• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

This Whole Debt Limit Thing

Who has been the most unreasonable on this whole debt limit thing?

  • Congressional Democrats

    Votes: 11 6.2%

  • Congressional Republicans

    Votes: 139 78.1%

  • Obama

    Votes: 10 5.6%

  • They have all been equally unreasonable.

    Votes: 18 10.1%
  • Total voters
    178
  • Poll closed .
BeAChooser said:
So do I.
Click to expand...
No, you have links that you have no idea what they demonstrate. :D :D :D :D

But I have told you.
Click to expand...
Posting a link proves nothing. :D :D :D :D So, what year is wrong?

You either aren't listening or you're afraid to admit the possibility that the government has been lying to the public about inflation rates. Perhaps you are afraid because then you'd be admitting that the Obama administration has been a party to that lie? :D
Click to expand...
I don't claim they're lying I claim you dont even know wha your links show. I claim you cant make a case as I have. You have no idea what your links are. :D :D :D :p
 
BeAChooser said:
Because I believe posting the charts would be a violation of forum rules.
Click to expand...
No. You just can't hot link. You will have to actually do some work the way I did,

But I linked you to the chart in each case. Didn't you look?
Click to expand...
YES! They don't support your claim.
 
Last edited:
BeAChooser said:
Sure I do. They demonstrate your source is wrong...
Click to expand...
HOW? According to your sources what is the GDP for 2003? Do you even know? Come on, be honest, you haven't a **** ing clue. Right? If you did you could tell us, right?

Like I told you, every year you cited data for. And I told you exactly why. :D
Click to expand...
Lie. :) :D :p ;) :confused: :rolleyes: :eek: :eye-poppi :boggled: :covereyes
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
No. You just can't hot link. You will have to actually do some work the way I did.
Click to expand...

I don't care to waste my time in that manner. It's unnecessary. Why reinvent the wheel? My posting the numbers to the forum so you can read them, instead of simply looking at a chart, doesn't change them. And you are wrong. Those sources do prove your source is wrong ... unless, as I said, you want to argue the official inflation rates have been wrong for many years. Do you? (By the way, I could offer many, many more sources all saying the same thing. Could you? :D)
 
BeAChooser said:
I don't care to waste my time in that manner. It's unnecessary. Why reinvent the wheel? My posting the numbers to the forum so you can read them, instead of simply looking at a chart, doesn't change them. And you are wrong. Those sources do prove your source is wrong ... unless, as I said, you want to argue the official inflation rates have been wrong for many years. Do you? (By the way, I could offer many, many more sources all saying the same thing. Could you? :D)
Click to expand...
Damn straight! What's more I can understand the links well enough that I can post the data to the forum.

Could you?

:D :p ;) :) :confused: :cool: :eek: :eye-poppi :boggled:
 
RandFan, as I said on the other thread, I can offer many more sources to support my position … that there was significant real gdp growth after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. These, for instance:

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/us-growth-2009.jpg

http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2005/images/chart02.gif

http://businomics.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/gdp_1.jpg

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/images/2008/07/31/real_gdp_q2_08.gif

http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/60893E6264A8F9D6A81935B8AD5171C3.gif?w=360&h=331&as=1 (from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/10/past-present-future-economic-growth-in-america )

http://www.reedconstructiondata.com/images/site_assets2/U.S_.real-gdp-q2-10_.gif

http://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2008/images/ecc1_5-eng.gif

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2009/July/us-dgp-1-1.gif

http://www.taintedalpha.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/TaintedAlpha.com-U.S.-GDP-30082010.gif

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_up3_ViopR...FTdvcB0/s1600/US_Annual_GDP_Contributions.png

And they ALL show that real gdp growth rates were an average of 3.0-3.5% (or thereabouts) for many, many quarters (on the order of 10 quarters) after the 2003 tax cut and were over 2% for at least 3 quarters after the 2001 tax cut. That's a far cry from the 0.75% that you tried to suggest occurred on this and the other thread.

Not even your source supports that claim. Plug 2002 and 2003 into your source and you get a growth rate during that year of about 2.5%. Plug in 2003 and 2004 and you get 3.47%. Plug in 2004 and 2005 and you get 3.07%. Plug in 2005 and 2006 and you get 2.66%. No where near the 0.75% claim that you made, to argue that Paul Ryan's assumed GDP growth in his analysis is a big "if".

Beyond that, I have nothing further to say to you.
 
BeAChooser said:
RandFan, as I said on the other thread, I can offer many more sources to support my position … that there was significant real gdp growth after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. These, for instance:
Click to expand...
The first three have no supporting numbers and no source. They are meaningless without supporting numbers. They are worthless without a source.

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/us-growth-2009.jpg
Click to expand...
Not sourced. No supporting numbers but appears to support my numbers.

http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2005/images/chart02.gif
Click to expand...
I've no idea what the hell you think this shows.

http://businomics.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/gdp_1.jpg
Click to expand...
This is just a chart with no supporting numbers and no source.

{snip} Dishonest. It's not my job to do your job for you.

Beyond that, I have nothing further to say to you.
Click to expand...
Duh! You got caught lying. Run away.
 
BeAChooser said:
And they ALL show that real gdp growth rates were an average of 3.0-3.5% (or thereabouts) for many, many quarters (on the order of 10 quarters) after the 2003 tax cut and were over 2% for at least 3 quarters after the 2001 tax cut. That's a far cry from the 0.75% that you tried to suggest occurred on this and the other thread.
Click to expand...

The problem is that most of thgat growth was in the finacial services sector, which we now know was based on the production of diddly squat of any real value. The sharp dip in GDP after Obama became POTUS is largely the result of people's having figured out that they had nothing, and that they had to stop buying any actual goods and services to pay off the debt they had acquired in the Ponzi schemes of the previous interregnum.
 
RandFan said:
Duh! You got caught lying. Run away.
Click to expand...

Go ahead, RandFan, divide the Real GDP figure that you just posted on the other thread for 2002 by that for 2001. What percent growth is that? 1.7%

For 2003 by 2002? 2.5%.

For 2004 by 2003? 3.5%

For 2005 by 2004? 3.1%

For 2006 divided by 2005? 2.7%

Every one of those is a far cry from the 0.75% that you claimed characterized the growth rate after the Bush tax cuts.

And the calculation of those numbers INCLUDES the periods of very low GDP growth rate that occurred during the periods right before the tax cuts were passed.

And what do you think the effect of that is on the averages? Hmmmmm?

If you were to only look at the growth that occurred after the tax cuts, the average percentages would be even be higher.

In the range of what I claimed. 2% after the 2001 tax cut and about 3.5% after the 2003 tax cut.

Just like you can see is the case in all those more finely detailed graphs I linked ... that you apparently found to difficult to read.

Now if you can't learn from the above ... there is nothing more I can do.

Then you are simply beyond saving, and I leave you to wallow in partisan ignorance to your heart's content.

And no doubt vote Obama in the next election. :rolleyes:
 
BeAChooser said:
LOL! You haven't a clue what you are doing, do you? You have no idea what the deflator is or does ... but perhaps others now know why I was asking you about inflation rates. :biggrin:
Click to expand...
:biggrin: Oh you are so cute. Never mind I'm right. Never mind you ARE cherry picking your data.

Best case scenario: 1.4
With the Deflator: .75

BTW: as for you mentioning inflation. Without you posting numbers I had no way of knowing if you had a clue what you are talking about. Now you have proven it because the adjustment ISN'T AN INFLATOR. Smile alll you want and ignore my premises. Let's see how THAT looks. Why is it that the deflator renders my percentages and NOT yours?

And let me note that from moment one I posted my numbers and B&Med for pages before you finally addressed my numbers.
 
RandFan said:
Now you have proven it because the adjustment ISN'T AN INFLATOR.
Click to expand...

LOL! My, my you are confused. Are you sure don't also want to tell us that there is Real GDP "before the deflator" and Real GDP "after the deflator", like you did on the other thread? :D
 
leftysergeant said:
The problem is that most of thgat growth was in the finacial services sector, which we now know was based on the production of diddly squat of any real value. The sharp dip in GDP after Obama became POTUS is largely the result of people's having figured out that they had nothing, and that they had to stop buying any actual goods and services to pay off the debt they had acquired in the Ponzi schemes of the previous interregnum.
Click to expand...
Bear in mind there was a huge drop at the end of Bush's presidency. BAC want to pretend that lower tax rates don't count. He won't tell us why though. Yes, special pleading.
 
From, Mark Steyn, a really smart guy …

http://articles.ocregister.com/2011-08-05/news/29859879_1_debt-ceiling-boehner-obama-standard-poor-s

On Thursday, in honor of Barack Obama's 50th birthday, the Dow dropped 10 points for every year he has walked among us. It was the ninth-largest drop in history. We should be relieved he wasn't turning 80.

The markets are apparently concerned that the entire global economy may be "stalling."

You don't say? Observant fellows, these market chappies.

… snip …

Under the "historic" "resolution" of the debt crisis (and don't those very words "debt crisis" already feel so last week?), America will be cutting federal spending by $900 billion over 10 years. "Cutting federal spending by $900 billion over 10 years" is Washington-speak for increasing federal spending by $7 trillion over 10 years. And, as they'd originally planned to increase it by $8 trillion, that counts as a cut. If they'd planned to increase it by $20 trillion and then settled for merely $15 trillion, they could have saved five trillion. See how easy this is?

As part of this historic "cut," we've now raised the "debt ceiling" – or, more accurately, lowered the debt abyss. Do you ever discuss the debt with your neighbor? Do you think he has any serious intention to repay the 15 trillion racked up in his and your name? Does your congressman? Does your senator? Look into their eyes. You can see the answer. And, if none of these parties seem inclined to pay down the debt now, what are the chances they'll feel like doing so by 2020 when, under these historic "cuts," it's up to 23-25 trillion?

Like America's political class, I have also been thinking about America circa 2020. Indeed, I've written a book on the subject. My prognosis is not as rosy as the Boehner-Obama deal, as attentive readers might just be able to deduce from the subtle clues in the title: "After America: Get Ready For Armageddon". Oh, don't worry, I'm not one of these "declinists". I'm way beyond that, and in the express lane to total societal collapse.

… snip …

If you think we've got until 2050 or 2025, you're part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Seriously, all you folks need to read the rest of that article.
 
Here's another columnist who gets it …

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/heidiharris/2011/08/07/the_rat_in_obamas_maze

The Rat in Obama's Maze

It goes without saying that President Obama has no grasp of even basic economics.

… snip … And it also goes without saying that everything he’s done since taking office has made the economic situation in the nation worse, whether you’re looking at actual job numbers or overall lack of confidence business owners have in the future of our nation.

Even a rat in a maze will adjust his behavior sooner or later, especially when he keeps hitting the wall that doesn’t open up and give him the reward. But Obama is hell bent on destroying our economy, making decisions that even a first year economics student would find ridiculous.
Click to expand...
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom