the decade from hell

[U2387]

Please, check the history.

There is no excuse for not complying with the rules of the forum.

There is nothing wrong with debating issues and topics, but when you go from discussing the topic to discussing a particular forum member, with labling and mis-characterizations, then your out of bounds.



Its not appropriate to be making that type of a comment in this forum.

It is really that simple.



Past posts indicate you can not be taken seriously in these discussions. That is something about how you post, not calling you a name or labeling or mis-characterizing.

Sorry if it offended you in any way.

Diemen, I am over and out of this discussion, sorry to you as well if I went out of bounds here.

 

[Strongbow]

It is really that simple.

Past posts indicate you can not be taken seriously in these discussions. That is something about how you post, not calling you a name or labeling or mis-characterizing.

Do you understand the difference between posting an opinion about an issue or topic as opposed to posting an opinion about another forum member?

Saying a forum members post indicate that they "cannot be taken seriously in these discussions" is an OPINION about a forum member, NOT an opinion on the issue or topic being discussed. Get it?

 

[Diemen]

Before you go telling people what they can and cannot post, Sting, perhaps you should check the forum rules and policies. There is no rule or policy forbidding members from posting opinions about other members. If that opinion includes personal insults, threats, etc, or becomes too combative, then it becomes a problem. And while U2387 may have been a little broad in his summation of your posting history, it certainly doesn't warrant any sort of warning from you to follow (your own interpretation of) the rules.

 

[U2387]

The 27 consecutive months that the unemployment rate was below 5% while Bush was in office occured in his 2nd term, more than 5 years AFTER Bill Clinton left office. Unemployment started to rise when Clinton left office, and rose into the first years of Bush's first term. The 27 month period is far removed from that.

Of course, never denied the low rate happened in his 2nd term. However, the 3.9% rate Bush inherited certainly helps cut down the average when he left with 8%! It still factors in. You are wrong that unemployment started to rise when Clinton was in office, the recession began in March 2001. In 2000, Clinton's last year in office, the unemployment rate started at 4 and went to 3.9, so no change at all there. You are still missing the point, Clinton started with 6.9% and went to 3.9%, Bush started here and went up! Who did better?



Actually it doesn't. The poverty rate declined to some of its lowest levels in history during that time. Average family income was not mentioned. What was mentioned was median household income in 2000 VS 2008. Once again, just a snapshot of two different years, neither of them covering the 27 month period when unemployment was below 5%.

Again, you show no understanding of statistics. Clinton started with a 15.1% poverty rate, falling to 11.3% in 2000. It was historically low because it started from a historically low base of the Clinton years! The poverty rate WENT UP every single year Bush was in office! Yes, it was low, compared to pre 1970s or late 80s/early 90s, but not as low as Clinton got it! Again, what happened when each was in office- what did the trajectory look like? That is what matters. The fact that some Bush years are lower poverty than some Clinton years does not tell us anything about the situation each President started with or anything about how the policies of each helped or hurt the poverty rate. Median household income, 2000 vs 2008, how is that not fair? It gives an accurate picture of what happened at beginning of Bush vs end of Bush. Those wonderful middle years you talk about did not see any increase in household income anyway. The "good times" were financed by easy credit and using homes as ATM's! Households are mostly families, and the 2 trends mirror each other, so your attempt at cleverness is nothing more than hair splitting.

Figures don't lie, but liars figure.



Again, that misses the fact that millions of jobs were created during the Bush years and retained for a long period of time. Cherry picking data from just two years, 2000 and 2009, is not going to tell you really what it was like during the entire decade. You need to consider every month during the decade! For long periods of time during the Bush administration, the economic situation was very, very good. The monthly unemployment and inflation numbers show this, as do the annual poverty rate figures.

It misses something? Are you on crack? Bush created Millions of jobs- count them- 2 MILLION NET versus 23 MILLION NET for Clinton. Even when jobs were being created- during the 04-06 period, it was still the weakest post war recovery on record. It is not cherry picking in anyway, looking at the period from 2000-2009 includes ALL MONTHS. No things were not very, very good. Unemployment declined, but it always does after recessions. The overall jobs picture, both in terms of number created and how well they pay, show clearly the economic situation was worse than all other post war recoveries. 0.9% average annual jobs growth versus 2.9% in other post war recoveries. In terms of investment, GDP, consumption, employment and net worth, the average post war expansion was much better and the Clinton expansion blew it away! Take a look:How Robust Was the 2001-2007 Economic Expansion? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

If you want to call that very, very good, it is just another way of showing you don't know what you are talking about! The annual poverty rate figures have already been addressed.

