• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years [W:166/819]

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
64,035
Reaction score
25,323
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Other then the Credit Default Swap question - I have no idea who the people are (hey - I never claimed to be an expert, FAR from it).

I assume they are conservatives, since you are a liberal?

Instead of ordering others to answer your questions and acting condescending; why don't you just make a statement, include a link to provide 'proof' of your point and ask if they agree or disagree?


As for the financial collapse? Means little to me. They screwed up because of greed and the government bailed them out - which was TOTALLY wrong.

But this had little to do with what caused the housing bubble.

The housing bubble was precipitated by the Fed lowering interest rates too much and GWB falling in love with low income home ownership (which Congress quickly fell in love with as well) as a no lose idea...when it should have been obvious it was a recipe for disaster.
Bubbles start when new money enters a market. If the money is there for legitimate reasons, the market generally grows in a healthy manner. When the money is there for illegitimate reasons - like the government decides to artificially stimulate that market - then the growth is based on a fallacy.
The GWB administration decided to begin a low income housing boom (an idea Clinton had fooled around with on a much smaller scale) and the Fed and later the banks went along (in my opinion).
GWB forced HUD to pour billions into Fannie/Freddie to help low income people (who had no business owning homes) to own homes. And he got Congress to go along with it.
Apparently, according to White House employees from that administration, it was a HUGE pet project of Bush's. one he REALLY thought would help the country.

It was a dumb (noble?) idea and it failed miserably.


And it ALL would have (again, imo) been behind Americans by now if the powers that be had just let the market hit bottom, balanced the federal budget, let the banks/corporations that needed/deserved to fail - fail and let interest rates rise to where the market decided instead of keeping them artificially low.
The American economy would be growing again, the unemployment rate would be far lower and the national debt would be about 1/2 of what it is now.
But you or a Keynesian-loving person will say 'things would have been disastrous if the government had not spent, spent and spent.'
Yeah? Then please prove it?
You can't?
Then the threat means nothing.

And that is the ONLY argument big spenders can make - scare tactics. knowing that it is impossible to prove.


I believe the housing boom/bust was caused by - in order - the Fed, GWB admin, Congress, the Clinton admin (they opened the door to the dumb ass low income housing nonsense), home buyers and then the banks (sure, the banks acted like idiots - but no one put a gun to American's heads to go SO far into debt).


I assume you blame it all on conservatives and the banks.

I am not partisan - I KNOW both parties are worse then useless. And if the greedy masses had not have gotten WAY over their heads and if the Fed/Congress had told the idiotic banks back in the mid 00's when it was apparent they were taking MASSIVE risks with debt; 'Hey! If you guys get into trouble...you are completely on your own' - then I guarantee you they would have acted a lot less wreckless.

Moral hazard.


Have a nice day.

Well you surprised me, unlike many on the right you at least have a grip on reality. Kudos for that.
The answer to the first 2 questions is President GW Bush. His actions were INDESPENSIBLE for the execution of the subprime scam. No Democrat would have had a chance at doing the things he did.
There were no subprime CRA loans by the way and the loans made throught that agency had higher than average sucess rates. Subprime loans did not go primarily to poor people either, most were to middle and upper income earners many who were flipping houses in the bubble.

HUD Archives: President George W. Bush Speaks to HUD Employees on National Homeownership Month (6/18/02)
Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime


As far as making draconian cuts to balance the budget, that would ony make the debt worse as revenues plummet from the rise in unemployment that would result. You need only to look at Europe for the model. A generation of pain and suffering will do nothing to help our situation Growth is the only way our of this and anything that stimulates growth will decrease our deficits while inflation and time and revenue increases will allow us to mitigate the debt.
 
Last edited:

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Well you surprised me, unlike many on the right you at least have a grip on reality. Kudos for that.
The answer to the first 2 questions is President GW Bush. His actions were INDESPENSIBLE for the execution of the subprime scam. No Democrat would have had a chance at doing the things he did.
There were no subprime CRA loans by the way and the loans made throught that agency had higher than average sucess rates. Subprime loans did not go primarily to poor people either, most were to middle and upper income earners many who were flipping houses in the bubble.

HUD Archives: President George W. Bush Speaks to HUD Employees on National Homeownership Month (6/18/02)
Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime


As far as making draconian cuts to balance the budget, that would ony make the debt worse as revenues plummet from the rise in unemployment that would result. You need only to look at Europe for the model.

