PDA

View Full Version : Obama to order $100 million in cuts



DenButsu
04-20-2009, 07:26 AM
Obama to order $100 million in cuts

At the first Cabinet meeting of his presidency, President Obama on Monday will challenge the departments to collectively cut $100 million over the next three months, a senior administration official said.

The official said the exercise is “part of his commitment to go line by line through the budget to cut spending and reform government.”

“Agencies will be required to report back with their savings at the end of 90 days,” the official said.

Examples of savings that agencies have begun to implement already that the president will point to during the 11:30 a.m. meeting:

—The Department of Veterans Affairs has cancelled or delayed 26 conferences, saving nearly $17.8 million. The department will be using less expensive alternatives, like video conferencing.

—The U.S. Department of Agriculture is working to combine 1,500 employees from seven office locations into a single facility in 2011, saving $62 million over a 15-year lease term.

—The Department of Homeland Security estimates that it can save up to $52 million over five years just by purchasing office supplies in bulk.politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21440.html)

ari1013
04-20-2009, 08:00 AM
symbolic gesture, but still a good sign. A little here and a little there and it'll make a dent soon enough.

behindmydesk
04-20-2009, 08:38 AM
I agree it's symobolic, and 100 million is nothing, but none the less i'll take it. But on a broader more direct scale. Why the heck does any agency, or company still have meetings where you have to fly to. DO VIDEO. I can't count how many times I hear about people I know having to fly to a place for a meeting, where you could easily have a video conference in your office.

SLY WILLIAMS
04-20-2009, 08:50 AM
If it is of government waste, fraud and/or redundancy than I'm all for it. I know people think of 100 million as a drop in the bucket but one thing I have noticed is if you put a bucket under a leaking pipes those drops have a habit of filling up that bucket. :)

b1e9a8r5s
04-20-2009, 01:25 PM
Obama to Order $100 Million in Budget Cuts

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 20, 2009

President Obama plans to convene his Cabinet for the first time today, and he will order its members to identify a combined $100 million in budget cuts over the next 90 days, according to a senior administration official.

Although the budget cuts would amount to a minuscule portion of federal spending, they are intended to signal the president's determination to cut spending and reform government, the official said.

Obama's order comes as he is under increasing pressure to show momentum toward his goal of eventually reducing the federal deficit, even as he goes about increasing spending in the short run to prop up the economy and support his priorities.

Earlier this month, both chambers of Congress passed Obama's $3.5 trillion budget outline for 2010, which includes unprecedented new investments in health care, education and energy. But the huge budget, which contemplates a $1.2 trillion deficit, has drawn the ire of small-government conservatives, who say that such high deficits jeopardize the nation's economic future.

Last week, conservative activists organized "tea parties" to protest Obama's budget, which House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) says "spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much from our children and grandchildren."


Obama will shift his attention back to the budget this week, as his administration has begun speaking more openly about tentative signs of improvement in the economy. But even as glimmers of improvement emerge, it is likely that some of the nation's largest banks will need additional help, which the administration should be able to provide without returning to an increasingly skeptical Congress for more money, top White House officials said.

The Obama administration is moving closer to releasing some results of the "stress tests" aimed at projecting how the nation's 19 largest banks would withstand further deterioration in the economic condition.

"We're confident that, yes, some are going to have very serious problems, but we feel that the tools are available to address these problems," Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said yesterday on CBS's "Face the Nation."

The administration plans to release guidelines for the stress tests this week, and it hopes to make results available in early May. "It's important that there is disclosure," Axelrod said. "And I think the banks are going to want that because they're going to want the markets and the country and the world to know exactly what their condition is."

Obama yesterday wrapped up a visit to Mexico and Trinidad and Tobago, where he attended a summit of Caribbean and Latin American leaders.

Chief economic adviser Lawrence H. Summers said Obama would back efforts to tighten regulation of credit card companies. Executives from the nation's largest credit card firms have been summoned to the White House for a meeting with administration officials later this week. Meanwhile, members of Congress are pushing legislation to limit the ability of credit card companies to raise interest rates on existing balances and to require clearer disclosure of loan terms.

"He's going to be very focused in the very near term on a whole set of issues having to do with credit card abuses, having to do with the way people have been deceived into paying extraordinarily high rates that they wouldn't have paid if they knew what they were getting themselves into," Summers said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

While officials talked cautiously about the obstacles that stand in the way of a turnaround in an economy that has been shedding more than 600,000 jobs a month and has seen a steady rise in home foreclosures, they also pointed to some improvements.

Some major banks have reported profits recently, and there are signs of credit thawing in some corners of the economy, officials have said.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just wanted to comment on this. A $100 million cut from a budget of $3.5 trillion comes out to 0.000003%. To put that in terms easier terms, if you made $100,000 a year and I told you that I as your boss were going to cut you pay by 0.0000003%, you know how much you'd lose? 3/10 of a penny, thats what. And remember when the republicans were making a big deal about the 7 billion in earmarks out of the 410 billion spending bill but were told they were making a big deal out of nothing by the Left. Well that was at least 1.73% of the total bill. This "cut" of $100 million is purely an attempt to point at something and say, I got tough, and made congress cut the budget. What a joke.

PHX-SOXFAN
04-20-2009, 01:28 PM
I do remember the republicans making a big deal about the earmarks. the reason they were dismissed is because the facts showed that 40% of the earmarks were from republicans. They were complaining about something that they were participating in. that's why no one outside the 24% took them seriously.

Also, I just read this in another thread without the rightist rhetoric attached. It was nice. At least I got to hear a conservative complain about earmarks that were also put in place by "conservatives".

b1e9a8r5s
04-20-2009, 01:28 PM
I just realized that there was another thread on this, sorry.

ari1013
04-20-2009, 01:29 PM
We already have a thread on this -- and yes, it is just a drop in the bucket -- much as many of those wasteful earmarks would have been (again though, I'll argue that some of the earmarks were stimulative), but it does start to add up.