The vast majority of people in the United States were much better off two years ago, three years ago, or in fact in any month during the Bush administrations 8 years than they have been at any time since Obama took office.

Really?!! Get Strongbow a nobel prize in economics, right now!!! Really? People are going to be better off in a lukewarm expansion than they are in the worst recession since the great depression?! How profound, never thought this notion would see the light of day!

Just stop. Obama inherited a recession that started in 2007, that Bush policies had alot to due with, and 2008 was the worst yr of this recession in terms of job loss, GDP loss and stock market loss. Obama has restored real growth, slowed down monthly job loss, and shown a marked improvement in the stock market. Are things as good as 2006, no, but LOOK WHERE OBAMA STARTED THEN LOOK AT THE TRAJECTORY, IT IS POSITIVE SINCE HE ENTERED!!

Figures don't lie, but liars figure!



I'm just trying to get people to look at the past decade objectively. Unemployment was not the only economic indicator I mentioned. I also mentioned inflation rate, poverty rate, GDP growth rate, and debt as a percentage of GDP.

And objectively, it sucked. It did not match the 1990s or any other post 1945 expansion.

The average debt as a percentage of GDP was lower during the Bush years than the Clinton years. All in all, when you look at the numbers, the 00s were better than the 90s when it came to overall debt as a percentage of GDP.

Does not matter. Same principle applies here as poverty rates. Debt as percentage of GDP had been increasing for quite some time when Clinton took office. He inherits it high, with slow GDP growth. Of course, it takes time to reverse, so a high % inherited plus a high deficit inherited equals more debt. So it takes Clinton some time to get the deficit down, hence the already high debt burden will be added to for some time. This is why you still see 66% debt as % of GDP in 1996. However, that had stabilized since 1993, whereas before that, Reagan and Bush were shooting it up every year. In 1980, debt % of GDP was 32%, when Clinton came in, it was 66%!! Clinton immediately stabilizes this by reducing the deficit starting with his 1st budget. He reduced the deficit every year, added less to the debt burden every year, and then in the end, added nothing to it absent interest from previous deficit years. When Clinton leaves, debt % of GDP is 57%. As soon as Bush gets in, it starts back up again. Increases every year to 90% when he leaves in January 2009!! So 66-57% for Clinton versus 57-90% for Bush clearly shows who did better on this account. Hell, the average you talk about would too! One balances a budget and runs 2 surpluses, the other inherits a surplus and never produces anything other than a deficit.

Your claim that the 90s were worse than the 00s for debt as a percentage of GDP is just a joke.US Federal Debt As Percent Of GDP in United States 1792-2010 - Federal State Local

Figures don't lie, but liars figure.



Despite the more difficult crises that the Bush administration was forced to deal with, national debt as a percentage of GDP was still lower at this time than it was during the Clinton Administration in 1996.

Means nothing! Again, look at what Clinton inherited vs Bush. You falsely accuse me of cherry picking then pick out 1 year of the Clinton administration? So in case you forgot or did not read what I wrote above, again, Clinton started at 66%, Bush at 57%. Bush went up every year, and was still on his way up in your little mid 00s utopia! If Clinton started at 57%, that is exactly where it would have been in 1996. However, he started higher, thanks to your heroes in the GOP. Midway through the Clinton presidency, the debt% GDP is stable, while midway through Bush, it has increased 7 percentage points.



Easy credit and deregulation started before Bush came into office.
Deregulation, yes. But what major piece of deregulation really had alot to do with the crisis. Glass-Steagall is mentioned, but all that does it allow investment banks to deal in traditional depository banking. If it is a problem(analysts disagree), then its attributable to both parties, as Clinton signed it and Republicans and Democrats sponsored it and voted for it in Congress.

Could be a problem, but it was not like oversight was removed or the fox was put in place to guard the hen house, both features of the Bush years. Clinton enforced laws curtailing subprime lending, Bush gutted enforcement of all mortgage related laws. Clinton actually took regulating Wall Street seriously, Bush, no. So its more a matter of enforcement than it is of laws.

