What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[firespin]

Minority parties put their ideas out there all the time. That's no excuse for their inaction.

Mr. Wizard...just by not doing the stimulus and not doing the health care initiative, that would have saved about a $trillion. That sounds like a good start.

 

[humorless]

What can they do? They aren't in control.

How many cuts did they make when they controlled the government for 8 years?

Oh that's right, they expanded the government more than anyone since WWII.

 

[firespin]

How many cuts did they make when they controlled the government for 8 years?

Oh that's right, they expanded the government more than anyone since WWII.

Two statements, two errors. Most impressive, young padawan.

The Democrats took control of both houses of congress in 2006.

LBJ increased federal spending more than Bush did, relative to where it was when they started.

"President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn’t cut enough spending to change his place in history, either."

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa543.pdf

 

[humorless]

Did I say they expanded spending or did I say they expanded the government?

Yeah, that's what I thought. You fail at reading comprehension.

 

[firespin]

Did I say they expanded spending or did I say they expanded the government?

Yeah, that's what I thought. You fail at reading comprehension.

Because government does so much stuff at no cost.

This the best you've got?

 

[humorless]

The truth? Yeah, that's the best I've got. They expanded the government more than anyone since WWII.

But feel free to keep finding other meanings for my plainly worded sentences. Swap out whatever words you need to.

 

[firespin]

The truth? Yeah, that's the best I've got. They expanded the government more than anyone since WWII.

But feel free to keep finding other meanings for my plainly worded sentences. Swap out whatever words you need to.

Team Bush were free spenders, you have to give them that.

But from the standpoint of government expansion, the only plausible way to measure it is budget growth. You can't use square feet or headcount or reams of printer paper...those aren't things that congress votes on or presidents approve.

And on that score, LBJ comes out ahead. Just to make the point, LBJ created Medicare and Medicaid. With the passing of time, those programs combined now cost more than the whole defense budget, and about the same amount as the total of both of Bush's wars, the TARP program, or the stimulus, every single budget year.

Here's a chart showing how Medicare is the gift that keeps on giving.

Medicaid is similar, this chart stops before the one above does but the trend is similar:

 

[Ham Murabi]

Team Bush were free spenders, you have to give them that.

But from the standpoint of government expansion, the only plausible way to measure it is budget growth. You can't use square feet or headcount or reams of printer paper...those aren't things that congress votes on or presidents approve.

And on that score, LBJ comes out ahead. Just to make the point, LBJ created Medicare and Medicaid. With the passing of time, those programs combined now cost more than the whole defense budget, and about the same amount as the total of both of Bush's wars, the TARP program, or the stimulus, every single budget year.

Here's a chart showing how Medicare is the gift that keeps on giving.

Medicaid is similar, this chart stops before the one above does but the trend is similar:

How about applying the hook now and posting the chart that shows how the cost of medical care has far exceeded the rate of inflation since Medicare and Medicaid were enacted.
Yep, medical care used to be cheap before government sunk its hands into it.

 

[humorless]

Sweetheart. Bush created an entire fucking new branch of government. In terms of authority, power, and size of government, Bush is lightyears ahead of anyone since the New Deal.

 

[firespin]

Sweetheart. Bush created an entire fucking new branch of government. In terms of authority, power, and size of government, Bush is lightyears ahead of anyone since the New Deal.

And they say you can't learn things from a porn board...which branch of government would that be? That would be number four now, right?

 

[humorless]

And they say you can't learn things from a porn board...which branch of government would that be? That would be number four now, right?

His Department of Homeland Security, combined with his PATRIOT Act, his overturning of Habeus Corpus, his sweeping authoritarian regulation of all sorts has created a new branch that is far more powerful than any of the three.

 

[firespin]

His Department of Homeland Security, combined with his PATRIOT Act, his overturning of Habeus Corpus, his sweeping authoritarian regulation of all sorts has created a new branch that is far more powerful than any of the three.