A blanket no-more-earmarks approach isn't really going to work if it's instituted immediately cold-turkey style, but if we can start taking an approach where every year in order to get funding, each government office has to show how it can cut costs, that would be a nice first step.

ari1013
04-20-2009, 01:31 PM
I do remember the republicans making a big deal about the earmarks. the reason they were dismissed is because the facts showed that 40% of the earmarks were from republicans. They were complaining about something that they were participating in. that's why no one outside the 24% took them seriously.

Also, I just read this in another thread without the rightist rhetoric attached. It was nice. At least I got to hear a conservative complain about earmarks that were also put in place by "conservatives".
But that still doesn't make it right that we have wasteful spending.

Both parties have to do something about those requests. We have to start transitioning away from earmarking everything and instead just having spending bills. The spending bill can have all the different earmark projects in it (i.e. those omnibus bills), rather than adding earmarks to bills that have nothing at all do with spending projects.

SLY WILLIAMS
04-20-2009, 01:51 PM
100 million is very small. There is no doubt about that. Its like 1/3 what he spent on his campaign BUT 100 million is still 100 million so hopefully we are going in the right direction even if it is a bay step. Lets get rid of 100 million in waste/fraud and put that 100 million in to either investments, paying down our debt, or to help sincere people that are in need.

ari1013
04-20-2009, 01:52 PM
100 million is very small. There is no doubt about that. Its like 1/3 what he spent on his campaign BUT 100 million is still 100 million so hopefully we are going in the right direction even if it is a bay step. Lets get rid of 100 million in waste/fraud and put that 100 million in to either investments, paying down our debt, or to help sincere people that are in need.
The campaign spending didn't come from tax dollars, so that didn't impact our debt at all.

cabernetluver
04-20-2009, 01:55 PM
The campaign spending didn't come from tax dollars, so that didn't impact our debt at all.

I can't help myself, Obama's campaign spending didn't come from tax dollars.

SLY WILLIAMS
04-20-2009, 01:59 PM
The campaign spending didn't come from tax dollars, so that didn't impact our debt at all.

Ari,
I do not believe I ever said his campaign money came from tax dollars or effected our debt at all. I was just using his campaign dollars as a way of putting in to perspective how large or small 100 million dollars is to the big picture.

ari1013
04-20-2009, 02:01 PM
Ari,
I do not believe I ever said his campaign money came from tax dollars or effected our debt at all. I was just using his campaign dollars as a way of putting in to perspective how large or small 100 million dollars is to the big picture.
Yeah no I get it. I'm just kind of pointing to the fact that it seems a bit silly that people were pissed off at him for not taking public financing when that actually would have led to more debt.

ari1013
04-20-2009, 02:01 PM
I can't help myself, Obama's campaign spending didn't come from tax dollars.
:confused: Isn't that what I said?

cabernetluver
04-20-2009, 02:05 PM
:confused: Isn't that what I said?

I was just being specific because he did not take matching funds.

ari1013
04-20-2009, 02:07 PM
gotcha

SLY WILLIAMS
04-20-2009, 02:11 PM
Yeah no I get it. I'm just kind of pointing to the fact that it seems a bit silly that people were pissed off at him for not taking public financing when that actually would have led to more debt.

Ari,
In regard to that issue I was only displeased that politicians can say they will do one thing, then do another and our society just does not care anymore. It did not matter whether it was American citizens money directly from their own pockets or tax payer dollars ran through the government to me. To me all campaign dollars are (or should be) American money. The only difference to me is using "public sector" dollars vs government dollars provides an uneven playing field with a much greater chance for corruption. It doesnt mater if it is called public or private in my eyes. It used to be a big deal when a politician said they would do something and did not follow through. Nowadays it is just accepted as no big deal. Yet another reason I have become a bit cynical about our situation in the country I love. For me to be pessimistic is huge because I'm almost always a glass half full guy. I think you probably know that from my Knicks posts. :)

cabernetluver
04-20-2009, 02:28 PM
Ari,
In regard to that issue I was only displeased that politicians can say they will do one thing, then do another and our society just does not care anymore. It did not matter whether it was American citizens money directly from their own pockets or tax payer dollars ran through the government to me. To me all campaign dollars are (or should be) American money. The only difference to me is using "public sector" dollars vs government dollars provides an uneven playing field with a much greater chance for corruption. It doesnt mater if it is called public or private in my eyes. It used to be a big deal when a politician said they would do something and did not follow through. Nowadays it is just accepted as no big deal. Yet another reason I have become a bit cynical about our situation in the country I love. For me to be pessimistic is huge because I'm almost always a glass half full guy. I think you probably know that from my Knicks posts. :)

You mean there is a half full glass with the Knicks? :confused:

ari1013
04-20-2009, 02:28 PM
Ari,
In regard to that issue I was only displeased that politicians can say they will do one thing, then do another and our society just does not care anymore. It did not matter whether it was American citizens money directly from their own pockets or tax payer dollars ran through the government to me. To me all campaign dollars are (or should be) American money. The only difference to me is using "public sector" dollars vs government dollars provides an uneven playing field with a much greater chance for corruption. It doesnt mater if it is called public or private in my eyes. It used to be a big deal when a politician said they would do something and did not follow through. Nowadays it is just accepted as no big deal. Yet another reason I have become a bit cynical about our situation in the country I love. For me to be pessimistic is huge because I'm almost always a glass half full guy. I think you probably know that from my Knicks posts. :)
I wasn't really talking about you, I mean in general. I think it's really stupid to have both tax dollars and private dollars funding political campaigns. Either we institutionalize it and say all campaigning must be funded by tax dollars or we say that there's no reason for us to waste tax dollars on campaigns.

The big problem with restricting campaigning down to public finance levels is that the private groups on the fringe right and left will keep making their attack ads because they're independent of the candidates and simply exercising their first amendment rights. And so therefore, why not get rid of public financing completely. When you add up all the elections in a given year, that's a lot of money spent from the local level all the way up to the national level.