Greenspan raised rates responsibly at signs of "over heating" in the late 1990s. Not the same in the 2000s. Either way, the easy credit bubble created by Greenspan had very little to do with either Clinton or Bush. Lets look at Clinton vs Bush to the extent that they can affect credit- the budget situation. Remember, the credit in the 1990s, though easier to get than in other periods, was not released by borrowing from China. We had sustainable budget policies that reduced govt debt and hence increased the amount of limited credit going to private sector expansion. Bush borrowed all of our money, the Chinese, Saudis and Japanese saw this as a chance to make direct foreign investment. But thats a risk! Risk requires compensation. What our creditors insisted on for loaning us all this money, govt and private in the 2000s, was "creative" new instruments, like no documentation loans, interest only loans, etc. These reward risk by having high rates of return. This is as long as you can keep the bubble from bursting, which of course it burst, but all the creditors care is that they made money when it existed. No documentation, subprime loans, interest only loans were all stable under Clinton, exploded under Bush.

Bush also relaxed underwriting standards on assets backed securities. Without the tripling of securities in the Bush years, the mortgage crisis would not have taken down our whole financial system!

But the point remains, most people were living very well during the time people in this thread are claiming was the "decade from hell" or the worse decade since the 1930s.

Better than the 1930s, sure. Worst since, put together, who knows, I never claimed that. People were living well- the standard of living in the US mostly increases over time, so of course. Remember, again, the only economically "good" part of the decade 04-06 featured false assurances through borrowed money, public and private. This bubble burst as expected, and left us with the very sour end to the decade. Was it anywhere near as good as the 90s, as you are obsessed with claiming? NO. People were saving more in the 90s, borrowing less and actually were seeing their paychecks increase.

The unemployment rate, inflation rate, and poverty rate remained low into 2008. 2007 was a very good year for the average American in terms of whether they had a job or were living in poverty.

Yes, but these jobs were at lower wages, and being created at lower rates than other decades. 2007 was a year where unemployment and poverty were increasing. Again, low by historical standards, but both indicators were at record lows in 2000, and were, in 2007 and 2008, making a dramatic acceleration upward.



Unemployment did not start to significantly rise until Bush's last 6 months in office. The other 18 months you refer to had unemployment at or below 5% which is very low by any historical standard!

What is your point? Again, look where he started and ended! Look at how the end of the decade proved the middle of it was unsustainable. I never denied that we had 5% unemployment for a good amount of time under Bush. Does not mean the policies he was pursuing were good or sustainable. He ended with the worst economy since the Depression, and we were losing jobs at a historically fast rate when he handed it over to Obama.

Oh, by the way, recovering from a recession is not at all automatic. But if it is, I'm sure Barack Obama will have unemployment levels back down below 5% as they were in early 2008 by the end of 2010. The US did not pull out of the recession, turned depression from 1929 until nearly 15 years later. So no, there is no such thing as an automatic recovery that any President can count on.

Most of recovery is automatic. The deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery(in terms of GDP growth rate) regardless of who is in office. As for unemployment, it always keeps rising after a recession has officially ended(this recession was over last summer). So of course, Obama will not have unemployment back down to 5% by the end of this year, he never claimed he would. No sane person looking at this recession, liberal, conservative or otherwise, would make this claim. Plus, recessions that take down the financial system have taken historically longer to recover from. This is such a recession. Would not matter what Obama did, 5% unemployment by the end of this year would be completely impossible. If we had done what the Republicans wanted to do(nothing), then we would be looking at 12-14% unemployment at end of 2010 according to conservative economist Mark Zandi.

This was bad, but nowhere near the level of the depression. I never said that it took less than 15 years to recover from the depression. It would have taken much longer, but even that would have worked its way through eventually. Of course, letting it do so would have been dumb as we would have all been dead. The Depression ended when it did because of World War II and World War II only.

What I did say was the recovery from the mild 2001 recession would have happened no matter who was in office, and that is 100% true. Any recession we have had recently has bounced back to recovery quickly, regardless of who was President or what policies they pursued. Nixon and GHW Bush raised taxes and we recovered, Truman and Bush II cut taxes and we recovered, you get the idea. From a small recession like 2001, yes, you can be rest assured of a quick, strong bounce back! Even the 1982 deep recession bounced back to strong real growth by 1983 and 84. Obama is seeing exactly the same kind of recovery as Reagan- strong real growth, unemployment remaining high.




Clinton did end well, but it was far from being that simple. Debt as a percentage of GDP actually went up during Clinton's first 4 years in office. The majority of the solid economic numbers did not occur until his second term.

Already addressed the debt%. It was stable in the first 4 years. By the time 1996 rolled around, Clinton had cut the deficit 4 straight years, 10 Million jobs had been created(more than Bush I by far), lowest misery index in 25 years, record number of small businesses had been started. Unemployment down 1.5 percentage points. Shall I continue? Clinton got re elected in 1996, when the country was trending Republican, based on his economic record. You are pathetic if you are going to stick to this claim.



