Obama got Pwned. Again.

[Brainster]

I lived through it. Since Bush has taken office there has only been uncertainty. There have been weak recoveries that have simple been followed by stagnant growth.

Ah, I see that you are not interested in data. How's the current "recovery" looking to you? Weak isn't the word for it; anemic fits better.

BTW: The unemployment rates only reflect those who are collecting unemployment. Once people can no longer collect they move of the rolls. They become the permanant unemployment not counted.

Okay, so let's use a different benchmark. Total payroll employment (seasonally adjusted) bottomed out under Bush in June 2003 at 129.8 million. It increased to 138 million by January 2008, an increase of about 1.9 million jobs per year.

We have not seen the unemployment problems we see now since the Great Depression.

Not true, higher unemployment rates applied during the 1980-82 recessions under Reagan and Carter.

Housing market. Many people lost their homes, permanently. You don't account for that fact. The value of most people's homes is about what it was when they bought them. People, like mom who had hoped to retire on their home value got screwed. But Bush made damn sure that the Bankers got their fat bonuses.

Oh, sorry, I thought it was you who asked:

When did housing prices rise?

I answered that question; from 1999-2006. Sorry about your mom, but she should have sold at the top of the market.

Can you point me to a news article that declared that America was ever doing well during Bush?

Err, what? You want a news article? Isn't this supposed to be a skeptic site?

Long-term unemployment worse now than during Great Depression

Ah, yes, the Daily Kos. Great source for a skeptic to go to obtain objective information, eh? Except that the Kossack who posted that diary screwed up. Check the original source, at CBS News:

About 6.2 million Americans, 45.1 percent of all unemployed workers in this country, have been jobless for more than six months - at its highest since the Great Depression.

Highest since the Great Depression. Not higher than during the Great Depression.

Let me ask you this: At what point does it become Obama's economy?

 

[Mike!]

I defended more than criticize. I was fair but I was never but kisser. I took a lot of lumps though.

Thanks for the honest answer, but you are far from the person I was directing the question to.

 

[Mike!]

Let me ask you this: At what point does it become Obama's economy?

Oh! I know the answer to this one! When the next guy is stuck with it.

 

[RandFan]

Ah, I see that you are not interested in data. How's the current "recovery" looking to you? Weak isn't the word for it; anemic fits better.

The economy sucks. And taxes are low. And? The GOP promised jobs and they've done what? If Obama loses the election it will be no sweat of my back. I'm asking for Republicans to step up to the plate and acknowledge that lower taxes have done nothing.

Okay, so let's use a different benchmark. Total payroll employment (seasonally adjusted) bottomed out under Bush in June 2003 at 129.8 million. It increased to 138 million by January 2008, an increase of about 1.9 million jobs per year.

Labor market growth? Salary growth?

Not true, higher unemployment rates applied during the 1980-82 recessions under Reagan and Carter.

I lived during the Reagan era. The economy surged. There was nothing controversial about that. The debt increased but things were much better.

I answered that question; from 1999-2006. Sorry about your mom, but she should have sold at the top of the market.

I looked at your links I don't see that they demonstrate what you think they do. Can you support your claims?

Err, what? You want a news article? Isn't this supposed to be a skeptic site?

Yeah, actually, yes. I was alive during Bush. I was on his side. Voted for him both times. Pay is down significantly. People have left the labor market not to return. The Dow was 11,337 in 2002. What is it today? What has been the average since Bush?

Ah, yes, the Daily Kos. Great source for a skeptic to go to obtain objective information

Ad hominem? Could you address the data?

Highest since the Great Depression. Not higher than during the Great Depression.

And?

Let me ask you this: At what point does it become Obama's economy?

You have me confused for someone else. I blame Obama for what he has done wrong. He damn well deserves criticism. But Obama took over with the economy in the toilet. Lowering taxes has done nothing.

 

[RandFan]

Thanks for the honest answer, but you are far from the person I was directing the question to.

Sorry.

 

[RandFan]

Wealth redistribution.

 

[Ziggurat]

Let's assume your premise for a moment. What did the Democrats do to make things worse?

I didn't claim they did anything to make it worse. I only pointed out that it happened after they came to power. You are quite right to point out that one cannot conclude from that correlation alone that it's their fault (a conclusion I didn't actually make, BTW). But by the same token, the correlations you presented don't demonstrate your conclusions either. You can see that in my post, but not your own.

"Worthless"? How was it worthless.

Because it contributed nothing to the discussion.

It's the result of years of serious contemplation and study.

But presented with neither argument nor evidence. And therefore worthless, unless we are to take it on your authority. Which isn't likely.

Please focus on the arguments.

But there wasn't an argument in that post, merely a claim.

 

[RandFan]

I didn't claim they did anything to make it worse. I only pointed out that it happened after they came to power. You are quite right to point out that one cannot conclude from that correlation alone that it's their fault (a conclusion I didn't actually make, BTW). But by the same token, the correlations you presented don't demonstrate your conclusions either. You can see that in my post, but not your own.

There were a number of points. Including the appointment of Brown, the lowering of taxes that have done little to nothing. I said we took on an expensive war and we have. There was no WMD. I stand by that post. Now, if you have some disagreements I'm happy to have that discussion and if you have some valid points I'll acknowledge them. But here we are 10 years after the Bush tax cuts and we are demanding to keep the taxes low and we are doing little to nothing to admit where all that spending came from. Again, I stand by those points. I didn't get to my current position getting high reading Daily Kos.

Because it contributed nothing to the discussion.

That doesn't contribute anything.

But presented with neither argument nor evidence. And therefore worthless, unless we are to take it on your authority. Which isn't likely.

We didn't have a war? We didn't lower taxes? We didn't increase spending at an unprecedented pace? What evidence?

But there wasn't an argument in that post, merely a claim.

I stand by my claims.

 

[Brainster]

The economy sucks. And taxes are low. And? The GOP promised jobs and they've done what? If Obama loses the election it will be no sweat of my back. I'm asking for Republicans to step up to the plate and acknowledge that lower taxes have done nothing.

How do you know where the economy would be without lower taxes? Answer, you don't. You are just asserting that lower taxes have done nothing.

Labor market growth? Salary growth?

Median household incomes declined due to the 2001-2002 recession but began rising again after 2004.

I lived during the Reagan era. The economy surged. There was nothing controversial about that. The debt increased but things were much better.

Your rose-colored glasses are the problem. The economy surged after 1983, but unemployment was 10.8% at the depth of 1982, when the prime rate was in the 20s.

I looked at your links I don't see that they demonstrate what you think they do. Can you support your claims?

Here's the chart again. Look at the thick red line. In 1998, the inflation-adjusted median house price was about $150,000. In 2006 it was about $265,000. That's a very significant increase.

Yeah, actually, yes. I was alive during Bush. I was on his side. Voted for him both times. Pay is down significantly. People have left the labor market not to return. The Dow was 11,337 in 2002. What is it today? What has been the average since Bush?

So now we're talking about the Dow? Keep moving those goalposts.

Ad hominem? Could you address the data?

It is not ad hominem to note that Kos is hardly an objective site. Ad hominem would be if I said Kos is an idiot. And I pointed out that the Kossack misread the quote from CBS News, and you passed on that misreading, which is addressing the data.

And?

And the Kos person making that diary exaggerated. Worst since the Great Depression is not the same thing as worse than the Great Depression. Words mean very specific things and the idea that the current unemployment is in any way, shape, or form worse than the Great Depression, either in duration or in total percentage is laughable. Be a skeptic, and look up the unemployment rate during the Depression. You'll realize why comparing those years to these is inane.

You have me confused for someone else. I blame Obama for what he has done wrong. He damn well deserves criticism. But Obama took over with the economy in the toilet. Lowering taxes has done nothing.

Again, you don't know that. Maybe without the Obama tax cuts unemployment would be higher, maybe GDP would be even lower. You can certainly say that the tax cuts did not have the effect on employment and job creation that Obama projected when they were passed.

But I know of no economist who thinks the solution to a recession is higher taxes. It may be arguable that it is a solution to government deficits, and indeed, I am not as rigidly opposed to slightly higher taxes on the wealthy as many Republicans. I just tend to be skeptical that those higher taxes will be used for deficit reduction.

 

[RandFan]

How do you know where the economy would be without lower taxes? Answer, you don't. You are just asserting that lower taxes have done nothing.

The taxes are the lowest in a loooong time. If they are so good why are things so bad?

Here's the chart again. Look at the thick red line. In 1998, the inflation-adjusted median house price was about $150,000. In 2006 it was about $265,000. That's a very significant increase.

I'll concede your point. I should have conceded it earlier. My bad. And how much was that due to deregulation and shenanigans by the financial institutions? How much has that hurt our economy? What did the Republicans due to prevent this? Why are the Republicans kicking and screaming to stop any new regulation or oversight? Why are there financial institutions that are too large to fail?

So now we're talking about the Dow? Keep moving those goalposts.

My post was about the bad E - C - O - N - O - M - Y Is there something about "economy" you don't get? I'll concede that I gave some examples but it's the over all economy I'm concerned about.

It is not ad hominem to note that Kos is hardly an objective site.

That's all it is. You are attacking them without dealing with their data. Arguments and evidence must stand on its own. And you haven't proven anything about Daily Kos.

Ad hominem would be if I said Kos is an idiot.

No, that would be an insult. Please learn the difference.

Again, you don't know that. Maybe without the Obama tax cuts unemployment would be higher, maybe GDP would be even lower. You can certainly say that the tax cuts did not have the effect on employment and job creation that Obama projected when they were passed.

How low should taxes go? Should we make all businesses 0.00% Come on, every one tells us how important lowering taxes is and we lowered them and we got what? What is it going to take? Lowering taxes more? Why have economies been better in the past with higher taxes? Okay, I DON'T know. What do you know? If higher taxes worked in the past and things are measurably worse with lower taxes then what is the point of keeping them low?

But I know of no economist who thinks the solution to a recession is higher taxes. It may be arguable that it is a solution to government deficits, and indeed, I am not as rigidly opposed to slightly higher taxes on the wealthy as many Republicans. I just tend to be skeptical that those higher taxes will be used for deficit reduction.

How many do YOU know? Do you know David Stockman? Ever even hear of him?

Reagan's Budget Director: GOP Policies 'Have Crippled Our Economy'

"Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts—in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses, too. But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance—vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes," Stockman writes in a lengthy analysis of the current economic condition published Sunday in The New York Times. "This approach has not simply made a mockery of traditional party ideals. It has also led to the serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy. More specifically, the new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one."

David Stockman: Deficit Reduction “Flimflam & Swindle,” Taxes Must Rise

 

[Ziggurat]

There were a number of points. Including the appointment of Brown

These points came after I challenged your post. And both Brown and Iraq have absolutely nothing to do with the claims you made in that first post I responded to, so it doesn't make any difference.

I said we took on an expensive war and we have.

And we did so in order to hold the economy hostage? What's the logic here?

That doesn't contribute anything.

Sure it does. It provides a specific answer to a specific question that YOU posed.

We didn't have a war? We didn't lower taxes? We didn't increase spending at an unprecedented pace?

We did increase spending considerably under Bush. Then Obama took office, and we increased spending even more rapidly.

You claim that tax cuts haven't done any good, and maybe you're right. But has the stimulus done any good? There's even less evidence of that.

Oh, and we started another war. For... well, I guess I can't claim Obama lied us into war, because he never really explained why we're fighting it to begin with. Nor did he deceive Congress, because he didn't get their permission either.

So how does all of that correspond to Republicans taking the economy hostage? Well, it doesn't, because that's not what's going on. I see no evidence that either side WANTS the economy to do badly, even if their preferred policies would produce tha result. Nor have you ever presented any evidence to that effect, or even formed an argument for why this is so.

What evidence?

Evidence of the claim you made in that first post, that Republicans try to hold the economy hostage whenever a democrat is in office.

I stand by my claims.

Yet you haven't supported them, you've merely moved the goalpost.

 

[BazBear]

We need an FDR at this point. FDR was not afraid to take bold, radical action. And it obviously worked at the ballot box too, as he was elected 4 times.

Timidity is not a virtue.

There are no FDRs to be had. A person like him couldn't get within sniffing distance of the presidency today, even without the disabilities.

That said Obama received a **** sandwich...when he had "all houses" he and the Dem leadership had no idea what to do, and now been have "blind sided" by a tea party psycho squad...

But what comes around goes around, and we're still 15 months from election day so who the **** knows what will happen.

Mitt Romney for serpentine flip flopper btw!

 

[fishbob]

The poor pay taxes?
When I was poor, I got back every nickel and more in anything taken from my paycheck.

The poor pay sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, obscure communication taxes at a much higher percentage of their income than do the wealthy.

 

[Brainster]

The taxes are the lowest in a loooong time. If they are so good why are things so bad?

By loooong time you mean since 1992 and excluding the period from 2003-Present? And there are other variables involved than taxes on the economy. We had a pretty strong economy in 2004-2005 with the same rates.

I'll concede your point. I should have conceded it earlier. My bad. And how much was that due to deregulation and shenanigans by the financial institutions? How much has that hurt our economy? What did the Republicans due to prevent this? Why are the Republicans kicking and screaming to stop any new regulation or oversight? Why are there financial institutions that are too large to fail?

Some of these points are valid, but it's a shame that you mix it up with BS. Remember that Fannie and Freddie were pushed by Democrats like Christopher Dodd to make more loans to less qualified borrowers, which certainly contributed to the bubble. I'm not trying to say that the Republicans were blameless, just that there's plenty of blame to go around.

My post was about the bad E - C - O - N - O - M - Y Is there something about "economy" you don't get? I'll concede that I gave some examples but it's the over all economy I'm concerned about.

So let's go to the Dow, since you asked. It's one of the real bright spots of the Obama economy; since Obama took office it has climbed almost 50%. Happy days are here again!

That's all it is. You are attacking them without dealing with their data. Arguments and evidence must stand on its own. And you haven't proven anything about Daily Kos.

How about conceding that they blew the fact that you cited?

How low should taxes go? Should we make all businesses 0.00% Come on, every one tells us how important lowering taxes is and we lowered them and we got what? What is it going to take? Lowering taxes more? Why have economies been better in the past with higher taxes? Okay, I DON'T know. What do you know? If higher taxes worked in the past and things are measurably worse with lower taxes then what is the point of keeping them low?

Again, I am not entirely opposed to raising taxes provided it does not just result in more spending. My concern is that based on past performance, that is exactly what will happen.

How many do YOU know? Do you know David Stockman? Ever even hear of him?

Reagan's budget director in the early 1980s; IIRC he was also a congressman before that. He's had a very checkered career since then. I don't know if he really qualifies as an economist; he went to Harvard's Divinity School.

Do you know John Maynard Keynes? Neither do I but I can tell you he would not recommend raising taxes in a recession.

 

[leftysergeant]

I have to ask, when Bush the lesser was in office for eight years, did you activly support him and his presidency, regardless of his actions, no matter how far removed from your own political perspective they may be, or did you openly, verbaly, rail against him at every possible opportunity you were presented with?

Of course I protested. He never did a thing right. Right out of the box, he starts appointing the most worthless crew of crooks, dullards and lunatics possible.

Anybody who thinks that Rummy is fit to hold a position in the DoD has a couple screws loose. Worst Sec Def in my life time, and I'm an old dude.

But here's the big difference.


I would not have urged my congress critters to tank the world ecconomy to get rid of the sorry sack of compost.

 

[Ziggurat]

The poor pay sales taxes

Which is state/local, not federal.

excise taxes

The poor don't pay excise taxes. Excise taxes affect the poor, but so do taxes on corporations and the rich, for very similar reasons.

property taxes

Also local.

obscure communication taxes

... which were originally just taxes on the wealthy. And now they aren't. Taxes have a way of trickling down.

at a much higher percentage of their income than do the wealthy.

I'm surprised that you didn't mention payroll and medicare, since those ARE federal.

 

[RandFan]

And we did so in order to hold the economy hostage?

What? You seriously have me confused with someone else. I've no idea what you are on about. (eta did I say something about the debt ceiling extortion? I don't remember and can't find it. If so then I stand by that. That's pretty easy to defend but it wasn't what was on my mind when I ventured into this thread.).

What's the logic here?

That the Bush admin was incompetent and spent money we didn't have on war we didn't need. That we lowered taxes and raised spending to ungodly amounts. That I find little of good report from the Bush era.

Sure it does. It provides a specific answer to a specific question that YOU posed.

No, it doesn't. Asserting that it does won't help the discussion either.

We did increase spending considerably under Bush. Then Obama took office, and we increased spending even more rapidly.

Is your only defense of Bush to point out the sins of Obama?

You claim that tax cuts haven't done any good, and maybe you're right. But has the stimulus done any good? There's even less evidence of that.

I'm saying we are stuck on stupid. The GOP will defend tax cuts period. As David Stockman says it has become a religious belief. If the economy doesn't do well then by god just keep lowering those taxes.

Oh, and we started another war. For... well, I guess I can't claim Obama lied us into war, because he never really explained why we're fighting it to begin with. Nor did he deceive Congress, because he didn't get their permission either.

Again, the sins of Obama make the war okay?

So how does all of that correspond to Republicans taking the economy hostage?

What are you talking about? I don't remember saying this. Did I say something about the refusing to raise the debt ceiling? If I did I stand by that. I honestly don't remember.

