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The fact is we haven't come close to reaching the bottom yet, so if we haven't reached the level of the 1980's recession, it's only a matter of time. The idea that things were MUCH worse in the 80's is laughable. I suppose it's possible we could pull out of this before things get as bad as the 80's, but I've yet to hear ONE sensible economist who believes that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really? And you know this how? Please, tell me exactly where we are going in the stock market, and unemployment, please also tell me when we'll see recovery. <b>This is part of the problem, the bottom line is WE DONT KNOW....NO ONE KNOWS...AND OBAMA PRETENDING LIKE HE DOES KNOW ISN'T LEADERSHIP!</b> What crystal ball do you have that we don't have? What FACTUAL evidence rather than conjecture do you have to support such a claim? Other than someone telling you that we're in the worst situation we could be in (and yes I agree with you that it's bad out there). The bottom line remains sir, that things were WORSE in the early 1980's than they are RIGHT now.
Here are some facts rather than stated opinions:
TODAY's Unemployement Rate: 7.6%
Early 1980's unemployement Rate: High Marker 10.8% (80's were worse)
SOURCE: [http]http://www.miseryindex.us/URbymonth.asp[/http]
GDP: [http]http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2008/1/30/gdpannualized1_2.png[/http]
As you'll see the 80's were worse than things are currently.....once again...Gross Domestic Product losses were worse then, than they currently are so the statement that it's "since the great depression" are false. Could it get there? Sure, probably, maybe, but we just dont know. What we do know are the facts and the facts are, he's lying......or simply isn't doing his homework.
Couple that with current home ownership rates, average income, personal wealth, and you pretty much realize that not only are we in a much better situation currently than we were then but oh yah, what was that thing we were going through at the time....um...oh that's right The Cold War.
Bottom line, the only way to say this correctly is that we THINK this COULD get as bad as the Great Depression if something isn't done. Unfortunately he didn't say that, he said it IS ... much different statement and only supports my claim that he's using fear to quickly get his bill passed. Congratulations Obama, you now have your near 1 trillion dollars.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->After living through 8 years of Bush explaining that if we don't elect him/invade Iraq/let him listen to our phone conversations/lock people up indefinitely/lock people up without trial/torture people/ etc etc/ then we are ALL GOING TO DIE, I find it hard to believe that someone is going to accuse the evil Liberals of having a fear based agenda.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The statement I made sir, was that the Liberals were pointing fingers at Bush for using fear, and now they are doing the same thing....please don't misquote me and frame your statements in a manner in which you feel is appropriate for you....that being said.
Yes, I've heard this arguement over and over. While <b>I agree with you that Bush had MANY problems</b>, as ALL presidents do, I was never a fan of the Patriot act but I do have one simple question for you...just one.
After Bush was in office on 9/11, 9 months into his presidency and we were attacked by foriegn invaders for only the second time in modern history........<b>How many times were we attacked after 9/11?</b>
Hate the guys policies, hate the way he was smug and treated the media, hate how he was VASTLY too lax on regulation.....but as with all things...taking a step back....seems to me that he defended our way of life pretty god damn well..which is any presidents #1 priority.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->NO, that's not what he said. In fact, it's nowhere close to what he said. He said "tax cuts alone can't solve all of our economic problems". That's a reasonable statement. And it's pretty much supported by most economists.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>You're right, I should have qualified my interperitation of the statement better. I concede your point.</b>
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The rest of his statement mostly consists of him swearing at Obama, and calling him a fear monger. To that, let me just make some points I find glaringly obvious.
1. He has been in power less than a month, and in that month he has done far more than just talk pretty.
2. It IS a very FUCKING SCARY time. Obama has every right to be trying to scare us.
3. If the stimulus isn't passed, and passed soon, things will get much worse. THAT is why he is scaring us. Waiting does us no good.
4. The Republicans don't know their heads from their asses on this particular subject. If we listen to John McCain, he will make the stimulus smaller, which by definition, would provide less stimulus, and he would make it with more tax cuts, which any economist will tell you is about the most inefficient way possible to stimulate the economy. Listening to them is a spectacularly bad idea.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I'm not calling him a fear monger, again, don't frame your statements. I was simply making the point that he campaigned on Bush's use of fear to drive policy...and he's doing the same thing.
1. <b>I'll concede that he hasn't been in office long enough yet to see any sort of recovery.</b> That however doesn't mean that I have to like the way that he is handling the situation. To your point however, I agree, it'll take far more time than this. But you must be willing to concede that he's only going to be able to blame someone else for this for about a year. He's pinning everything on this stimulous working, and if it does...he'll get reelected..and if it doesn't..he won't.
2. Yes, absolutely, it's a very scary time....but please tell me where in the constitution his job is to scare the American people? Justification of his actions after he specifically campaigned against it makes him a hypocrit....or just a standard politician. That's what worries me most about this guy. People actually believe that he's not a typical politicain, when he is. Please don't hide behind the term "right" because what you mean is it's his job to do what he's doing.
Funny, I always thought the job of a leader was to A. Formulate plans and a way to execute them B. Avoid disaster C. Instill CONFIDENCE and many other attributes that come along with such a vast position of power and responsibility. <b>The point remains however that he critisized the Bush administration for using fear as a political tactic to get his agenda through and he's doing the SAME exact thing (by your own admission!)</b>
3. The stimulous was passed yesterday.....I think both sides can agree on one thing..that something must be done. What we don't agree on is HOW it's done. I do find it a bit curious though that you're speaking on an item in that was already passed as if it hasn't been.
4. McCain proposed a smaller incremental approach to stimulous. You're framing your statement where McCain was clear that what he wanted was to start out smaller, and come back as the need arises. <b>What the true comparision is, is direct spending : tax cuts. Democrats want 2:1 in favor of direct spending, Republians want 2:1 in favor of tax cuts. </b> Now we can go round and round on this subject but the bottom line is that none of us know and I will concede that it's just as much opinion and conjecture as anything else. To think that any political party is anymore or less informed than their counter-party constituants sir is blatantly absurd. I do not think you are less informed or more informed than me because you may or may not be Jewish, and I certainly don't think that you are or are not as informed as me because I'm a Republican. Statements like that only lend credo to biggotry.
To address my rant relative to Geithner, TurboTax Tim is obviously a bright guy but a man preaching transparency and showing up to a press conference (which I think we can agree are mostly left leaning) with such a small amount of detail was foolish and short sighteted. That's why the media lit into him yesterday.
Keep in mind, this is the same guy that presided over the Lehman Brothers debacle....