Again, this is another gross oversimplification and generalization of the past decade. If you actually take time to look at the monthly unemployment numbers, inflation rate, poverty rate, GDP growth, debt as a percentage of GDP numbers, your going to find that things went up and down multiple times over the course of those 10 years.

Yes, but look at the overall trends of the 2. The only one oversimplifying things is you.

What does not get any mention at all in the above paragraph is the 27 consecutive months of having unemployment below 5% in Bush's 2nd term. The 4th longest period in US history and the 2nd longest of the past 40 years. Good times indeed when compared to nearly any other period in US economic history.

Great, never denied it. Does not tell the whole story, it is simply you cherry picking a time period! You have the concept of cherry picking backwards if you accuse me of it.



Actually its only about 50%, at least as of 2002 from a study done by The Mutual Fund Industry group - Investment Company Institute.

61% in a 2009 Gallup Poll. Get up to date! Plus, everyone has a stake in the market, because it reflects how many of our employers and banks are doing. If the stock market sucks, less people want products, less people are employed, less loans are given out for capital investment and economic expansion, etc.

Stock Owners More Positive About Market in Coming Year



LOL, if you have to luxury to worry about a retirement you are indeed well off. Its not the Philosophy professor, engineer, business owner or President that suffers when the economy gets hit hard. Its the ditch digger, janitor, sandwich maker, and others who work in retail services and construction or temporary jobs. The savings rate for many of these people is zero, with bills and other expenses sucking up everything that is made. They do not have 401K or health care. When we talk about unemployment, inflation and the poverty rate, these are the people that get hit the hardest, not the people contemplating what they will have in two decades or more for some retirement. Retirement did not really exist until the 20th century and is typically only enjoyed by certain classes of people in first world countries.

Ask anyone, they worry about retirement. Its not a luxury, its a necessity as people age and their health declines. What planet do you live on? I was not saying the engineer, business owner, professor or President are the only ones who suffer, just pointing out the wide variety of people who care about the stock market! You cant see that? The ditch digger, sandwich maker and retail person are hit hardest, of course. As are the other people I mentioned, it affects us all. You never read about the interconnectedness of the economy? If the stock market takes a plunge, it is simply a reaction to other economic indicators. Less demand for everything else, reflected in the stock market, equals less demand for the services of the janitor, the ditch digger and the retail clerk.

People living paycheck to paycheck still think about retirement, you are naive to think otherwise. Most Americans retire or plan on it, its not a luxury anymore, hasnt been for quite some time! Maybe they work after retirement, but that is for a lower income. They still depend on some savings and social security to supplement the income from a lower paying retirement job. Many average Americans, yes janitors and retail people included here, have pensions or 401 K accounts that are invested in the stock market. Up until about 25 years ago, almost every single blue collar worker had a company pension(ever hear of Detroit?). Said company pension was contingent on ability of the company to provide it(in place of the taxpayer as is the case with Detroit). These pensions had managers, who you guessed it, invested it!

Cops and Firefighters- blue collar working class people- they have pensions that are part of public pension funds that governments pay billions to INVEST! My point stands, you can not brush off a stock market collapse as having anything but negative consequences for people from all income brackets. The stock market, again, is not some vacumn, it is a reflection of actual economic conditions!!

Plus, given the fact that job growth was slow(did not even keep up with population growth), incomes were falling and poverty rates were rising, this was not a good decade for the ditch digger, the retail clerk or the janitor.


Again, only half of households in the country are involved in the stock market in some way shape or form. In fact, when you exclude people who just happen to have some plan through their employer, it goes down to about 20%.

61%, and so what on the 20% individuals? Call up the 401K/ IRA people, ask them if they care what happens to the stock market!

Unemployment, inflation, and GDP growth can impact everybody immediately. Those are the numbers that you tell how it is on main street where most of America lives and works.[/QUOTE]

And those numbers were far from great this decade. Main street had a much better decade in the 1990s. There were multiple stories on this even during your 2004-2006 utopia. The stock market, as a reflection of these same conditions(or inputs that lead to them) also can tell us how Main Street is doing. Is Main street employed, are their pensions safe, can they save for college, are our schools funded, can Main street's residents get loans from banks? Can the college afford to give the steelworker's kid a break on tuition? Wall Street doing well does not mean Main street is, not by a long shot, but Wall Street tanking can't be anything but NEGATIVE for Main Street.