Well, it doesn't, because that's not what's going on. I see no evidence that either side WANTS the economy to do badly, even if their preferred policies would produce tha result. Nor have you ever presented any evidence to that effect, or even formed an argument for why this is so.

I don't for a moment believe that the GOP wants the economy to do badly. I think the GOP is has blinders on and is doubling down on failed policies. Holding our credit hostage (yes I'm saying it now) was asinine without any willingness to compromise on tax raises. They won. The corporations got what they think was best for them. I don't think the American people did though. Have you sen the stock market yesterday and today?

Evidence of the claim you made in that first post, that Republicans try to hold the economy hostage whenever a democrat is in office.

I'm sincerely sorry but I'm not finding that. If you will post a quote I'll address it.

Yet you haven't supported them, you've merely moved the goalpost.

No. We lowered taxes to historic lows with little improvement (at best) to the economy. David Stockman and other economists say we can't get ourselves out of this whole by cutting spending only.

The GOP made disastrous policy decisions that have devastated our economy. Whatever Obama did won't change that. Further there is nothing in their mindset to change. They can't. It's a political-religious ideology that is stuck on stupid.

 

[RandFan]

By loooong time you mean since 1992 and excluding the period from 2003-Present? And there are other variables involved than taxes on the economy. We had a pretty strong economy in 2004-2005 with the same rates.

It was never great.

Some of these points are valid, but it's a shame that you mix it up with BS. Remember that Fannie and Freddie were pushed by Democrats like Christopher Dodd to make more loans to less qualified borrowers, which certainly contributed to the bubble. I'm not trying to say that the Republicans were blameless, just that there's plenty of blame to go around.

I'm NOT saying that Dems are blameless. Hardly. I'm saying that MY party is stuck on stupid. That we are making disastrous policy decisions.

So let's go to the Dow, since you asked. It's one of the real bright spots of the Obama economy; since Obama took office it has climbed almost 50%. Happy days are here again!

So, your only defense is to focus on Obama? Did Obama raise taxes? What did Obama do to take us from the brilliant policies of Bush that netted us such a great economy (hyperbole I admit) to the disastrous economy we now have?

How about conceding that they blew the fact that you cited?

How did they blow it. I'm sorry. If they did I'll concede the point. It wouldn't be cause to dismiss every argument they make. I don't know of a perfect organization.

Again, I am not entirely opposed to raising taxes provided it does not just result in more spending. My concern is that based on past performance, that is exactly what will happen.

Well, you got me there. Not raising taxes certainly reigned in spending during the Bush and Obama admins. ????

Reagan's budget director in the early 1980s; IIRC he was also a congressman before that. He's had a very checkered career since then. I don't know if he really qualifies as an economist; he went to Harvard's Divinity School.

I had predicted that your response would be ad hominem. Then I deleted that because I thought it would keep you from actually doing just that. I was wondering if you would actually go there. Thank you. Thank you very much. Have you looked up what an ad hominem is yet? You're doing it. Which is to say you are doing it wrong. Please stop it.

 

[Wolrab]

The poor pay sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, obscure communication taxes at a much higher percentage of their income than do the wealthy.

Sales tax: be frugal.
Property taxes: If you rent, as many poor do, slapping taxes on the landlords (those making >250k) will not help because the landlord will be forced to raise rent.
Communication taxes? Over the top cell phones are not a necessity. Get the cheapest phone possible or pool with others.

 

[RandFan]

Property taxes: If you rent, as many poor do, slapping taxes on the landlords (those making >250k) will not help because the landlord will be forced to raise rent.

Because the law of supply and demand evaporate when taxes are raised? I don't claim that increased costs (in accounting taxes are a cost) are never a basis for increasing prices. It's the categorical claim that they will always be passed on that I object to. I was a manager for a company that would often attempt to pass costs on to the consumer. However, if the market wouldn't bear the increase... well, we had to lower the prices again. It's really that simple. Increased taxes aren't a magic genie that obviate market forces.

Look, do you really think that people who are in charge of prices base those in part on kindness or simply costs (costs can and do influence prices)? No, prices are based on what the market will bear (there are laws that cap rents, so I will concede that rent caps (typically 2 - 5% a year IIRC) often keep the prices artificially low) Now, if the applicable laws allow for rent increase due to a tax increase then it is very likely that is what will happen. Consult your local laws.

That said, again, costs can influence prices for many reasons but costs will never obviate the law of supply and demand.