- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,185
- Reaction score
- 14,274
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Then what would you call touting Obama's economic numbers as a success? It is all relative and about context along with basic civics
Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product
[Billions of dollars]
Last Revised on: April 29, 2015 - Next Release Date May 29, 2015
Line
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1 Gross domestic product 2,862.5 3,211.0 3,345.0 3,638.1 4,040.7 4,346.7 4,590
In his term, more than 10 million jobs have been created and the worst financial crisis since the 1930's has been averted.
Nothing to write off on the basis of partisan rhetoric. This would have likely occurred regardless of the executive, as McCain/Romney wouldn't have reduced government spending or lowered taxes.
Not sure what chart you are using but I am using the actual GDP Chart in 80's dollars
You are using non-seasonally adjusted ANNUAL numbers and NOT seasonally adjusted QUARTERLY numbers to see when and what the numbers were closer to his taking office.
There you go again, equating popularity and myth-making to economic reality. I am not so deeply embedded or invested with Obama as you are with Raygun, I hate that he did not spend and invest in either real terms or as a percent of the economy as Raygun, I hate that he is pushing neoliberal trade policy, I hate that he continued the bailout of the banks and did next to nothing for home owners in distress, but I hate even more the absolute dishonesty of you and your ilks rhetoric about this admin and the glorification of St.Ronnie's. He was an Alzheimer victim for not all, most of his terms, he was totally dependent upon his cabinet to put together any sort of budget and was beholden to advisers like Greenspan when doubling payroll taxes while simultaneously cutting top marginal rates more than half....as spending went through the roof. It was all pure voodoo, totally insane.You seem to have a problem with actual numbers and always want to apply stipulations to them. Not sure exactly what your problem is but regardless the numbers beat the hell out of Obama's and led to winning re-election with 49 states. Seems that the people then and the electorate today disagree with you.
And there probably would have been, if it weren't for the Great Bush Recession in between then and now. Maybe you didn't notice.
"U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008"
....and the labor participation rate is the lowest since the great depression. Take your pick.
7 years in and you people are still blaming Bush ?
How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously when you parrot nonsense like that ?
3 years posting, and you are still ignoring context?7 years in and you people are still blaming Bush ?
How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously when you parrot nonsense like that ?
There you go again, equating popularity and myth-making to economic reality. I am not so deeply embedded or invested with Obama as you are with Raygun, I hate that he did not spend and invest in either real terms or as a percent of the economy as Raygun, I hate that he is pushing neoliberal trade policy, I hate that he continued the bailout of the banks and did next to nothing for home owners in distress, but I hate even more the absolute dishonesty of you and your ilks rhetoric about this admin and the glorification of St.Ronnie's. He was an Alzheimer victim for not all, most of his terms, he was totally dependent upon his cabinet to put together any sort of budget and was beholden to advisers like Greenspan when doubling payroll taxes while simultaneously cutting top marginal rates more than half....as spending went through the roof. It was all pure voodoo, totally insane.
many of the jobs created are … part time work
Moderator's Warning: |
The revenue increase that followed the tax cuts was smaller in proportion to the previous eight and the eight years following (Clinton's term actually) Revenue as a percentage of GDP also declined and resided below either of the bookend administrations. There's simply no credible measure that would suggest revenues were greater than they would have been had the tax brackets remained the same :shrug:Yea he cut taxes and revenue INCREASED shortly thereafter. Its a paradox, I know...I wish liberals could understand that.
Ive always wondered why liberals support the government confiscating the peoples money. Is it because of that "fair share" bull****? Hasnt anyone noticed that liberals will NEVER say what FAIR SHARE actually means? They will never put a number on it....probably because they want ALL of it.
TPP is not, by and large, a trade agreement. It is a further extension of copyright and patent protections for corporations, giving them greater rights to sue individual states govts when protection laws are enforced. It is NAFTA on steroids as far as that is concerned, so if you are against TPP (which any good little Hayekian should hold an opposite position to yours), then how can you argue in favor of neoliberalism? The TPP is neoliberalism, it is the freeing of corporations.
There seems to be a pattern forming here. But of course, the naysayers are going to deride this good news as well.
U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008 - Bloomberg Business
[/FONT][/COLOR]
Can someone in the right please concede that Obama is, and has been, GOOD for the economy?
There you go again, equating popularity and myth-making to economic reality. I am not so deeply embedded or invested with Obama as you are with Raygun, I hate that he did not spend and invest in either real terms or as a percent of the economy as Raygun, I hate that he is pushing neoliberal trade policy, I hate that he continued the bailout of the banks and did next to nothing for home owners in distress, but I hate even more the absolute dishonesty of you and your ilks rhetoric about this admin and the glorification of St.Ronnie's. He was an Alzheimer victim for not all, most of his terms, he was totally dependent upon his cabinet to put together any sort of budget and was beholden to advisers like Greenspan when doubling payroll taxes while simultaneously cutting top marginal rates more than half....as spending went through the roof. It was all pure voodoo, totally insane.
Not as a percent of GDP, they declined:Yea he cut taxes and revenue INCREASED shortly thereafter. Its a paradox, I know...I wish liberals could understand that.
Oooh...my turn!Ive always wondered why liberals support the government confiscating the peoples money......
I understand perfectly that BC pushed neolibereal policy, whether it was NAFTA, the massive cuts to poverty programs or deregulation under Rubin and Greenspan...all of that increased wealth inequality.
Bullchit, steel, auto, electronics....these industries did not decline in the US because of "domestic overproduction", imports of these items more than made up for the declines.
By again eliminating the policy of "race to the bottom" which allows the downward pressure on wages and domestic production. You further augment the desirability of a population by investing in education.
TPP is not, by and large, a trade agreement. It is a further extension of copyright and patent protections for corporations, giving them greater rights to sue individual states govts when protection laws are enforced. It is NAFTA on steroids as far as that is concerned, so if you are against TPP (which any good little Hayekian should hold an opposite position to yours), then how can you argue in favor of neoliberalism? The TPP is neoliberalism, it is the freeing of corporations.
No, they exist....in other countries, it is that we have allowed neoliberalists to write our US industrial policy.
TPP is a "free trade" agreement. It's a deal that eliminate tariffs on goods and services and tears down a host of non-tariff barriers. Basically it's gonna make it easier for Asian countries to send their products to the US. It's basically a specific WTO/Doha deal with 10 countries. Only 5 of the chapters actually deal with trade issues and the rest deals with creating a legal system (court) that allows TPP members (companies) can argue for changes in laws at all levels (local, state and federal).
Just cause it's called free trade doesn't mean the agreement is just about free trade.
The revenue increase that followed the tax cuts was smaller in proportion to the previous eight and the eight years following (Clinton's term actually)
Revenue as a percentage of GDP also declined
Doesnt that just prove that tax cuts work?
If cutting taxes increases revenue then I dont exactly understand why ANYONE would be against them....unless they are feeding off the clueless slobbering masses for votes. Ive always said that jealous people vote Democrat...this just proves it.
So what? That is because the GDP went up...I assume you know what a fraction is, correct?
It didn't, either in real terms or as a percent of income. Nor did it cause GDP to increase. You are operating on voodoo economics.If cutting taxes increases revenue then I dont exactly understand why ANYONE would be against them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?