Further, we need stringent caps on the amount of money any individual (or company) can donate to a single candidate -- including to himself or herself. That way we don't run into the situation we had with Romney self-financing himself. Or Hillary giving herself that huge $30M loan.

ari1013
04-20-2009, 02:28 PM
You mean there is a half full glass with the Knicks? :confused:
No more Isiah!

My cup hath overflowed.

SLY WILLIAMS
04-20-2009, 02:37 PM
I wasn't really talking about you, I mean in general. I think it's really stupid to have both tax dollars and private dollars funding political campaigns. Either we institutionalize it and say all campaigning must be funded by tax dollars or we say that there's no reason for us to waste tax dollars on campaigns.

The big problem with restricting campaigning down to public finance levels is that the private groups on the fringe right and left will keep making their attack ads because they're independent of the candidates and simply exercising their first amendment rights. And so therefore, why not get rid of public financing completely. When you add up all the elections in a given year, that's a lot of money spent from the local level all the way up to the national level.

Further, we need stringent caps on the amount of money any individual (or company) can donate to a single candidate -- including to himself or herself. That way we don't run into the situation we had with Romney self-financing himself. Or Hillary giving herself that huge $30M loan.

I agree having both at the same time is bad. I think it should be one or the other as well. Sadly there is no perfect option that I can think of although I would like not only an even playing field but a much less costly playing field. Spending a half a billion dollars on campaigning for 1 election is nuts in my opinion. How many people in need could be helped with that money? Repubs feel if it was all government money on an equal scale they would get killed because abc, cbs, nbc, cnn, pbs, and msnbc are all left leaning while only fox is right leaning.

SLY WILLIAMS
04-20-2009, 02:37 PM
You mean there is a half full glass with the Knicks? :confused:

3 words:

IVAN DRAGO BIRD!!!!! :D

ari1013
04-20-2009, 02:54 PM
I agree having both at the same time is bad. I think it should be one or the other as well. Sadly there is no perfect option that I can think of although I would like not only an even playing field but a much less costly playing field. Spending a half a billion dollars on campaigning for 1 election is nuts in my opinion. How many people in need could be helped with that money? Repubs feel if it was all government money on an equal scale they would get killed because abc, cbs, nbc, cnn, pbs, and msnbc are all left leaning while only fox is right leaning.
And yet they have way more 527 groups that can buy up airtime.

Living in a battleground state, you really see a lot of political ads. I had no idea there were so many different organizations. When I was in NY we rarely got any national ads. Just local and state races.

cabernetluver
04-20-2009, 03:00 PM
Just out of curiosity, don't you guys think that campaign finance reform is threadworthy?

ari1013
04-20-2009, 03:17 PM
Just out of curiosity, don't you guys think that campaign finance reform is threadworthy?
I think so. Care to start one up?

cabernetluver
04-20-2009, 03:20 PM
I think so. Care to start one up?

Sure

SLY WILLIAMS
04-20-2009, 04:07 PM
Just out of curiosity, don't you guys think that campaign finance reform is threadworthy?

Absolutely not!!!!! There are way too many threads on this board already!!!! Think of all the money we would be wasting and could be used on other boards!!!!! :D

b1e9a8r5s
04-20-2009, 07:00 PM
SPIN METER: Obama's latest budget-tightening effort hardly makes a dime's worth of difference


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Cut a latte or two out of your annual budget and you've just done as much belt-tightening as President Barack Obama asked of his Cabinet on Monday.

The thrifty measures Obama ordered for federal agencies are the equivalent of asking a family that spends $60,000 in a year to save $6.

Obama made his push for frugality the subject of his first Cabinet meeting, ensuring it would command the capital's attention. It also set off outbursts of mental math and scribbled calculations as political friend and foe tried to figure out its impact.

The bottom line: Not much.

The president gave his Cabinet 90 days to find $100 million in savings to achieve over time.

For all the trumpeting, the effort raised questions about why Obama set the bar so low, considering that $100 million amounts to:

--Less than one-quarter of the budget increase that Congress awarded to itself.

--4 percent of the military aid the United States sends to Israel.

--Less than half the cost of one F-22 fighter plane.

--7 percent of the federal subsidy for the money-losing Amtrak passenger rail system.

--1/10,000th of the government's operating budgets for Cabinet agencies, excluding the Iraq and Afghan wars and the stimulus bill.

Obama only asked his Cabinet secretaries to identify waste in their annual operating budgets, which total a little over $1 trillion. He's leaving out war costs, the economic stimulus measure, the Wall Street bailout and benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare.

THE SPIN:

"He will challenge his Cabinet to cut a collective $100 million in the next 90 days," said a White House news release. "Agencies will be required to report back with their savings at the end of 90 days."

"I'm asking for all of them to identify at least $100 million in additional cuts to their administrative budgets," Obama told reporters afterward. "None of these things alone are going to make a difference, but cumulatively, they would make an extraordinary difference because they start setting a tone."

THE FULLER STORY:

Obama's marching orders to the Cabinet on Monday were less than meets the eye. Many of the savings he asked them to achieve are already under way and are included in the calculation.

To be sure, this is an extra effort, on top of an agency-by-agency review of programs and proposed multibillion-dollar cuts in weapons programs. But it is decidedly marginal.

"It's always a good sign when the president is talking about savings," said Marc Goldwein, policy director of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that advocates fiscal discipline.

"It's valuable as a symbol," he said, "but $100 million is just not going to cut it."

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs defended the $100 million target, saying it's not the full extent of Obama's cost-cutting efforts. He called it "a short-term goal ... to identify further administrative savings" and added: "$100 million may not be a lot to people in this town, but I think it's a lot to people who live in this country."

Republicans were quick to point out that borrowing costs for February's stimulus package will on average cost almost $100 million a day over the next decade.

In large measure, the examples of economizing given by the White House were of the painless, seemingly commonsensical variety. They were not the program cuts that people feel and that budget-watchers say are essential to make a meaningful difference in the exploding deficit.