Three things.

One) I am not 'on the right'. I am me - not left, right, center or anywhere else. Why people want to plug themselves and others into these holes is beyond me.
I understand why you thought what you did - but I am not as you think.
I have left beliefs. I have right beliefs. And I have other ones as well.

Two) I do not know who got the sub-prime money. But someone did and that was the problem, in my opinion. Government money artificially stimulated the housing market (mixed in with artificially low interest rates). New money entered the market that did not deserve to be there (from a free market perspective).
That, in my opinion, is how the housing boom began (along with other factors obviously).

Three) with all due respect, there is no unbiased, factual proof that I am aware of that balancing budgets with drastic cuts hurts employment except over anything but the short term. That is just an assumption people make.
In fact, there is much evidence that it actually helps employment.
Go back to the 1920/21 Depression. The government slashed spending massively. The result? Unemployment dropped to near pre-Depression levels within 3 1/2 years.

Massive government spending skews free market economies - it does not (in my opinion) help them.

But that is an old argument that I have no desire to get into yet again at this time.

You think cutting massive deficits quickly is bad for employment.

I do not; except in the very short term while the economy - that has grown dependent on government spending to some extent - goes into temporary withdrawal when that 'free money' is taken away.

But I doubt either of us will change their mind today on it - so let's just agree to disagree?
 
Last edited:

AdamT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
17,773
Reaction score
5,746
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's not "scholars" rankings, clown boy... that's aggregate polls of several different groups... including the general public, as surveyed by left leaning papers...

No, genius, that is the aggregate from the 16 polls of scholars. The other polls are listed below that table.
 

IndepCentristMA

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
2,110
Reaction score
669
Location
Boston, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Do you make a habit of asking all your profs who their favorite president is? :lol:

Pardon me for thinking that you made up that little story to fit your narrative.

You would think that, because you're really dillusional, and can't ever just admit to being wrong (which you are quite often)... and from this latest tid bit, I might guess that's a technique youve used more than once... making things up...

However, I was speaking legitimately... and for anyone who has taken a history course, they'd know that the professor makes it quite clear who their favorite president and other historical figures are... but yes, the topic of top presidents has come up with several professors and colleagues over coffee or after class... I was speaking of my former professors, such as Thomas O'Connor (BC, Harvard), Don Ostrowski (Harvard), Robert Sauer (UMass Boston), Thomas Turner (Bridgwater State), Robert Allison (Suffolk, Harvard), etc. You can look em up if you want...

As to why the top rated presidents come from major American epochs, there's no mystery there. Great challenges provide the opportunity for great success or great failure. Obviously Roosevelt wasn't perfect, but it's absurd to argue that his only contribution to WWII was an ill-advised procurement deal.

And the fact remains that in 16 separate surveys of scholars over a period of more than 60 years, FDR was never ranked lower than the third best president in US history.

Wow... you are such a fool... You just devalued the relevance of FDR being ranked highly, then restated the fact as if it matters... Again, FDR being ranked highly was never in question... No one here said "FDR is one of the lowest ranked presidents in history"... What's at question is how FDR's policies benefited the economy... Thus, his president ranking by anyone is irrelevant...

Now, again, if you care to speak to something relevant... like FDRs effect on the economy... this discussion has a future, if not... go on with your dillusions...
 

Sheik Yerbuti

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,265
Reaction score
2,921
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”
Is there anyone left who hasn't figured out yet that Romney tells his audience whatever they want to hear? That's why he's on record for being both for and against abortion. He's on record for being both for and against a minimum wage. For and again national healthcare reform ... stem cell research ... to serve in Vietnam ... hunting ... mandates ... Reagan ... Roe v. Wade ...

I'd be amazed if anyone is foolish enough to buy anything he says.
 

Sheik Yerbuti

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,265
Reaction score
2,921
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
That's not "scholars" rankings, clown boy... that's aggregate polls of several different groups... including the general public, as surveyed by left leaning papers...

From your source
Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society.[8] As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results "to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight." Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top-three, but editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time, while Republican scholars rated him the sixth-best, giving him a split-decision rating of "average".

Hmm... so Democrats in 2005 didnt like Bush, and Republicans did? Odd how that works...

Also from your source:
Thomas Kelly, professor emeritus of American studies at Siena College, said: "President Bush would seem to have small hope for high marks from the current generation of practicing historians and political scientists. In this case, current public opinion polls actually seem to cut the President more slack than the experts do." Dr. Douglas Lonnstrom, Siena College professor of statistics and director of the Siena Research Institute, stated: "In our 2002 presidential rating, with a group of experts comparable to this current poll, President Bush ranked 23rd of 42 presidents. That was shortly after 9/11. Clearly, the professors do not think things have gone well for him in the past few years. These are the experts that teach college students today and will write the history of this era tomorrow."[9]

Which is precisely why true scholars weren't involved... True scholars know that the recognition of a president isn't truly felt until several years after he is out of office, so the long-term effects of his policies can be felt, but polls on recent presidents reflect personal feelings which belie true scholarship... What you have is opinion polls... the same ones which will go back and forth from JFK and Clinton being decent presidents to ones where Reagan and GWB are rated as being good presidents... It's too soon to rank GWB by accurate scholarship...

However, GWB, even by your aggregate of opinion polls, is still not in the bottom 10 or the top 10 of presidents, which makes him middle of the pack and not listed as worst ever... as I said...

and you saying that FDR is ranked anywhere, still does nothing to debase the arguments against him, that were presented on this very thread... regarding his slowing the economy from growing... and being bailed out by military build up prior to the war, and massive spending on the military due to the war...

How about this one ... a poll of 65 historians and scholars?

Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents - US News and World Report
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
38,226
Reaction score
9,269
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Well you surprised me, unlike many on the right you at least have a grip on reality. Kudos for that.
The answer to the first 2 questions is President GW Bush. His actions were INDESPENSIBLE for the execution of the subprime scam. No Democrat would have had a chance at doing the things he did.
There were no subprime CRA loans by the way and the loans made throught that agency had higher than average sucess rates. Subprime loans did not go primarily to poor people either, most were to middle and upper income earners many who were flipping houses in the bubble.

HUD Archives: President George W. Bush Speaks to HUD Employees on National Homeownership Month (6/18/02)
Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime


As far as making draconian cuts to balance the budget, that would ony make the debt worse as revenues plummet from the rise in unemployment that would result. You need only to look at Europe for the model. A generation of pain and suffering will do nothing to help our situation Growth is the only way our of this and anything that stimulates growth will decrease our deficits while inflation and time and revenue increases will allow us to mitigate the debt.

Yep, BOOOOOSSSSHHHH.

Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider

Start reading, all the links. Both pro and anti CRA, lots of information and opinions being thrown every which way.
 

Sheik Yerbuti

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,265
Reaction score
2,921
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
38,226
Reaction score
9,269
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

CRA loans did not cause the meltdown. They represented only 6% of all the toxic loans written.

Proving you didnt read the article. Educate yourself and read it. It has links representing both sides of the argument.
 

IndepCentristMA

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
2,110
Reaction score
669
Location
Boston, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
No, genius, that is the aggregate from the 16 polls of scholars. The other polls are listed below that table.

Again... you can't do legitimate scholarship on GWB's presidency... it's too soon... That's not scholars... anyone who participates in a poll on any current president is not a scholar...

11 polls conducted since 94 with Clinton involved, 6 polls were conducted since 2000 with Bush in them... 1 poll in 2010 even included Obama!!! Can you rate Obama's presidency, before it's even under way... That's asbsurd...

This whole process is absurd and doesn't stand the test of logic...

And... as I already pointed out... theyre full of bias...

From your source
The 1996 column shows the results from a poll conducted from 1989 to 1996 by William J. Ridings, Jr., and Stuart B. McIver and published in Rating the Presidents: A Ranking of U.S. leaders, from the Great and Honorable to the Dishonest and Incompetent. More than 719 people took part in the poll, primarily academic historians and political scientists, although some politicians and celebrities also took part. Participants from every state were included, and emphasis was placed upon getting input from female historians and "specialists in African-American studies", as well as a few non-American historians. Poll respondents rated the Presidents in five categories (leadership qualities, accomplishments & crisis management, political skill, appointments, character & integrity), and the results were tabulated to create the overall ranking.

A 2000 survey by The Wall Street Journal consisted of an "ideologically balanced group of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science". This poll sought to include an equal number of liberals and conservatives in the survey, as the editors argued that previous polls were dominated by either one group or the other, but never balanced. According to the editors, this poll included responses from more women, minorities, and young professors than the 1996 Schlesinger poll. The editors noted that the results of their poll were "remarkably similar" to the 1996 Schlesinger poll, with the main difference in the 2000 poll being the lower rankings for the 1960s presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy, and higher ranking of President Ronald Reagan at #8. Franklin Roosevelt still ranked in the top three.

Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society.[8] As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results "to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight." Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top-three, but editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time, while Republican scholars rated him the sixth-best, giving him a split-decision rating of "average".
 
Last edited:

IndepCentristMA

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
2,110
Reaction score
669
Location
Boston, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
1 survey... conducted in 2009, just after he left office, in the middle of an economic panic... places him 7th from the bottom... of those great 65 historians... :roll: supervised by Rice, Howard (a black college), and George Mason... Not exactly a top notch poll there...

This is still meaningless BS... that has nothing to do with the thread title, or the presentation of the notion that FDR may not have handled the economy as great as most people assume he did...

Relevant facts to that subject would be warranted... any other is useless...
 
Last edited:

Sheik Yerbuti

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,265
Reaction score
2,921
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

CRA loans did not cause the meltdown. They represented only 6% of all the toxic loans written.

Proving you didnt read the article. Educate yourself and read it. It has links representing both sides of the argument.

Are ya sitting down ... ??

My comment and your vapid response actually proves I read the article and you didn't ...


"CRA loans did not cause the meltdown." ~ Sheik Yerbuti

"I thought you said CRA loans caused this crisis. .... Nope." ~ OpportunityCost's link

"They represented only 6% of all the toxic loans written." ~ Sheik Yerbuti

"Studies have suggested that only 6 percent of subprime loans were extended by CRA-regulated lenders to either lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in the lenders' CRA assessment areas." ~ OpportunityCost's link


:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
 

Sheik Yerbuti

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,265
Reaction score
2,921
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
1 survey... conducted in 2009, just after he left office, in the middle of an economic panic... places him 7th from the bottom... of those great 65 historians... :roll: supervised by Rice, Howard (a black college), and George Mason... Not exactly a top notch poll there...
It wasn't just one survey. Every poll, every survey, everywhere for years all placed Bush near the bottom of the heap. He's the only president on record to have a JAR under 20%. He's the only president except for Hoover to leave office with fewer private sector jobs than when he started. He was a miserable failure from start to finish and history will never say otherwise.

This is still meaningless BS... that has nothing to do with the thread title, or the presentation of the notion that FDR may not have handled the economy as great as most people assume he did...
Suuuure, uh-huh ... that must be why America kept electing him over and over until the day he died. More than any other president in U.S. history.

:roll::roll::roll:
 

Sheik Yerbuti

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,265
Reaction score
2,921
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
So a poll of historians is going to fix the economy ? ............. gotta different poll in November that will finally begin to fix the economy.
No, just pointing out where Bush sits among the opinion of scholars and historians.
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
38,226
Reaction score
9,269
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Are ya sitting down ... ??

My comment and your vapid response actually proves I read the article and you didn't ...


"CRA loans did not cause the meltdown." ~ Sheik Yerbuti

"I thought you said CRA loans caused this crisis. .... Nope." ~ OpportunityCost's link

"They represented only 6% of all the toxic loans written." ~ Sheik Yerbuti

"Studies have suggested that only 6 percent of subprime loans were extended by CRA-regulated lenders to either lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in the lenders' CRA assessment areas." ~ OpportunityCost's link


:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

The entire thrust of the article is that while they were not directly responsible, they played a part in how they affected the market. Of course if you were looking for a simple, partisan answer yours will probably do. If you want to be wrong, that is.

If it were a simple problem that had one direct answer we would have never had it happen in the first place. Lots of moving parts, lots of culprits. CRA played a part, CDSs played a part, house flippers, greed, easing of credit requirements, no downpayment, etc etc.

To blatantly dismiss anything is to show you have no clue on the subject at hand. Which is about par for you on any given subject.
 

Sheik Yerbuti

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,265
Reaction score
2,921
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

The entire thrust of the article is that while they were not directly responsible, they played a part in how they affected the market. Of course if you were looking for a simple, partisan answer yours will probably do. If you want to be wrong, that is.

If it were a simple problem that had one direct answer we would have never had it happen in the first place. Lots of moving parts, lots of culprits. CRA played a part, CDSs played a part, house flippers, greed, easing of credit requirements, no downpayment, etc etc.

To blatantly dismiss anything is to show you have no clue on the subject at hand. Which is about par for you on any given subject.
Cries the poster who didn't even read his own article. :roll:
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Suuuure, uh-huh ... that must be why America kept electing him over and over until the day he died. More than any other president in U.S. history.

:roll::roll::roll:


Yup, the voters of the western world sure were brilliant in the 1920's and 1930's.

They elected Mussolini and Hitler over and over until they died as well.
 

AdamT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
17,773
Reaction score
5,746
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You would think that, because you're really dillusional, and can't ever just admit to being wrong (which you are quite often)... and from this latest tid bit, I might guess that's a technique youve used more than once... making things up...

However, I was speaking legitimately... and for anyone who has taken a history course, they'd know that the professor makes it quite clear who their favorite president and other historical figures are... but yes, the topic of top presidents has come up with several professors and colleagues over coffee or after class... I was speaking of my former professors, such as Thomas O'Connor (BC, Harvard), Don Ostrowski (Harvard), Robert Sauer (UMass Boston), Thomas Turner (Bridgwater State), Robert Allison (Suffolk, Harvard), etc. You can look em up if you want...



Wow... you are such a fool... You just devalued the relevance of FDR being ranked highly, then restated the fact as if it matters... Again, FDR being ranked highly was never in question... No one here said "FDR is one of the lowest ranked presidents in history"... What's at question is how FDR's policies benefited the economy... Thus, his president ranking by anyone is irrelevant...

Now, again, if you care to speak to something relevant... like FDRs effect on the economy... this discussion has a future, if not... go on with your dillusions...

Yeah, thanks, but I can look up Harvard faculty members on the interwebs, too. :lol:

And try to follow the conversation, genius. The topic of FDR was raised specifically in relation to his contribution, or lack there of, to our success in WWII. Of course the seminal issues of his presidency were the economy and the war, so WTF do you think he did to garner those stellar rankings? Do you suppose it was all about his farm programs?

Oddly enough, I minored in history and had several poli-sci courses and I couldn't tell you what presidents ANY of my professors considered to be No. 1.
 

AdamT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
17,773
Reaction score
5,746
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
1 survey... conducted in 2009, just after he left office, in the middle of an economic panic... places him 7th from the bottom... of those great 65 historians... :roll: supervised by Rice, Howard (a black college), and George Mason... Not exactly a top notch poll there...

This is still meaningless BS... that has nothing to do with the thread title, or the presentation of the notion that FDR may not have handled the economy as great as most people assume he did...

Relevant facts to that subject would be warranted... any other is useless...

Oooo, supervised in part by a BLACK college! Can you explain the relevance of that description?
 

Sheik Yerbuti

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,265
Reaction score
2,921
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yup, the voters of the western world sure were brilliant in the 1920's and 1930's.

They elected Mussolini and Hitler over and over until they died as well.
Apparently, some voters of the western world aren't as brilliant as those FDR voters.

:lamo:lamo:lamo
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
38,226
Reaction score
9,269
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Cries the poster who didn't even read his own article. :roll:

That, sir, is how an eight year old debates.

If you continue to hang your argument upon that 6% you miss the greater point of the article which was the impact upon the markets of that 6%. It wasnt just about the toxic 6% either. Its not that simple.
 

IndepCentristMA

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
2,110
Reaction score
669
Location
Boston, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Oooo, supervised in part by a BLACK college! Can you explain the relevance of that description?

That the Black college in mention is heavily liberal, and in the very year of the survey, got the first black president... Of course they would rate lowly the guy he was replacing... it's called bias...

When there are such heavy biases, most legitmate scholars treat the results with a grain of salt... not go around shouting the praises of the results...
 

AdamT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
17,773
Reaction score
5,746
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That the Black college in mention is heavily liberal, and in the very year of the survey, got the first black president... Of course they would rate lowly the guy he was replacing... it's called bias...

When there are such heavy biases, most legitmate scholars treat the results with a grain of salt... not go around shouting the praises of the results...

First of all, the survey was organized by three professors -- not three schools. Second, if you objected to one of the administrators because you thought he or she was biased there was still no need to bring race into it. Third, the fact the study ranked Reagan 10th over all — higher than most surveys — would suggest that there wasn't a liberal bias. I also notice you didnt mention that Rice and Mason are southern universities, which would imply more of a conservative bias Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln....

IOW, a typical ad hominem response by a conservative who doesn't like the results of a poll. with a dash of racism for good measure.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom