PDA

View Full Version : Snoopy's world crumbles ...



LWW
04-19-2012, 08:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>In the 39 months since Barack Obama took the oath of office as president of the United States, the federal government’s debt has increased by $5,027,761,476,484.56.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Although he has served less than a term, Obama is now the first American president to see the federal government's debt increase by more than $5 trillion during his time in office.</span>

During the full eight years that George W. Bush served as president, the federal government's debt increased by $4,899,100,310,608.44. (Rising from $5,727,776,738,304.64 to $10,626,877,048,913.08.)

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The $5,027,761,476,484.56 that the debt has increased during Obama's presidency equals $16,043.39 for every one of the 313,385,295 people the Census Bureau now estimates live in the United States.</span>

At the close of business on Jan. 20, 2009, the day Obama was inaugurated, the federal government’s debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08, according to the U.S. Treasury. By the close of business on April 16, 2012—as many Americans were working to finalize their 2011 tax returns to meet an April 17 filing deadline—the debt had reached $15,654,638,525,397.64.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The $5,027,761,476,484.56 in additional debt that the U.S. government has taken on during the 39 months that Obama has been president is more debt than the federal government accumulated in the first 219 years of the Republic.</span>

The total federal debt did not exceed $5,027,761,476,484.56 until March 14, 1996, when President Bill Clinton was in the last year of his first term in office. On that day, the national debt rose from $5,025,887,531,178.79 to 5,035,165,720,616.33. </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>This is where you enter into DEFLECT/DENY/DEFEND mode. (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/5-trillion-man-debt-has-increased-under-obama-502776147648456)</span>

Soflasnapper
04-19-2012, 02:05 PM
Yep, proving once again that W was far worse for the country than it even seemed at the time he was mercifully let go in disgrace without any personal consequences for his looting reign of error and crime.

True, he ruined his family brand, and his party brand, along with the finances of this country, if the slightest rational accountability is applied (although by this report from a non-journalistic site, it is not).

eg8r
04-19-2012, 02:08 PM
LOL, and after saying all that after reading how Obama was even worse. Seems the posts you make don't offer much confidence in our current president.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
04-19-2012, 05:25 PM
O is an able president, and surprisingly competent as an executive and leader. He's done nearly as much as he could under the constraints of policies and conditions for which he was not responsible for starting, but instead inherited, and must endure through and ameliorate.

It's tempting to blame the 2 wars and the tax cuts and the Medicare D for the lack of revenue, and the extra spending, and plenty of defenders of Obama take that route. It's not that it's untrue-- it's totally true, of course-- but the real 800 pound gorilla is the real estate market in the toilet, preventing the kind of economic turnaround that could really make the difference. (Thanks to the W policies that a) called for the institutionalizing of no-down-payment mortgages (and got them), and b) went to court to prevent 50 states' attorneys general from enforcing anti-predatory practice state laws against the banking and mortgage broker industries.)

So, sure we have a sh!t sandwich (as to debt growth and many other things), but that was all that was left in the kitchen to cook with when O came in, and the GOP insisted on no new ingredients, just more of the same. You know, the worst financial collapse since the GD tends to depress revenues, cause safety net expenditures to rise precipitously even if no eligibility changes are made, and it's no surprise to anyone, still less the fault of O. (Reading carefully, even this article only argues that the timing is coincidental, not that anything this president has done has made it so. Which is technically true enough, but easily over-read by partisans to lay blame where it does not. But they put it all in the passive voice, and the verb used as to Obama is 'see,' as in, the first president to see this happen in his term of office. See, as opposed to, 'cause.')

LWW
04-19-2012, 06:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, and after saying all that after reading how Obama was even worse. Seems the posts you make don't offer much confidence in our current president.

eg8r </div></div>

You can't blame a parrot because it repeats the gibberish it hears from it's master.

DiabloViejo
04-19-2012, 11:31 PM
Imagine that! YOU, of all people, calling others "parrots". Thanks for the laughs! YOU ARE THE BIGGEST PARROT OF THEM ALL!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/0/9/7/7/8/8/4/Right-Wing-Parrot-18892225219.jpeg

eg8r
04-20-2012, 09:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">O is an able president</div></div>This is what the original post is pointing out, he is even able to outspend W which is just incredible. He has been horrible. Just another W.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
04-20-2012, 02:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, and after saying all that after reading how Obama was even worse. Seems the posts you make don't offer much confidence in our current president.

eg8r </div></div>

You can't blame a parrot because it repeats the gibberish it hears from it's master. </div></div>

Quick point of grammar: it's is never used for the possessive form, only as a contraction of it is. You should have used 'its' in that spot, minus the apostrophe.

I hear most of the gibberish I do hear from you, and you are not my master.

Soflasnapper
04-20-2012, 02:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">O is an able president</div></div>This is what the original post is pointing out, he is even able to outspend W which is just incredible. He has been horrible. Just another W.

eg8r </div></div>

The post talks of large debt increases, not large spending increases.

The largest part of the increased debt level is the decline of revenues from the residue of that very sharp and steep recessionary period you may remember from 2008, which continued into 2009, until something happened that stopped the plummet and reversed the course of the economy. What was that again? Oh, right, until the stimulus bill was passed and gdp growth turned positive (over 3% to the good side) after falling at its most precipitous rate (almost 9%) the prior quarter or so.

In fact, in terms of private sector job creation, we're well ahead of the recovery in 2002 from the far shorter and milder and more shallow recession of 2001. As in approx. 3 million more jobs in this recovery than that one, even though then the debt was well under half what it is now, and even though the deficits then were only a fraction of what they were as of 2009, and even though the housing industry wasn't fubar.

During W's recovery, about 5 million manufacturing jobs were lost. During this recovery, we've gotten back about 500,000 manufacturing jobs.

These facts form the critical context, without which one cannot judge this situation accurately. I guess you've never heard these facts, or discounted them as false if you did hear of them.