Some of them will take many years to play out.

The Agriculture Department, for one, will move 1,500 employees from seven leased locations into one place in early 2011, saving $62 million over 15 years.

Some are hard to quantify.

Will buying multipurpose office equipment, such as a combined copier, printer, fax and scanner all in a single unit instead of separate units, really save the Homeland Security Department $2 million a year over five years?

Some are microscopic. The White House estimates savings of tens of thousands of dollars from freeing up warehouse space stashed with obsolete equipment that had been used by a federal entity few people have heard of, the Bureau of Information Resource Management.

And some raise eyebrows at wasteful practices of the former administration.

The White House says Homeland Security, the third largest federal department, has not been buying most of its $100 million a year in office supplies in bulk.

The administration thinks it can save $52 million over five years with bulk-buying bargains at the department.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/SPIN-METER-Saving-federal-apf-14976290.html?.v=1

gcoll
04-20-2009, 07:08 PM
Why is this even a story?

ari1013
04-20-2009, 07:18 PM
Why is this even a story?
Any time the Federal government does anything more efficiently, it's worthy of a story.

While $100M per department is small, at least it's a start.

Sly and I were both talking about how the administrative costs of government would be easy things to cut into. Well here it is happening.

Then once the economy recovers, you can find some programs that don't need to be funded.

And when we're done in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can save about $400 billion a year right there.

Every little bit counts.

DodgersFan28
04-20-2009, 10:20 PM
How is $100 million in cuts not being laughed off and mocked for being such a miniscule amount of the budget, like $8 billion in earmarks were? Oh, because Obama wants the cuts. Hooray double standards.

Total non-story. Wake me up when they promise to cut the trillion(s) out of the budget deficit that they've now created.

LetsGoA's
04-20-2009, 10:31 PM
It is symbolic, but it is 100 million in cuts, Bush didn't make. Ill take it.

ari1013
04-20-2009, 11:04 PM
It is symbolic, but it is 100 million in cuts, Bush didn't make. Ill take it.
Did Bush ever cut any kind of spending?

lakersrock
04-20-2009, 11:10 PM
Well, it's a start and a move (imo) purely based on the tea parties, but cutting 100M when you're heading for 16T in the hole is like using a gallon sized jug to empty a lake.

16,000,000,000,000 or 15,999,900,000,000

Really, it's not that big of a move.

ari1013
04-20-2009, 11:21 PM
How many cabinet members are there? If he asked each of them to cut $100M, then it's a little bit more than that. It's at least a few drops in the bucket.

And I'm not sure why you keep pushing that $16T number. When Obama came into office we were already looking at $10.5T without him doing anything. And that $16T is what would happen if spending stays the same each year from here on out, but the stimulus will be spent this year and next. So by 2011 our spending will be way lower. And with the economy recovered by then, tax revenues should be way higher as well.

The deficit will be back to $400-500B in 2011. Terrible, yes. But at least it's within reach of getting balanced again.

Though I'm sure another Republican will be waiting in the wings to take over from Bush and sink the economy for the Dems to have to fix again. I just love how Obama's getting demonized for trying to fix Bush's mess.

b1e9a8r5s
04-20-2009, 11:25 PM
Did Bush ever cut any kind of spending?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/bush.budget/index.html
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/06/bush_budget_puts_pinch_on_domestic_spending/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4488706


a few I found in a quick search. I don't know if the bills ultimately passed, I'm watching playoff hockey so I don't have time do do all the research.

dbroncos78087
04-20-2009, 11:26 PM
Sounds like something i would have expected from McCain. But the more conservative posters i think would have agreed with it more.

LetsGoA's
04-20-2009, 11:50 PM
Did Bush ever cut any kind of spending?

Sure he cut the level of spending everyone used to do by tanking a perfectly stable economy that he inherited.

b1e9a8r5s
04-21-2009, 12:21 AM
Sorry, had to post this. Reporters from the MSM asking "hard" questions. :clap:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/04/20/ap_tapper_confront_obama_admin_over_100_million.ht ml

ari1013
04-21-2009, 12:37 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/bush.budget/index.html
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/06/bush_budget_puts_pinch_on_domestic_spending/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4488706


a few I found in a quick search. I don't know if the bills ultimately passed, I'm watching playoff hockey so I don't have time do do all the research.
I'm pretty sure that ended up going through anyway. In fact I think that the ratified bill actually ended up going up in value because of the earmarks to buy up some loose votes. That was one of McCain's big things (where his $18B came from).

DodgersFan28
04-21-2009, 01:23 AM
Sure he cut the level of spending everyone used to do by tanking a perfectly stable economy that he inherited.

Um, from Oct 2000-Jan 2001 the GDP actually went down. Then, in Q1 2001 it went up. After that, in Q2 2001 it went down again. Sounds perfectly stable to me! (Source: Looking at Real, not Nominal, GDP numbers. (http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=353))


Though I'm sure another Republican will be waiting in the wings to take over from Bush and sink the economy for the Dems to have to fix again. I just love how Obama's getting demonized for trying to fix Bush's mess.

Democratic Defensive Weapon #2: Whatever you've done in the past, Bush has done far worse. We should not, and can not turn back.

While we're at it, when have the Dems ever *actually* fixed the economy? Great Depression? FDR's own economist said that without WWII, none of their efforts would have ultimately worked. Clinton years? Hardly. Google "The Contract With America".


Did Bush ever cut any type of spending?

I think he tried to fix that Social Security thing (colloquial language inserted purposefully), and was demonized for all the cuts he was allgedly out to make. Budget cuts are great and all, except when entitlement programs, public services, or pretty much anything the government pays for is about to be cut, especially when a Republican tries making cuts. When that happens, the Democrat demonization machine goes on full bore.

DenButsu
04-21-2009, 01:48 AM
Democratic Defensive Weapon #2: Whatever you've done in the past, Bush has done far worse. We should not, and can not turn back.

Republican Defensive Weapon #1: Whenever anybody makes a legitimate point that you can't possibly answer for (since they're right), sidestep and criticize their argument using cliche rhetoric ("can not turn back") rather than actually responding to what they were talking about.

LetsGoA's
04-21-2009, 02:49 AM
Um, from Oct 2000-Dec 2001 the GDP actually went down. Then, in Q1 2001 it went up. After that, in Q2 2001 it went down again. Sounds perfectly stable to me! (Source: Looking at Real, not Nominal, GDP numbers.)

LOL WOW....

http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/print.cfm?contentid=252964

DodgersFan28
04-21-2009, 02:59 AM
What's wow is that you cite something from the Progressive Policy Institute written in October 2004 as somehow more legitimate than impartial GDP data last updated in April 2009 otherwise known as now. Great job looking like a complete propaganda-brainwashed tool. :clap:


Whenever anybody makes a legitimate point that you can't possibly answer...

So the following is a "legitimate point"?

Though I'm sure another Republican will be waiting in the wings to take over from Bush and sink the economy for the Dems to have to fix again. I just love how Obama's getting demonized for trying to fix Bush's mess.

Ok, maybe in loony left land that's a legitimate point, but those of us on planet earth hear that as the factless rhetoric that it is. My label is an accurate one. The Dems can do literally anything they want because whatever they do is Bush's fault. Somehow the Dems hold zero responsibility for their own actions. I love it.

LetsGoA's
04-21-2009, 03:12 AM
What's wow is that you cite something from the Progressive Policy Institute written in October 2004 as somehow more legitimate than impartial GDP data last updated in April 2009 otherwise known as now. Great job looking like a complete propaganda-brainwashed tool. :clap:



So the following is a "legitimate point"?


Ok, maybe in loony left land that's a legitimate point, but those of us on planet earth hear that as the factless rhetoric that it is. My label is an accurate one. The Dems can do literally anything they want because whatever they do is Bush's fault. Somehow the Dems hold zero responsibility for their own actions. I love it.

Um the point of showing you that was to show Clinton's performance. Which showed that the per capita GDP of the nation ROSE on a whole during his tenure. Who cares when it was written, those facts don't change (in case you didn't catch the sources they are all at the bottom they include such institutions as the US CENSUS BUREAU AND the Bureau OF LABOR STATISTICS), I was just making a point that acting like the GDP was some sort of issue when clinton was president is silly.

It's widely understood that the economy was in excellent shape when he left office.

If I got a source that included bush's complete tenure in office, than well, this chart would look much worse, actually.

DodgersFan28
04-21-2009, 03:37 AM
It's widely understood that the economy was in excellent shape when he left office.

Maybe around people who've repeated that to themselves so often that they've convinced themselves of its factual nature. When the GDP goes from shrink to grow to shrink to grow every quarter, that doesn't exactly define "economy in excellent shape."


I was just making a point that acting like the GDP was some sort of issue when clinton was president is silly.

You said Bush inheirited a "perfectly stable economy" which I proved was a false claim. You can put your head in the sand and believe nothing bad economically ever happened from Jan 1993-Jan 2001, but the GDP shrank in Q4 2000, during Clinton's presidency. Even your brilliant circles of academia would have called you out on that one, assuming they're intellectually honest with themselves.

If you discount that on basis of time, then I don't want to hear another word about how all this bailout/economic chaos is Bush's fault seeing as it started during Q4 of Bush's final year in office.


If I got a source that included bush's complete tenure in office, than well, this chart would look much worse, actually.

First, the PPI isn't a source of anything besides propaganda. There's a reason why it calls itself the "Progressive Policy Institute." Whether it looks bad for Bush or not depends on if they like Bush or not. Progressives absolutely hate Bush will all their heart, mind, soul & strength, so obviously the chart would look as bad as possible. It would be deliberately constructed to present Bush in the worst possible light, because that's the ultimate mission of its biased author(s).

And let's not even talk about how fair it is to compare 8 years of a Clinton Presidency to 3 years of a Bush Presidency that included the worst attack in our nation's history, which included the destruction of one of our largest economic centers.

Propagandists love people like you. It's why propaganda can still succeed even today.

LetsGoA's
04-21-2009, 03:51 AM
Maybe around people who've repeated that to themselves so often that they've convinced themselves of its factual nature. When the GDP goes from shrink to grow to shrink to grow every quarter, that doesn't exactly define "economy in excellent shape."


I don't think in the since GDP has been recorded has there ever been an instance where the GDP did not grow or shrink, it is never at a constant. You can analyze gdp quarter by quarter (i believe you gave 2), but that's not going to give you a broad understanding of the whole 8 years, in which the gdp grew as a whole.


Except you didn't make that point champ. You can try to shift the goalposts, but you said Bush inheirited a "perfectly stable economy" which I proved was a false claim. Even your brilliant circles of academia would have called you out on that one, assuming they're intellectually honest with themselves.

I stand by my point that it is widely understood that Bush inherited a stable economy, in fact the most stable and successful economy the country had ever known up until that point.



First, the PPI isn't a source of anything besides propaganda. There's a reason why it calls itself the "Progressive Policy Institute." Whether it looks bad for Bush or not depends on if they like Bush or not. Progressives absolutely hate Bush will all their heart, mind, soul & strength, so obviously the chart would look as bad as possible.


The PPI simply reported the facts, ever heard the phrase, "don't shoot the messenger"



And let's not even talk about how fair it is to compare 8 years of a Clinton Presidency to 3 years of a Bush Presidency that included the worst attack in our nation's history, which included the destruction of one of our largest economic centers.

At the risk of sounding redundant: I only gave you that link to show you the overall growth in gdp for Clinton's tenure. But on the subject of 9-11, had bush heeded Clinton's warning (that terrorism was the greatest threat to our nations security) 9-11 probably wouldn't have happened. But Bush tried so hard to undue everything good Clinton did that he wound up..actually forget it.



Propagandists love people like you. It's why propaganda can still succeed even today.

Actually its the other way around, they love people like you. They hate people like me, because we got Obama elected after 8 years of having a president in office who stole an election to begin with.

DodgersFan28
04-21-2009, 04:13 AM
Wow. You do a fantastic job of illustrating how completely one-sided you really are. This is what they're teaching you in your "circles of academia"? Good lord man.


I don't think in the since GDP has been recorded has there ever been an instance where the GDP did not grow or shrink, it is never at a constant. You can analyze gdp quarter by quarter (i believe you gave 2), but that's not going to give you a broad understanding of the whole 8 years, in which the gdp grew as a whole.

I stand by my point that it is widely understood that Bush inherited a stable economy, in fact the most stable and successful economy the country had ever known up until that point.

Hey guess what? The GDP grew overall during the "horrible Bush years" too. So continue talking in factless platitudes if you want to. I'm not sure anyone else is really listening at this point since most educated people, that is people educated in matters other than left wing propaganda, know what took place at least during past 3 or 4 Administrations.


The PPI simply reported the facts, ever heard the phrase, "don't shoot the messenger"

Clearly you are unfamiliar with the definition of propaganda. That would make sense seeing as you have a very difficult time identifying it.


But on the subject of 9-11, had bush heeded Clinton's warning (that terrorism was the greatest threat to our nations security) 9-11 probably wouldn't have happened. But Bush tried so hard to undue everything good Clinton did that he wound up..actually forget it.

Yeah, forget it. You don't want to walk down that road. Osama Bin Laden was literally offered into Clinton's hands. All he needed to do was take him. Clinton refused not believing that Bin Laden was a real threat to the USA. You can look this up if you don't believe me, but you'll have to look in sources other than the PPI or any other biased propaganda mill you call a source.


Actually its the other way around, they love people like you. They hate people like me, because we got Obama elected after 8 years of having a president in office who stole an election to begin with.

LOL! Do you really believe that the left has been entirely propaganda free, and have just accepted that only Republicans make mistakes, and only Republicans have done the things that have had negative consequences for this country? Really? Wake up dude. Everyone engages in propaganda to a certain extent. Some more than others, but everyone does it because everyone loves to put themselves in the best possible light. Propaganda, revisionist history, platitudes, it's all good when it makes our team shine right? Learn how to identify false truths, straw men, and misdirection while you still can. Otherwise, you'll simply spend your entire life as a mindless drone just spitting out whatever you've been told to believe & say without ever actually thinking past where your so-called educators have taken you.

By the way, these $100 Million in cuts? Does anyone notice how we aren't really talking about the defecit in the Trillions, or how the National Debt has doubled? Wow, distraction worked pretty well this time.

LetsGoA's
04-21-2009, 04:28 AM
Hey guess what? The GDP grew overall during the "horrible Bush years" too. So continue talking in factless platitudes if you want to. I'm not sure anyone else is really listening at this point since most educated people, that is people educated in matters other than left wing propaganda, know what took place at least during past 3 or 4 Administrations.

No one is saying the gdp didn't grow under bush, your the one who brought gdp up to begin with to try to use it as some sort of indicator as to how clinton was doing bad.

I would choose the national debt bush left (after inheriting the biggest national surplus in history_ as an example of how bush completely screwed the economy


Yeah, forget it. You don't want to walk down that road. Osama Bin Laden was literally offered into Clinton's hands. All he needed to do was take him. Clinton refused not believing that Bin Laden was a real threat to the USA. You can look this up if you don't believe me, but you'll have to look in sources other than the PPI or any other biased propaganda mill you call a source.


Actually that is true, Clinton could have got bin laden, I read it in the same book where I read that he warned bush about the imminent dangers for al queda-the 9/11 commission report.




By the way, these $100 Million in cuts?

Yes, 100 million



Does anyone notice how we aren't really talking about the defecit in the Trillions, or how the National Debt has doubled?

I noticed, but it would be kind of like beating a dead horse since the person responsible is no longer in office.


Wow, distraction worked pretty well this time.

Yea it did work well, but now that Obama is in office, there will be no more distraction and deceit on the level that we've been seeing for the last 8 years.

DodgersFan28
04-21-2009, 08:16 AM
^:crazy: :laugh: I don't think even you believe what you're saying at this point.


your the one who brought gdp up to begin with to try to use it as some sort of indicator as to how clinton was doing bad.

No, I brought the GDP up to show how the economy wasn't the greatest in history or whatever ridiculous label you gave it. No one's saying your hero Clinton was doing bad. No need to get ruffled up there.


Actually that is true, Clinton could have got bin laden, I read it in the same book where I read that he warned bush about the imminent dangers for al queda-the 9/11 commission report.

LOL! So you agree that Clinton didn't get Bin Laden because Clinton didn't believe Bin Laden was a real threat, but then you blame Bush for not listening to Clinton's warnings about Al-Qaeda. That's classic man. Absolutely classic.

I need to do that again - LOL!!!


I noticed, but it would be kind of like beating a dead horse since the person responsible is no longer in office.

Well last I checked Obama was still in office. Reid & Pelosi, the leaders of the U.S. Congress & those allegedly with the power of the purse since 2006, were still in office too. I think Barney Frank still has a job insulting college kids who disagree with him as well.


Yea it did work well, but now that Obama is in office, there will be no more distraction and deceit on the level that we've been seeing for the last 8 years.

You're right, it's gone to a completely different level. Obama's people just lie right to everyone's face and everything happens in plain sight. We can't use "War on Terror" or the term "Terrorists" anymore to describe Islamic extremists who want to destroy us, but we can create this giant warning about "right wing extremists". Joe Biden can make any crap up that he wants, and people don't care because Biden gets a permission slip to do & say whatever he wants. It all gets defended by people like you who just blame Bush for literally everything, giving Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Biden & the rest a permission slip to screw things up for generations like they have. Not only is there even more deceit and doublespeak today than there's ever been, but now propaganda & deceit is popular and cool again!

Man I wish I could be as ignorant & as simple-minded as you are. Bush ruined the greatest economy ever, is totally to blame for 9/11, and Obama r0x0rs my s0x0rz!11!!1!!1!! That would be a pretty easy & comfortable place to be. Only problem is that none of it's actually true, but who cares about that when propaganda, demagoguery, and being arrogant enough to say people who don't agree with you are just totally uneducated is so much fun?

lakersrock
04-21-2009, 10:19 AM
How many cabinet members are there? If he asked each of them to cut $100M, then it's a little bit more than that. It's at least a few drops in the bucket.

And I'm not sure why you keep pushing that $16T number. When Obama came into office we were already looking at $10.5T without him doing anything. And that $16T is what would happen if spending stays the same each year from here on out, but the stimulus will be spent this year and next. So by 2011 our spending will be way lower. And with the economy recovered by then, tax revenues should be way higher as well.

The deficit will be back to $400-500B in 2011. Terrible, yes. But at least it's within reach of getting balanced again.

Though I'm sure another Republican will be waiting in the wings to take over from Bush and sink the economy for the Dems to have to fix again. I just love how Obama's getting demonized for trying to fix Bush's mess.

That would be the case if I agreed with the New Deal Part 2. The first one has been proven to have prolonged the GD, so why would I want this one? Really, I don't think it will help or hurt. Because of that, I would have rather not spent the money we didn't have.

ari1013
04-21-2009, 10:58 AM
Republican Defensive Weapon #1: Whenever anybody makes a legitimate point that you can't possibly answer for (since they're right), sidestep and criticize their argument using cliche rhetoric ("can not turn back") rather than actually responding to what they were talking about.
Republican Defense Weapon #2: Pretend like everyone is out to get you. It's all a big conspiracy, from the media, to the politicians, to the owlluminati.

ari1013
04-21-2009, 11:00 AM
I wonder why the $100s of millions got attention but the $100B in savings on the student loan front was completely ignored. (http://www.dems.gov/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={2D7E6E08-EBA9-41F2-96E7-638CAE603CE3}&DE={446D08BA-A52A-446A-8503-4BAB299C9F07})

I guess it's a lot easier to make fun of small cuts than a large one.

ari1013
04-21-2009, 11:01 AM
What's wow is that you cite something from the Progressive Policy Institute written in October 2004 as somehow more legitimate than impartial GDP data last updated in April 2009 otherwise known as now. Great job looking like a complete propaganda-brainwashed tool. :clap:



So the following is a "legitimate point"?


Ok, maybe in loony left land that's a legitimate point, but those of us on planet earth hear that as the factless rhetoric that it is. My label is an accurate one. The Dems can do literally anything they want because whatever they do is Bush's fault. Somehow the Dems hold zero responsibility for their own actions. I love it.
Yeah maybe the Dems shouldn't bother fixing the economy. Then they can be just like the Republicans, only out for themselves and their wealthy constituents.

cabernetluver
04-21-2009, 11:02 AM
That would be the case if I agreed with the New Deal Part 2. The first one has been proven to have prolonged the GD, so why would I want this one? Really, I don't think it will help or hurt. Because of that, I would have rather not spent the money we didn't have.

I will defer to Ari for depth on my reply, because, quite frankly, he knows more about this than I do, and from your quote, I think he knows more than you. The New Deal did not prolong the depression. (I ask the boards forgiveness on the use of the following phrase) That is just a CATO Institute allegation that has been embraced by the right as its (here it comes) talking point.

Ari, my macro economist friend (I am a micro economist expert)please explain to the folks where this came from, why it is false, and why it should not be entertained as anything more substantial than the cotton candy for the right.

yankeesmindset
04-21-2009, 11:05 AM
Wait till your spending $25. for a loaf of bread and then we will talk!

ari1013
04-21-2009, 11:05 AM
That would be the case if I agreed with the New Deal Part 2. The first one has been proven to have prolonged the GD, so why would I want this one? Really, I don't think it will help or hurt. Because of that, I would have rather not spent the money we didn't have.
I already proved you wrong on that lie before. And like I said, I'm going to call you on your ******** every single time.

ari1013
04-21-2009, 11:05 AM
Wait till your spending $25. for a loaf of bread and then we will talk!
Yeah because all the DEFLATION that's going on now really points to the price of bread increasing 1000%.

ari1013
04-21-2009, 11:06 AM
I will defer to Ari for depth on my reply, because, quite frankly, he knows more about this than I do, and from your quote, I think he knows more than you. The New Deal did not prolong the depression. (I ask the boards forgiveness on the use of the following phrase) That is just a CATO Institute allegation that has been embraced by the right as its (here it comes) talking point.

Ari, my macro economist friend (I am a micro economist expert)please explain to the folks where this came from, why it is false, and why it should not be entertained as anything more substantial than the cotton candy for the right.
I've already done that. He knows better. He's just trying to start again thinking that we forgot he's completely full of crap.

lakersrock
04-21-2009, 11:33 AM
I already proved you wrong on that lie before. And like I said, I'm going to call you on your ******** every single time.


FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
By
Meg Sullivan
| 8/10/2004 12:23:12 PM

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.

"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."

Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.

The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.

NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409

So you're smarter than the Vice Chair of UCLA's Department of Economics on economics? It's been proven that FDR extended it and there's no evidence to conclude otherwise. Break the rules when replying to me all you want, but it doesn't make you any more right.

DenButsu
04-21-2009, 11:41 AM
I don't really know **** about economics, but ol' Meg Sullivan there strikes me as the (waaaayyyy) random outlying scientist who claims that global warming and evolution aren't real in the face of overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that yes, in fact, they are.

ari1013
04-21-2009, 11:46 AM
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409

So you're smarter than the Vice Chair of UCLA's Department of Economics on economics? It's been proven that FDR extended it and there's no evidence to conclude otherwise. Break the rules when replying to me all you want, but it doesn't make you any more right.
Yes I am because unlike the two of them, I can point out the most critical thing that they're missing -- the fact that GDP fell each of those three years before FDR came in thus making their productivity increase projection completely wrong:

1930: -12%
1931: -16%
1932: -23%

The enactment of the New Deal yielded:
1933: -4%
1934: 17%
1935: 11%
1936: 14%
1937: 10%

At that point, FDR caved into opposition pressure and cut back on spending and balanced the budget. That immediate action (rather than a gradual one) severely crippled investment. Thus we had the recession that followed soon after.

To top that off, using today's employment measures which include public employment, overall unemployment during the height of the New Deal was 4%, not 20%. They forgot about that.

Finally, private investment wasn't stifled during that period either. Between 1933 and 1938, private investment grew 880%. Even Milton Friedman pointed that out as a great success.


Know where I'm getting my info from? The two biggest names in Great Depression research: Ben Bernanke and Chris Hanes. Both of whom are rightwing economists.

So yes, I know better than your two clowns who put together one of the most biased pieces of literature that has become the laughingstock in economist circles.

DenButsu
04-21-2009, 11:51 AM
So yes, I know better than your two clowns who put together one of the most biased pieces of literature that has become the laughingstock in economist circles.

So my "outlying scientist" theory was right?

cabernetluver
04-21-2009, 12:13 PM
So my "outlying scientist" theory was right?

:clap:

cabernetluver
04-21-2009, 12:14 PM
Yes I am because unlike the two of them, I can point out the most critical thing that they're missing -- the fact that GDP fell each of those three years before FDR came in thus making their productivity increase projection completely wrong:

1930: -12%
1931: -16%
1932: -23%

The enactment of the New Deal yielded:
1933: -4%
1934: 17%
1935: 11%
1936: 14%
1937: 10%

At that point, FDR caved into opposition pressure and cut back on spending and balanced the budget. That immediate action (rather than a gradual one) severely crippled investment. Thus we had the recession that followed soon after.

To top that off, using today's employment measures which include public employment, overall unemployment during the height of the New Deal was 4%, not 20%. They forgot about that.

Finally, private investment wasn't stifled during that period either. Between 1933 and 1938, private investment grew 880%. Even Milton Friedman pointed that out as a great success.


Know where I'm getting my info from? The two biggest names in Great Depression research: Ben Bernanke and Chris Hanes. Both of whom are rightwing economists.

So yes, I know better than your two clowns who put together one of the most biased pieces of literature that has become the laughingstock in economist circles.

Thank you.

yankeesmindset
04-21-2009, 01:57 PM
Someone has a very high opinion of himself?????????

cabernetluver
04-21-2009, 02:23 PM
Someone has a very high opinion of himself?????????

That may be true, but many on the right side respect Ari's expertise, so if he has a high opinion of himself, he is just joining a lot of us, at least in the area of econ.

ari1013
04-21-2009, 02:43 PM
Someone has a very high opinion of himself?????????
One of my dissertation advisors was one of the above named economists. One of my undergraduate advisors has written several econ textbooks with the other of those two economists (the one who happens to now be the Fed Chairman). I really try to not toot my own horn, but this just got to be a bit ridiculous.

LetsGoA's
04-21-2009, 06:08 PM
I was just gonna say, the gdp rose after the new deal was implemented, how ever the supreme court shut down a lot of the new deal during the 30's on the grounds of constitutionality. Tons of case law on it.

Can't ignore the military spending of ww2 either.

LetsGoA's
04-21-2009, 06:10 PM
^:crazy: :laugh: I don't think even you believe what you're saying at this point.



No, I brought the GDP up to show how the economy wasn't the greatest in history or whatever ridiculous label you gave it. No one's saying your hero Clinton was doing bad. No need to get ruffled up there.



LOL! So you agree that Clinton didn't get Bin Laden because Clinton didn't believe Bin Laden was a real threat, but then you blame Bush for not listening to Clinton's warnings about Al-Qaeda. That's classic man. Absolutely classic.

I need to do that again - LOL!!!



Well last I checked Obama was still in office. Reid & Pelosi, the leaders of the U.S. Congress & those allegedly with the power of the purse since 2006, were still in office too. I think Barney Frank still has a job insulting college kids who disagree with him as well.



You're right, it's gone to a completely different level. Obama's people just lie right to everyone's face and everything happens in plain sight. We can't use "War on Terror" or the term "Terrorists" anymore to describe Islamic extremists who want to destroy us, but we can create this giant warning about "right wing extremists". Joe Biden can make any crap up that he wants, and people don't care because Biden gets a permission slip to do & say whatever he wants. It all gets defended by people like you who just blame Bush for literally everything, giving Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Biden & the rest a permission slip to screw things up for generations like they have. Not only is there even more deceit and doublespeak today than there's ever been, but now propaganda & deceit is popular and cool again!

Man I wish I could be as ignorant & as simple-minded as you are. Bush ruined the greatest economy ever, is totally to blame for 9/11, and Obama r0x0rs my s0x0rz!11!!1!!1!! That would be a pretty easy & comfortable place to be. Only problem is that none of it's actually true, but who cares about that when propaganda, demagoguery, and being arrogant enough to say people who don't agree with you are just totally uneducated is so much fun?

Politics PSD forum, meet dodger left field pavillion member

ari1013
04-21-2009, 11:45 PM
I was just gonna say, the gdp rose after the new deal was implemented, how ever the supreme court shut down a lot of the new deal during the 30's on the grounds of constitutionality. Tons of case law on it.

Can't ignore the military spending of ww2 either.
Of course that's all discretionary spending as well, right?

LetsGoA's
04-21-2009, 11:59 PM
Of course that's all discretionary spending as well, right?

The war spending , sure it was defiantly by our own judgement if you want to get technical. But that was more a matter of national security v. trying to solve the economic crisis at hand. I don't think anyone for saw the massive consumer based economy of the 50's, most people didn't even foresee a victory until after d day.