Ah, I see now. You're an idiot. That helps, thanks.

You realize that the Department of Homeland Security was created by rearranging departments that existed before, right? And rather than being far more powerful than (say) the entire executive branch, which it is part of, it's widely seen as being inept and ineffective? (Including by those who work for it.)

And a Democratic congress has routinely voted to extend the (remaining) provisions of the Patriot act, and did so just this year again, since they are not particularly oppressive?

But while we're here, tell us about the authoritarian regulation. Most people seem to think Bush was anti-regulation, so you should set them straight.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

PATRIOT act...lol what a joke, unconstitutional tyrants imo. Oh don't forget the billions we spend each year on the "war on drugs" because that’s real effective. I can score an 8 ball easier than I can get a 6 pack of beer. I have yet to see Obama be any less of a corporate tool than Bush either, just wanted to drop my unwelcome 2c on this thread.

 

[cebalrai]

Mr. Wizard...just by not doing the stimulus and not doing the health care initiative, that would have saved about a $trillion. That sounds like a good start.

And the economy would be in worse shape.

Health Care reform was paid for by the Medicare tax.

 

[cebalrai]

How about applying the hook now and posting the chart that shows how the cost of medical care has far exceeded the rate of inflation since Medicare and Medicaid were enacted.
Yep, medical care used to be cheap before government sunk its hands into it.

You confuse correlation with causality. Majorly.

 

[Byron In Exile]

And the economy would be in worse shape.

Health Care reform was paid for by the Medicare tax.

You know you're an idiot, right?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

http://www.conference-board.org/press/pressdetail.cfm?pressid=3936

You know that the LEI is a composite index right? Your Math degree covered that yes?

I noticed none of your erstwhile compatriots answered. So were you in favor of the housing subsidies that were not renewed that caused the drop in new home sales?

I'm betting a resounding no, if you bother to answer at all.

Hey, think for 30 seconds.

Remember we were against too big to fail, TARP, stimulus and handouts because all they do is increase debt (Ya'll used to be regular debt warriors... ). We're against the continual bailing out of Fannie and Freddie, we're against subsidies, we're against handouts. We told you all along that, like the auto rebate, this program only accelerates future purchases creating an artificial boom that is used for short-term political gain after which the consumer is reluctant to buy hoping that the incentive will become a regular feature of the market.

But at least 2000 new jobs have been created to deal with all the bad paper.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

And the economy would be in worse shape.

Health Care reform was paid for by the Medicare tax.

No, it was paid for with political accounting gimmicks and now that the administration has made the decision to deem the benefit package as "in effect" now, then all that number magic goes away as the benefits were originally pushed off into the future to make the thing LOOK like it was paying for itself in the nearest possible future, the passage of a bill which nobody read, or understood, without any of the transparency, robust debate, bipartisanship, or "the handgun" waiting period for the public to read the bill...

The "debate" went something like this:

The bipartisan dog and pony show where Obama made a public show of "listening" to Republican ideas while in private telling them, "that's nice, but we won," which was followed up by his "don't tell us how to hold the mop" speeches.

Then we got to see the buying and selling of members of the Democrat Congress much as we saw the original buying of Senate seats with Blago, Sestak, and Romanoff.

Then the mantra went out (just like in this thread) that "Republicans have no ideas to offer, just the party of NO (and as per Mercury's thread, filibusters)."

Then when we finally saw what was in the damned thing and it all started to go to shit with the public, don't you know that all the unpopular ideas were from the Heritage Foundation.

But, then, in polite conversation since, this was a great accomplishment of Obama and his ideas...

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Hey, think for 30 seconds.

Remember we were against too big to fail, TARP, stimulus and handouts because all they do is increase debt (Ya'll used to be regular debt warriors... ). We're against the continual bailing out of Fannie and Freddie, we're against subsidies, we're against handouts. We told you all along that, like the auto rebate, this program only accelerates future purchases creating an artificial boom that is used for short-term political gain after which the consumer is reluctant to buy hoping that the incentive will become a regular feature of the market.