Qtec
04-20-2012, 09:37 PM
Not that old BS again!

Q

LWW
04-22-2012, 06:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not that old BS again!

Q </div></div>

Facts. They are such stubborn things.

eg8r
04-22-2012, 08:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The post talks of large debt increases, not large spending increases.

</div></div>There doesn't have to be large spending increases, he has just continued everything W was doing, so in effect he has not reduced the spending which has allowed the debt to continually skyrocket.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The largest part of the increased debt level is the decline of revenues from the residue of that very sharp and steep recessionary period you may remember from 2008, which continued into 2009,</div></div>Oh, like when he was promising a max of 8% yet helping to drive unemployment to 10%. Yeah I remember that clearly.

eg8r

Qtec
04-23-2012, 03:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mitch Daniels Faults President Obama for Not Fixing the Mess He Helped Leave Him <span style="color: #3333FF">[ just like you do.]</span>

Once again this Sunday, we were treated to Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels<u> hoping the audience forgets about the fact that he was George W. Bush's budget director.</u> This week he was blaming President Obama for not properly cleaning up the mess he helped to leave him, and trivializing how bad it was as well.

When Wallace asked him about the Obama administration's argument that <u>that he inherited a mess from George W. Bush</u>, here's part of how Daniels responded:

DANIELS: First of all, the president did inherit a mess but it's not the first time it's ever happened.<span style="color: #3333FF">LOL</span> He's done less with the mess than anyone else ever did. Ronald Reagan inherited a bigger one and had a roaring economy already by this stage.


H/t to our regular Sunday show commenter Mugsy for pointing out why that's not true:

1: Unemployment rose only 1% Carter's last year in office. Under Bush, unemployment rose nearly 3% (2.9%) his last 11 months.

2: Carter added just $200B to the National Debt (22%). Bush added 45% (almost doubling the Debt).

3: Carter came in on the heels of the Ford Recession, which was more severe than what Reagan inherited from Carter.

4: By October of Reagan's SECOND year in office, unemployment peaked at 10.8%.

5: Republicans swept into Congress in 2010 promising "jobs, jobs, jobs". Now in 2012, they are criticizing "the president's economic polices" for the struggling economy. How do they then make the case for their own reelection?

Daniels also ignores the fact that <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Republicans in the Congress have done everything in their power <u><span style="color: #990000">to either obstruct or water down any stimulus or efforts to get Americans back to work at every turn</span></u></span>

..and at the state level

<span style='font-size: 14pt'> <u><span style="color: #990000">Republican governors have been laying off government workers and busting their unions and helping to make the unemployment numbers worse, but they want to lay this all on the feet of the current administration.</span></u></span> Daniels was also touting the Paul Ryan budget as a better solution to fix the economy than anything the administration has proposed, which as we've covered here again and again is<u> nothing but another tax giveaway for the rich and Wall Street paid for by the working class.</u> </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In January 2009, employers cut a total 598,000 jobs, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>the most monthly job losses in more than 34 years.</span> Both the number of job losses and unemployment rate are higher than economists have expected. The unemployment data highlights the deterioration of the labor market. </div></div>

http://www.thesunsfinancialdiary.com/wp-content/uploads/3258222090_ae74282854_o.png

..and its all Obama's fault?

Q

Soflasnapper
04-23-2012, 09:55 AM
There doesn't have to be large spending increases, he has just continued everything W was doing, so in effect he has not reduced the spending which has allowed the debt to continually skyrocket.


So close there! Quite right, O has barely ended one of the wars and that took a while (although on the agreement of forces timetable agreed before his term by the two nations), the other one continues, and the Medicare D benefit continues. However, of equal or greater impact to the budget balance, the entire tax cuts continue, both the originals (lowered top marginal rate for everyone, $1k tax credit per child) and the second tax cut (interest, dividends and cap gains all maxed at 15% rate). In the above list, what should be cut in spending, or raised in revenue, by ending which programs or tax cuts?

Oh, like when he was promising a max of 8% yet helping to drive unemployment to 10%. Yeah I remember that clearly.

You remember this falsehood being stated over and over again, not the facts of the matter. He never wrote or said any such promise. That was a pre-inauguration, transition period spitballed figure from the economic staff, using the then best estimated blue chip forecast for the gdp decline figure (which was less than half the later determined decline). AS OF THE STIMULUS' PASSING, the UE was already over 8%, so it could hardly have kept the UE rate below something it had already surmounted.

eg8r
04-23-2012, 06:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You remember this falsehood being stated over and over again,</div></div>LOL, only a lefty burnt for believe his lies would call it a falsehood. Then again, you keep believing him and he keeps lying to you.

eg8r

eg8r
04-23-2012, 06:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Once again this Sunday, we were treated to Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels hoping the audience forgets about the fact that he was George W. Bush's budget director. This week he was blaming President Obama for not properly cleaning up the mess he helped to leave him, and trivializing how bad it was as well.

</div></div>Sorry qtip but that is what happens when you say you are offering "hope and change" and then do your best W impersonation.

eg8r

LWW
04-24-2012, 03:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mitch Daniels Faults President Obama for Not Fixing the Mess He Helped Leave Him <span style="color: #3333FF">[ just like you do.]</span>

Once again this Sunday, we were treated to Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels<u> hoping the audience forgets about the fact that he was George W. Bush's budget director.</u> This week he was blaming President Obama for not properly cleaning up the mess he helped to leave him, and trivializing how bad it was as well.

When Wallace asked him about the Obama administration's argument that <u>that he inherited a mess from George W. Bush</u>, here's part of how Daniels responded:

DANIELS: First of all, the president did inherit a mess but it's not the first time it's ever happened.<span style="color: #3333FF">LOL</span> He's done less with the mess than anyone else ever did. Ronald Reagan inherited a bigger one and had a roaring economy already by this stage.


H/t to our regular Sunday show commenter Mugsy for pointing out why that's not true:

1: Unemployment rose only 1% Carter's last year in office. Under Bush, unemployment rose nearly 3% (2.9%) his last 11 months.

2: Carter added just $200B to the National Debt (22%). Bush added 45% (almost doubling the Debt).

3: Carter came in on the heels of the Ford Recession, which was more severe than what Reagan inherited from Carter.

4: By October of Reagan's SECOND year in office, unemployment peaked at 10.8%.

5: Republicans swept into Congress in 2010 promising "jobs, jobs, jobs". Now in 2012, they are criticizing "the president's economic polices" for the struggling economy. How do they then make the case for their own reelection?

Daniels also ignores the fact that <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Republicans in the Congress have done everything in their power <u><span style="color: #990000">to either obstruct or water down any stimulus or efforts to get Americans back to work at every turn</span></u></span>

..and at the state level

<span style='font-size: 14pt'> <u><span style="color: #990000">Republican governors have been laying off government workers and busting their unions and helping to make the unemployment numbers worse, but they want to lay this all on the feet of the current administration.</span></u></span> Daniels was also touting the Paul Ryan budget as a better solution to fix the economy than anything the administration has proposed, which as we've covered here again and again is<u> nothing but another tax giveaway for the rich and Wall Street paid for by the working class.</u> </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In January 2009, employers cut a total 598,000 jobs, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>the most monthly job losses in more than 34 years.</span> Both the number of job losses and unemployment rate are higher than economists have expected. The unemployment data highlights the deterioration of the labor market. </div></div>

http://www.thesunsfinancialdiary.com/wp-content/uploads/3258222090_ae74282854_o.png

..and its all Obama's fault?

Q </div></div>

Thanks for posting that graph as it proves two things I've been telling you.

1 - The rise in UE coincides exactly with the demo kooks taking control go congress. Yes, Bush is to blame because he attempted compromise with the party of the moon at crazy left.

2 - You will shamelessly post a truncated graph to hide the failure of dear leader.

Qtec
04-26-2012, 05:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for posting that graph as it proves two things I've been telling you.

1 - The rise in UE <u>coincides exactly with the demo kooks taking control go congress.</u> Yes, Bush is to blame because he attempted compromise with the party of the moon at crazy left. </div></div>

Two things I've been asking you.

1. Are you claiming, that just the fact of the Dems getting a majority, UE somehow exploded - even before these Dems passed any piece of legislation?

That's just stupid.

2. If you have such proof, post it!

Q

Soflasnapper
04-26-2012, 09:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You remember this falsehood being stated over and over again,</div></div>LOL, only a lefty burnt for believe his lies would call it a falsehood. Then again, you keep believing him and he keeps lying to you.

eg8r </div></div>

Dude, you are pathetic here. (Elsewhere also, but talking this particular very simple point.)

YOU KEEP BELIEVING THIS CRAP. To be fair, you probably hear and read it a lot. However, that doesn't make it true, and in fact it is false. Many things a lot of people say are false. You may notice that phenomena right here on this board. You should realize that if Mitt Romney's campaign and Romney directly is claiming it is true, that is a good indicator that it is likely false, as it is.

Here's a clue for you: UE went to 8.3% IN FEBRUARY 2009. Monthly figures for all years available here. (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000) It was at 7.8% as of O's inauguration the 3rd week of January.

So by your theory, Obama stupidly claimed that if his stimulus was passed, it would immediately prevent even a 0.5% increase in the UE rate. Which is absurd, and didn't happen.

Or maybe he didn't say it as PRESIDENT, but as president ELECT, in the transition after the election until inauguration day?

That is not as absurd, but it is equally wrong. Here's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romneys-claim-that-obama-said-stimulus-would-keep-unemployment-below-8-percent/2012/02/17/gIQA9A8MKR_blog.html) the truth.

If you dispute this, find me Obama stating this as he advocates for his stimulus. A video, or a transcript of a speech will do. You cannot find it because it doesn't exist, and he never said what you claim. Knock yourself out, and look for it.

Does this bother you, that you are so easily chumped and have so little grasp of reality? Does it bother you to find out once again that what a lot of people say is false? Or that you believe them? Which is worse, in your view?

Soflasnapper
04-26-2012, 09:49 AM
1 - The rise in UE coincides exactly with the demo kooks taking control go congress.

Ol' Lar' shouldn't post when he's been drinking. Many tell-tale signs here. Everyone knows he uses demo krooks, not kooks, to start with. Then the dyslexic typo, go for of.

Then the hilarious claim that correlation must equal causation. Actually, he thinks that is a great argument even when he's sober.

It's not a great argument. It's not even a good argument. It's false, or else a rooster crowing causes the sun to come up.

Most people get this concept somewhere in elementary school. You'd think his GED would have finally taught him this last year or whenever it was he earned that 'degree.'

But, playing along and all, here's the chart to make his head blow up:

http://www.bartcop.com/jobs-chart-120223.jpg

Gayle in MD
04-26-2012, 10:08 AM
<span style="color: #CC0000">Christie, Boehner, Romney, Cantor, McConnell, all LIARS! </span>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When Gov. Chris Christie began his interview Sunday on CBS News’ "Face the Nation," host Bob Schieffer said he enjoys having him on the show, because the Republican governor has an unusual habit of answering questions.

But with one of those answers, Christie rehashed an old -- and mostly inaccurate -- GOP talking point about President Barack Obama guaranteeing that the stimulus program would keep unemployment below 8 percent.

With the next round of Republican primaries set for Tuesday in Arizona and Michigan, Christie continued on Sunday making his pitch that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney would ultimately prevail and take on Obama in the Nov. 6 general election.

Obama will be a very formidable candidate, but the president still has weaknesses, according to Christie.

"He said unemployment was never gonna go over 8 percent if we passed the stimulus plan," Christie told Schieffer. "We went up over 10 percent."

PolitiFact National and its state affiliates have debunked similar claims several times before, starting with U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) in July 2009. More recently, Romney faced the Truth-O-Meter for repeating that statement earlier this month after winning the Nevada caucuses.

Each time, the claim has received a Mostly False.

Here’s what the fact-checks have revealed:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known as the stimulus, was signed into law on Feb. 17, 2009. The stimulus was meant to dole out billions of dollars as a way to boost the economy.

The nation’s unemployment rate stood at 8.3 percent in February 2009 and gradually increased before peaking at 10 percent in October 2009, according to seasonally-adjusted data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate has since decreased to 8.3 percent as of last month.

But PolitiFact has never found evidence of an administration official making a public pledge to hold unemployment below 8 percent.

The source of the Republican claims is a Jan. 9, 2009 report from Christina Romer, who would soon become chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, who would serve as chief economist and economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden.

The purpose of the study was to estimate the potential effects of a stimulus program on job creation. Romer and Bernstein estimated that the recovery package would create between 3 million and 4 million jobs by the end of 2010.

On one chart, they estimated the unemployment rates both with and without the stimulus plan.

Without the stimulus, the unemployment rate was projected to top 9 percent in early 2010, the report states. With the stimulus, the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009, according to the report.

But throughout the report, the authors cautioned that their estimates are subject to significant "uncertainty."

Check out this passage from the report:

"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error. There is the obvious uncertainty that comes from modeling a hypothetical package rather than the final legislation passed by the Congress. But, there is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program.

"Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."

So, the claim about unemployment not exceeding 8 percent was a projection subject to "uncertainty," and far from the guarantee suggested by Christie and other Republicans.

The governor's office did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Our ruling

During his "Face the Nation" interview, Christie repeated the GOP talking point that Obama "said unemployment was never gonna go over 8 percent if we passed the stimulus plan."

As PolitiFact has determined numerous times before, neither Obama personally nor his administration never made such a promise. Two economic advisers offered that projection, but stressed repeatedly that their estimates were subject to considerable "uncertainty."

Although Christie's statement represents a gross exaggeration, it contains an element of truth. That's why this claim is rated Mostly False.




</div></div>


http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/sta...mployment-woul/ (http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/statements/2012/feb/27/chris-christie/chris-christie-claims-obama-said-unemployment-woul/)

Soflasnapper
04-26-2012, 10:15 AM
This is a shocking development!

ALL THE REPUBLICANS REPEATING THIS LIE???!?!?!!

Unprecedented! When was the last time this happened? Every day, you say? True dat.

I guess Republicans don't mind being lied to every minute of the day.

Not only was there no promise or guarantee, he never said it, or anything like it.

A secret promise, then? Maybe he told Michelle, in confidence?

Rep. Issa can hold hearings to try to get to the bottom of this huge scandal!

Gayle in MD
04-26-2012, 10:32 AM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

More ridiculous Republican lies:



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Summary
We fact-checked President Obama’s State of the Union address, but what about the Republican response speeches? We found two new claims that we haven’t covered before:

In the official response, Rep. Paul Ryan said that "trust in government is at an all-time low now that the size of government is at an all-time high." He’s wrong on both counts. Trust has been lower, and government has been larger, in the past.
In her own rebuttal to Obama, Rep. Michele Bachmann said that the bailout cost "$700 billion." The net cost actually is estimated to be much less — $25 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
In addition, the two Republicans repeated several false and misleading charges we’ve already written about. Our readers will be familiar with many of them, such as claims that the stimulus didn’t create jobs (it did), that the health care law hurts job growth (experts say the impact will be small), and that "16,500 IRS agents" will enforce that law (that’s based on a flawed, partisan analysis).

Analysis

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin gave the official Republican response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on Jan. 25. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota also gave a response speech that night to Tea Party Express activists. We found factual issues with both of their remarks.



Not So ‘All-Time’ After All

Ryan was off the mark with his claims about "all-time" highs and lows in the size and distrust of government:

Ryan, Jan. 25: When government takes on too many tasks, it usually doesn’t do any of them very well. It’s no coincidence that trust in government is at an all-time low now that the size of government is at an all-time high.

Ryan spokesman Kevin Seifert said that the congressman was measuring size of government by spending as a percentage of gross domestic product. In that case, Ryan’s "all-time high" claim is off by more than 60 years.

According to historical tables from the Office of Management and Budget, federal spending as a percent of GDP was 24.7 percent in 2009, and estimated to reach 25.4 percent in 2010. Neither of those figures even comes close to the real "all-time high" figure of 43.6 percent in 1943 and 1944.

Ryan was closer with his claim about public skepticism of government, but still not quite right.

Only 22 percent of those surveyed said they trusted the federal government "almost always or most of the time," according to an April 2010 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press — the source for Ryan’s claim. That’s indeed "among the lowest measures in half a century," the report noted. But the Pew report highlighted other polls conducted over the years — by other organizations — with slightly lower percentages. Case in point, polls conducted by CBS News and the New York Times in October 2008, and by Gallup in June 1994, found that just 17 percent of respondents said they trusted the government most or all of the time.

Ryan’s suggestion that the level of government trust and size of government are somehow connected was also undercut somewhat by Pew’s research. "The current survey and previous research have found that there is no single factor that drives general public distrust in government," the report said.

Stimulating Falsehoods

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus program, was a target for both Ryan and Bachmann. Ryan repeated a claim that we already debunked about the increase in domestic spending under Obama.

Ryan: The facts are clear: Since taking office, President Obama has signed into law spending increases of nearly 25 percent for domestic government agencies — an 84 percent increase when you include the failed stimulus.

It’s true that domestic spending has increased, but not nearly as much as Ryan claims. As we’ve written before, the 84 percent figure is the result of a flawed analysis by the Republican staff of the House Budget Committee.

The partisan Republican report claimed that “domestic discretionary spending” increased 84 percent from 2008 to 2010 when including the stimulus. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report this month that shows (on table E-7) that domestic discretionary spending rose from $485.1 billion in 2008 to $614.2 billion in 2010, an increase of $129.1 billion or 27 percent. The CBO figures include all discretionary spending, including stimulus funds in 2009 and 2010.

Also, Ryan said the stimulus "failed to deliver on its promise to create jobs." As we wrote during the midterm elections, it’s just wrong to say that the stimulus didn’t create jobs. Ryan can say — as Bachmann did — that the program failed to keep unemployment at 8 percent, as projected in a January 2009 report by the administration when it was lobbying for the bill. But the nonpartisan CBO says the stimulus increased employment by between 1.4 million and 3.6 million people in the third quarter of 2010, compared with what would have happened without it.



Exaggerations by the Billions

Bachmann also resorted to exaggeration to make partisan points about spending.

Bachmann, Jan. 25: After the $700 billion bailout, the trillion-dollar stimulus, and the massive budget bill with over 9,000 earmarks, many of you implored Washington to please stop spending money that we don’t have.

Let’s take the most egregious exaggeration: "the $700 billion bailout." That figure is grossly outdated. Bachmann is referring to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which President Bush signed into law in October 2008. As the CBO explained in a November 2010 report, the "authority for the Troubled Asset Relief Program was originally set at a maximum of $700 billion; however, that total was reduced to $475 billion in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act." But the estimated net cost to taxpayers will be $25 billion after the government sells its stocks and the companies repay the money, as CBO estimated in its report.

As for her figures on earmarks and the stimulus, Bachmann is essentially correct — although she likes to round up. A trillion dollars is a nice round number, but that’s not how much the stimulus will cost. The CBO initially estimated it would cost $787 billion and now says it will cost $814 billion over 10 years. As for the "9,000 earmarks," Bachmann is referring to the 2009 omnibus spending bill signed by Obama in March 2009. That bill had 8,570 earmarks worth $7.7 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Close enough.

Bachmann not only exaggerates but is flat-out wrong when she repeats the oft-stated false claim about the need to hire "16,500 IRS agents in charge of policing President Obama’s health care bill." As we reported previously, the figure of 16,500 originated from a House Republican report that relies on false assumptions and outright misrepresentation. The CBO estimated in March 2010 that the health care law would increase IRS administrative costs by $5 billion to $10 billion over 10 years. But that money will not be going for "16,500 IRS agents in charge of policing" health care mandates. The IRS is mostly responsible under the new law for administering tax credit programs, not collecting penalties.

Health Care Misrepresentations

Ryan made several criticisms of the health care law, saying:

Ryan: What we already know about the president’s health care law is this: Costs are going up, premiums are rising, and millions of people will lose the coverage they currently have. Job creation is being stifled by all of its taxes, penalties, mandates and fees.

The long list includes false, misleading and not entirely true statements.

As we’ve written before, rising medical costs are the primary driver of increasing premiums, and that’s according to insurance companies and state insurance commissions. In fact, the CBO has said the law won’t have much of an impact on premium costs for most Americans, compared with what premiums would have been without the law. (Premiums have been rising well before the law, and were expected to rise without it.) Those on the individual market — persons who buy their own insurance — will see an average increase of 10 percent to 13 percent, but more than half of those individuals will get subsidies that reduce their out-of-pocket costs substantially. And the increase in premiums will be due to an increase in benefits in those plans.

Ryan spokesman Seifert pointed us to a Wall Street Journal article about some insurers claiming they were raising premium rates substantially — primarily in the individual market — because of the new benefit requirements in the health care law. But experts told us they would estimate a 1 percent to 3 percent increase attributable to the law, possibly more if the insurer offered stripped-down, minimal plans. Ryan’s office also cites a report from CBO on the impact of the law on Medicare Advantage — that’s the version of Medicare offered by private insurers. Medicare Advantage plans are paid more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare, and the law will slowly change that over time. As a result, Advantage plans won’t offer the extra benefits they now do, such as vision plans or gym memberships. CBO estimates that 4.8 million fewer seniors will choose to be on an Advantage plan by 2019, than CBO projected without the health care law. And the loss of extra benefits is valued at an average $67 per month per person. One could consider this an increase in cost for those seniors who use the extra benefits and then decide to pay for them on their own. At the same time, the change in Advantage plans saves the government $117 billion over 10 years.

Health care spending overall is expected to rise a bit — by less than 1 percent over a decade. That’s because about 34 million more Americans will gain coverage, according to the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

As for "millions" losing their current coverage, there’s truth to that, but context is required. The CBO estimated that 8 million to 9 million people who would normally have employer-sponsored coverage won’t get such an offer from their employers. The reason is that these are mostly low-income workers who will get subsidies to go buy their own insurance in state-based exchanges. (We’d note that it’s not clear that all of these workers have coverage now, but would be expected to have it by 2019.) Also, whether the law had been enacted or not, employers would be free to drop coverage.

Ryan reiterated the GOP claim that the law kills jobs. This time, he said it stifles job creation, but he again pointed to a CBO report that Republicans have badly misrepresented. CBO said the law would have a small impact on the labor supply, and that would be mostly due to workers retiring early or working less because they would have more secure health care options. Other experts have said the law would have a minimal impact on jobs.

Ryan also claimed: "Health care spending is driving the explosive growth of our debt. And the president’s law is accelerating our country toward bankruptcy." That claim was echoed by Bachmann, who said the law "could have a devastating impact on our national debt for even generations to come." But both politicians are wrong to make such claims.

The law is actually expected to reduce the deficit, according to the CBO, over the next two decades and beyond. It remains to be seen whether all of the cost-cutting measures will be fully implemented. But we went through various Republican claims about the supposed flaws in CBO’s analysis and found the GOP assertions to be mostly bogus.

Bachmann also wrongly said this about the law:

Bachmann: "[U]nless we fully repeal Obamacare, a nation that currently enjoys the world’s finest health care might be forced to rely on government-run coverage.

First, as we’ve said many times, the law doesn’t create a government-run system. Instead, it builds on our current system and adds a lot of new business for private insurers. Second, some studies on the quality of care worldwide have not put the U.S. at the top. A 2010 Commonwealth Fund study ranked the U.S. last among seven countries in health system performance. In other health outcome measures, the U.S. ranks 49th in life expectancy, according to the CIA World Factbook, and plenty of other countries have lower rates of infant mortality.
</div></div>

http://WWW.FACTCHECK.ORG


If their lips are moving, they're lying. True all through the Bush Administration, still true to this day.

G.

eg8r
04-26-2012, 10:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">YOU KEEP BELIEVING THIS CRAP. To be fair, you probably hear and read it a lot. However, that doesn't make it true, and in fact it is false.</div></div>LOL, take a look in the mirror. Obama told us he would keep UE below 8%. You showing us how that was not possible doesn't discount our memory of him saying it. You are just showing us another lie of his.

eg8r

eg8r
04-26-2012, 10:35 AM
Wow, you are really stepping down your game...Calling him a drunk and high school drop out. When did you start resorting to this behaviour? I always commended your ability to stay above that, something I myself have never been good at.

eg8r

LWW
04-26-2012, 12:17 PM
The following link will take you to the report.

It is patently dishonest to read the report and say it wasn't a promise.

That being said, I have no doubt that as an O-cultist you will say that it was a prediction as opposed to a promise, and that since it came from vice-messiah Biden's office it doesn't count as coming from the regime.

http://www.ampo.org/assets/library/184_obama.pdf

Soflasnapper
04-26-2012, 04:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant
margins of error. There is the obvious uncertainty that comes from modeling a hypothetical package rather than the final legislation passed by the Congress. But, there is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the
current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity.</span></div></div>

So, there was indeed a promise there. No, not in that paragraph, on the first page:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Our analysis will surely evolve as we and other economists work further on this topic. The results will also change as the actual package parameters are determined in
cooperation with the Congress.</span></div></div>

So, the only promise is that the analysis will evolve, and the results will change as the actual proposal is determined by Congress.

Now, show where this went anywhere but to the internal consumption of the president-elect, and show it ever came out of his mouth, or was published under his signature.

It's a preliminary STAFF REPORT to the president-elect's attention. Nothing more.

eg8r
04-26-2012, 05:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, the only promise is that the analysis will evolve, and the results will change as the actual proposal is determined by Congress.

</div></div>In your attempt at being funny you are coming off as a jerk. Just prior to this comment of yours you quoted one sentence that sort of agrees with your position. The problem is you ignored the sentence right after it...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nevertheless, this report suggests a methodology for ensuring that
the package contains enough stimulus that we can have confidence that it will create sufficient jobs
to meet the President-Elect’s goals.</div></div>Now you are just being intellectually dishonest. So it says yes this will be evolving based on collaboration with Congress but NEVERTHELESS this methodology ensures enough stimulus to create sufficient jobs to meet the President-Elect's goals. Do you want to go back and look those goals up?<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A key goal enunciated by the President-Elect concerning the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Plan is that it should save or create at least 3 million jobs by the end of 2010.</div></div>That failed.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the absence of stimulus,
the economy could lose another 3 to 4 million more. Thus, we are working to counter a potential
total job loss of at least 5 million. As Figure 1 shows, even with the large prototypical package, the
unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is predicted to be approximately 7.0%, which is well below the
approximately 8.8% that would result in the absence of a plan.1</div></div>This failed so freaking bad it makes all the Obama supporters look foolish believing in hope and change. Without Obama's stimulus UE would be approx 8.8%. In reality which is where Democrats don't live, the stimulus drove us up near 10%, or in the least kept up at 10% without allowing it to get worse. Either way you look at it, the lofty goal of 7%-8.8% were incredibly off target.

I stopped there, not to avoid anything else in the package but because it makes no sense to read any more failures from the package. All in all it was a massive fail as outlined in the package.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
04-26-2012, 06:59 PM
If you can hold back your false mischaracterizations of me for a minute, perhaps you might consider returning to the question: when, after the date of this report (or perhaps slightly before it), but prior to the stimulus package's passage in February, did the PRESIDENT (or then-president-elect) say ANYTHING ABOUT THE NUMBERS IN THIS REPORT, ever?

There are only about 4-6 weeks when this could have happened, so it cannot be all that hard to find.

You know, presidential or president-elect comments and speeches are recorded, especially on hotly contested large-scale policies. If the entire anti-Obama right wing echo chamber on the net hasn't found it, that means only one thing: it never happened.

I'm sorry you find this a horrible shattering of your world view, and strike out in angry attacks that I am lying about this. I would not call you a liar before now on this subject, as lying requires knowledge that what is being said is false, which I charitably but backhandedly insultingly as well think is not the case with you on this subject. You've been well and thoroughly duped-- congratulations!

Now, however, you have been informed, so will you now repeat your early mistaken falsehoods as deliberate lies? A simple character question: what kind of man are you?

Have you the decency and grace to admit error, and apologize?

Take your time, and check through to what you are able to find about this. You'll find endless repetition of what you thought was true, but no quotations, no video or audio, or any reporting of that period showing Obama 'promising' this 'preliminary analysis' projection would take place.

Yes, the preliminary analysis using rough numbers approximating what was eventually to be the mix of the stimulus was wrong as to the future (although they mention some forecasters' statements that absent stimulus, 11%+ UE was likely).

However, the economic advisors following the blue chip forecasts thought the 3Q08 gdp was about +/-0.5% (forget which just now, but essentially flat), and the 4Q08 would be about -3% down for gdp. Instead, which wasn't known at the time, 3Q08 was actually already steeply declining at a -3% gdp annualized rate (as bad as they thought 4Q08 would be), and 4Q08 was a catastrophic -9.8 gdp decline, off the cliff and hurtling to the rocks below.

Had those numbers been available at the time of this analysis, those numbers all would have reflected more modest job gain projections, and higher UE rates than these projections, by simple macroeconomic math.

All of which is besides the point, if the president never promised anything, as it appears by the stark lack of evidence of his doing that, he did not.

LWW
04-27-2012, 04:24 AM
To clear all te smoke, I have a simple question for you.

Has the US debt risen more in 39 months of Obama than it did in 84 months of Bush?

Soflasnapper
04-27-2012, 11:49 AM
Depending on how you define months of Obama and months of W.

Using the incompetent and erroneous metric of 'as of their taking office,' perhaps.

If instead, as is more proper in my view, booking the $1.2 trillion in on-budget deficit for FY09 to W's side, as CBO reported would be the FY09 number well before O took office, probably no, not at all, even if the extra $200 billion or so added to the FY09 budget deficit by O is included.

Here's the way a regular person can understand this difference I suggest is important in terms of assigning blame or liability or causation.

Was Jimmy Johnson the worst coach in Dallas Cowboys history?

He went 1-15 in his first season at that proud franchise, and 2 games under .500 the next year, 7-9. I'm fairly sure the first mark is the worst in franchise history (as only the Tampa Bay Buccaneers had a winless season in league history, iirc).

But that's clearly an incomplete set of facts.

The franchise had been getting steadily worse, although not at the 1 win level of complete futility: 10–6 in 1985 to 7–9 in 1986, 7–8 in 1987, and 3–13 in 1988. The owner had fallen into hard times with his S&L, was running out of money, and was forced by the FSLIC to sell the franchise.

That is, new owner Jones and new coach JJ inherited a poor team in considerable decline, and took a couple of years to turn it around, with 1st round pick Troy Aikman, trading Herschel Walker for a million players and future draft picks (I exaggerate, of course), etc. That it actually got worse in their first year was due to the momentum of that several years' fall, not anything reflective on their abilities or lack thereof.

Any impatient Dallas fans that maybe crucified the new ownership and coach over their alleged pitiful performance were just simply wrong about any theory that the franchise could be turned around immediately, in one year. So even if JJ had 'the worst' performance of the team under any coach, he wasn't the worst coach-- other factors weighed more heavily in the team's performance for a while.

LWW
04-27-2012, 01:11 PM
Translated:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I MUST SUPPORT THE REGIME!

I MUST SUPPORT THE REGIME!

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>I MUST SUPPORT THE REGIME!</span>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>I MUST SUPPORT THE REGIME!</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>I MUST SUPPORT THE REGIME!</span>

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>I MUST SUPPORT THE REGIME!</span>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>I MUST SUPPORT THE REGIME!</span>



</div></div>

Soflasnapper
04-27-2012, 01:26 PM
So you say Jerry Jones and Jimmy Johnson WERE as bad as the 1-15 season seemed to indicate?

Guess you know as much about how pro sports work as you do about the economy, then. Quelle surprise!

[My invented discussion on the Cowboys, mimicking LWW's talking points on the economy:

LWW: Yes, they CLAIM they had inherited a bad team. But THEY. MADE. IT. WORSE! Here are the numbers that prove it!

They had 27 wins the previous 4 seasons! Over 6 a year! From a 6 a year average, they dropped it to a 1 win season! You want to give them a pass for dropping 83.3% off the 4 year average they inherited???? We should fire JJ and JJ now!!!]

LWW
04-28-2012, 04:15 AM
You are such a shameless tool.

In the Obamatronic brain, every mistake Clinton made carried over to Bush ... every mistake Bush made is blamed on Bush ... Any every mistake Obama mad was because of Bush.

Stretch
04-28-2012, 08:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are such a shameless tool.

In the Obamatronic brain, every mistake Clinton made carried over to Bush ... every mistake Bush made is blamed on Bush ... Any every mistake Obama mad was because of Bush.
</div></div>

Hate based sweeping generalities, well done! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif St.

Soflasnapper
04-28-2012, 11:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are such a shameless tool.

In the Obamatronic brain, every mistake Clinton made carried over to Bush ... every mistake Bush made is blamed on Bush ... Any every mistake Obama mad was because of Bush.
</div></div>

I don't say that Clinton made no mistakes, nor that Obama has not. They both made mistakes, and all actual leftists always called both of these men corporatist toadies and Republicans of the Ike variety (whereas their blindly ideological foes claimed they were the most left wingers of all times). The left was suspicious of Clinton immediately and constantly, until the character of his attackers from the right caused their switch to defending him.

You appear to take the opposite version of the error you wrongly attribute to me, that nothing anyone does carries over to effect the next president and the next economy. But the ship of state and the economy do not stop and start again from scratch when a new POTUS is inaugurated. They are on-going concerns, and have momentum on their own once put into motion.

You cannot acknowledge (apparently) that $7-$10- TRILLION was lost in home values, and another similarly sized $7-$10 TRILLION was lost in the NYSE, so the new guy came in with an approx. $20 trillion drop in national wealth (more lost wealth than the entire annual gdp). By the well-understood 'wealth effect,' this caused an immediate drop of at least $1 trillion in annual demand out of a gdp of about $12 trillion (or about a shortfall of at least 8.5% in demand across the board).

So you ask naive or ignorant questions, such as why hasn't the economy recovered yet along the lines of normal recessions' recoveries? While suggesting that any reference to the overhanging continued losses in the double digit trillions of wealth loss is only special pleading and bad faith by hyperpartisan types excusing their guy.

nAz
04-28-2012, 12:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are such a shameless tool.

In the Obamatronic brain, every mistake Clinton made carried over to Bush ... every mistake Bush made is blamed on Bush ... Any every mistake Obama mad was because of Bush.
</div></div>

I don't say that Clinton made no mistakes, nor that Obama has not. They both made mistakes, and all actual leftists always called both of these men corporatist toadies and Republicans of the Ike variety (whereas their blindly ideological foes claimed they were the most left wingers of all times). The left was suspicious of Clinton immediately and constantly, until the character of his attackers from the right caused their switch to defending him.

You appear to take the opposite version of the error you wrongly attribute to me, that nothing anyone does carries over to effect the next president and the next economy. But the ship of state and the economy do not stop and start again from scratch when a new POTUS is inaugurated. They are on-going concerns, and have momentum on their own once put into motion.

You cannot acknowledge (apparently) that $7-$10- TRILLION was lost in home values, and another similarly sized $7-$10 TRILLION was lost in the NYSE, so the new guy came in with an approx. $20 trillion drop in national wealth (more lost wealth than the entire annual gdp). By the well-understood 'wealth effect,' this caused an immediate drop of at least $1 trillion in annual demand out of a gdp of about $12 trillion (or about a shortfall of at least 8.5% in demand across the board).

So you ask naive or ignorant questions, such as why hasn't the economy recovered yet along the lines of normal recessions' recoveries? While suggesting that any reference to the overhanging continued losses in the double digit trillions of wealth loss is only special pleading and bad faith by hyperpartisan types excusing their guy.


</div></div>


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>OUCH!</span>

http://2guys1truck.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/owned9wz.jpg

eg8r
04-28-2012, 07:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you can hold back your false mischaracterizations of me for a minute</div></div>Most people acting like a sarcastic jerk tends to believe they are not acting like a sarcastic jerk. Might you hold back your defense for a minute and take look in the mirror.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">perhaps you might consider returning to the question: when, after the date of this report (or perhaps slightly before it), but prior to the stimulus package's passage in February, did the PRESIDENT (or then-president-elect) say ANYTHING ABOUT THE NUMBERS IN THIS REPORT, ever?

There are only about 4-6 weeks when this could have happened, so it cannot be all that hard to find.
</div></div>The report is based on the President-elect's goals. Hello McFly, he must have stated these goals for them to be in existence for them to be referred to in the report. Maybe they happened before or after your 4-6 week range but I really don't care. Common sense tells you that he must have made all these goals prior to the report. He failed on all of them.

eg8r

LWW
04-29-2012, 05:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nAz</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are such a shameless tool.

In the Obamatronic brain, every mistake Clinton made carried over to Bush ... every mistake Bush made is blamed on Bush ... Any every mistake Obama mad was because of Bush.
</div></div>

I don't say that Clinton made no mistakes, nor that Obama has not. They both made mistakes, and all actual leftists always called both of these men corporatist toadies and Republicans of the Ike variety (whereas their blindly ideological foes claimed they were the most left wingers of all times). The left was suspicious of Clinton immediately and constantly, until the character of his attackers from the right caused their switch to defending him.

You appear to take the opposite version of the error you wrongly attribute to me, that nothing anyone does carries over to effect the next president and the next economy. But the ship of state and the economy do not stop and start again from scratch when a new POTUS is inaugurated. They are on-going concerns, and have momentum on their own once put into motion.

You cannot acknowledge (apparently) that $7-$10- TRILLION was lost in home values, and another similarly sized $7-$10 TRILLION was lost in the NYSE, so the new guy came in with an approx. $20 trillion drop in national wealth (more lost wealth than the entire annual gdp). By the well-understood 'wealth effect,' this caused an immediate drop of at least $1 trillion in annual demand out of a gdp of about $12 trillion (or about a shortfall of at least 8.5% in demand across the board).

So you ask naive or ignorant questions, such as why hasn't the economy recovered yet along the lines of normal recessions' recoveries? While suggesting that any reference to the overhanging continued losses in the double digit trillions of wealth loss is only special pleading and bad faith by hyperpartisan types excusing their guy.


</div></div>


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>OUCH!</span>

http://2guys1truck.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/owned9wz.jpg
</div></div>Yes he was owned .... and so were you.

Sofanapper denies that he blames Bush for the errors made by Clinton ... and then proceeds to do exactly that.

Precious, simply precious.

Soflasnapper
04-29-2012, 11:45 AM
Common sense tells you that he must have made all these goals prior to the report. He failed on all of them.

Or, common sense tells you he must have said all these numbers, because everyone you read or hear says that happened, although nowhere can it be found by anyone?

Actually, common sense points in the opposite direction here. Presidents don't make 'promises' (to the American people?) that are nowhere in evidence.

His goals were to stop the gdp's falling, stop the UE rising, get the economy back to growth, and employment rising. On all those goals, he succeeded. Look at any graph showing the historical sequence of these numbers.

You now say he must have used these exact numbers as what he promised-- it's only common sense. Since no such use of these numbers is available or even alleged, it's not common sense at all.

Most people acting like a sarcastic jerk tends to believe they are not acting like a sarcastic jerk.

Hello McFly

I guess you showed that was right, right there.

Soflasnapper
04-29-2012, 11:55 AM
Yes he was owned .... and so were you.

Sofanapper denies that he blames Bush for the errors made by Clinton ... and then proceeds to do exactly that.

Precious, simply precious.

Sheer denial, then. Wise move, considering there is no fact one can point to that supports your claim.

The allowance of the repeal of Glass-Steagall might seem the closest, but there are any number of problems with that theory. One, importantly, is that it passed by a veto-proof majority. But more, the banks who went insolvent betting on mortgage backed securities and especially the sub-prime MBSs were not the investment banks newly set free from GS, but old fashioned mortgage lending banks that never were investment banks, and mortgage origination companies (Countrywide) who were never even depository banks to begin with.

As I've mentioned before, Bush himself pushed for the Zero Down Payment law to be passed (and the GOP Congress obliged), and Bush's Comptroller of the Currency intervened in all states to prevent the state laws against predatory lending practices to be used by the states to rein in these abuses. Went to federal court to do so, in fact, after about 48 or more of the states Attorneys General joined to sue the federal government to stop the CG's interference.