But at least 2000 new jobs have been created to deal with all the bad paper.

Then, being against the housing subsidies all along, you can't really tout the drop in housing sales that was caused by their expiration, since the uptick in sales would not have happened if you had your way to begin with.

Zero sum.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Then, being against the housing subsidies all along, you can't really tout the drop in housing sales that was caused by their expiration, since the uptick in sales would not have happened if you had your way to begin with.

Zero sum.

We are simply pointing out the fallacy of your LEI numbers and noting that after all this time, we're still treading water.

This is Obama's new norm!

He said as much yesterday. He doesn't believe in America as we knew it, he believes it's time for a social state, and he believes it's time to become a welfare state where excellence is rewarded with their idea of morality and the taking of any gains for redistribution. Money will flee such a state, as will brains. You need to get this, for Obama 9% unemployment is not necessarily a negative thing if it is offset by massive welfare programs, in fact it is perfectly acceptable...
__________________
The US economy for a long period of time was the engine of world economic growth.* We were sucking in imports from all across the world financed by huge amounts of consumer debt.* Because of the financial crisis, but also because that debt was fundamentally unsustainable, the United States is not going to be able to serve in that same capacity to that same extent.
Barack Hussein Obama

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Whatever happened to the paygo signed with such great flourish?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

We are simply pointing out the fallacy of your LEI numbers and noting that after all this time, we're still treading water.

This is Obama's new norm!

He said as much yesterday. He doesn't believe in America as we knew it, he believes it's time for a social state, and he believes it's time to become a welfare state where excellence is rewarded with their idea of morality and the taking of any gains for redistribution. Money will flee such a state, as will brains. You need to get this, for Obama 9% unemployment is not necessarily a negative thing if it is offset by massive welfare programs, in fact it is perfectly acceptable...

Which fallacy to address?

Treading water?
Much like the term "socialist" you don't seem to conform to the definitions of terms used by everyone else.

Treading water would mean that there has been no change, a demonstrably untrue statement given that the Dow is not still in the low 8000's of June 2009 (that's just one year ago in the real world™). There has in fact been slow and steady growth, just as the LEI's have reflected.

I don't see anyone fleeing anywhere, although I'd be willing to chip in on the "escape" costs.

 

[mercury14]

Then the mantra went out (just like in this thread) that "Republicans have no ideas to offer, just the party of NO (and as per Mercury's thread, filibusters)."

The repubs didn't have anything to offer on health care and still don't.

They couldn't care less about it.

 

[firespin]

UD's not going to like this, from the HO cheerleading WaPo of all places:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062504680.html?hpid=topnews

"The economic recovery that began a year ago increasingly appears to be on shaky footing, driving financial markets downward and clouding the debate over economic policy.

Just two months ago, a strong, self-sustaining economic expansion seemed to be taking hold, with consumer spending, output of goods and services, corporate hiring and financial markets all on the rise. The latest string of economic data, however, has thrown cold water on that view. On Friday, the Commerce Department revised down its estimate of first-quarter gross domestic product growth to 2.7 percent from the estimated 3 percent. "

Cue elections in 5...4...3...

 

[Ham Murabi]

Which fallacy to address?

Treading water?
Much like the term "socialist" you don't seem to conform to the definitions of terms used by everyone else.

Treading water would mean that there has been no change, a demonstrably untrue statement given that the Dow is not still in the low 8000's of June 2009 (that's just one year ago in the real world™). There has in fact been slow and steady growth, just as the LEI's have reflected.

I don't see anyone fleeing anywhere, although I'd be willing to chip in on the "escape" costs.

Good point about the Dow.
I'm not as good using Google as you, but to reinforce your argument about how things are getting better, you should dig up some stats about what the jobless rate was when Obama took office.
That should silence the critics.