Please, Please, have the facts when you challenge me!

Strongbow is in Purple, U2387 is in the black(can't see or be seen, Baby, Baby, Baaaby light my way!!!) had to inject some humor

 

[U2387]

Do you understand the difference between posting an opinion about an issue or topic as opposed to posting an opinion about another forum member?

Saying a forum members post indicate that they "cannot be taken seriously in these discussions" is an OPINION about a forum member, NOT an opinion on the issue or topic being discussed. Get it?

Yes, and that is fine by my reading of the forum rules.

Do I get it?

Yes, I get it. I am a reasonable person here, and you are the one here to defend one person, at all costs, no matter the facts, and to name call and make generalizations against anyone who disagrees.

I am not a blind left wing nut, I am a moderate Democrat who respects all views.

There is not a post in FYM that I make that you do not come back on with some distortion.

I pointed that out, as I am getting sick of it, then you cried foul without reading the forum rules. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

1 or 2 line responses may give you the feeling that you have picked apart and refuted other posters here line by line, but it does not work with me! I see right through what you are trying to do with all of them, and just because you are using statistics does not mean you are right. It is how you interpret and represent those statistics. Your conclusions are derived from this interpretation, and all of your conclusions are absolutely absurd and baseless, by any objective standard, so I call them out.

Wanting to avoid making a big long post like I just did actually explaining how your representations and conclusions are wrong, I simply pointed out that with you, it is always this way!

Again, sorry if you are offended.

BTW, ever consider making a U2 related post?

Because that is the only place you will ever run into me again, as I am completely ignoring anything else you write in FYM.

Strongbow teaches us one lesson: Never conclude that someone in possession of statistics and data is correct.

 

[Strongbow]

Before you go telling people what they can and cannot post, Sting, perhaps you should check the forum rules and policies. There is no rule or policy forbidding members from posting opinions about other members. If that opinion includes personal insults, threats, etc, or becomes too combative, then it becomes a problem. And while U2387 may have been a little broad in his summation of your posting history, it certainly doesn't warrant any sort of warning from you to follow (your own interpretation of) the rules.

Is posting opinions about other forum members in a thread about the past decade appropriate? What exactly does what this person posted have to do with the thread?

Trust me, if you would like to see a discussion on the crap this person posted in this thread about another forum member, I could engage in that as well. They have certainly decided to interprate the rules in their own way.

 

[phillyfan26]

Is posting opinions about other forum members in a thread about the past decade appropriate? What exactly does what this person posted have to do with the thread?

Trust me, if you would like to see a discussion on the crap this person posted in this thread about another forum member, I could engage in that as well. They have certainly decided to interprate the rules in their own way.

You're talking to a moderator, dude. He just clarified that what's going on is fine.

 

[Dalton]

Diemen can I call Pfan a shitbag?

 

[phillyfan26]

Diemen can I call Pfan a shitbag?

If I gave you permission, probably. But I would never allow that.

 

[Strongbow]

Of course, never denied the low rate happened in his 2nd term. However, the 3.9% rate Bush inherited certainly helps cut down the average when he left with 8%! It still factors in.

You deny it by not ever mentioning it in your analysis of the decade. The unemployment rate did not go above 8% until Obama was in office. Sure, the work Clinton did does factor in and helps to show that the past decade was indeed NOT the decade from hell, or the worst decade since the 1930s.

You are wrong that unemployment started to rise when Clinton was in office, the recession began in March 2001.

The technical definition of a recession started in March 2001 with negative GDP growth. But the GDP had started its decline in September of 2000 when Clinton was still in office.

In 2000, Clinton's last year in office, the unemployment rate started at 4 and went to 3.9, so no change at all there. You are still missing the point, Clinton started with 6.9% and went to 3.9%, Bush started here and went up! Who did better?

Nope, your missing the point. Your first month in office and your last month in office is not what defines a presidency or a decade. Its also everything that happened in between that time. By just looking at the starting month and the last month, your ignoring 99% of the data in either evaluating two Presidential terms or an entire decade. That leads to an inaccurate analysis on who did better, or what life was like for the average person during the decade.

The average levels of unemployment, inflation, poverty rate, GDP growth, and debt as a percentage of GDP show that Bush either did better, equal to, or almost as good as Clinton on several of these economic indicators.

Again, you show no understanding of statistics. Clinton started with a 15.1% poverty rate, falling to 11.3% in 2000. It was historically low because it started from a historically low base of the Clinton years! The poverty rate WENT UP every single year Bush was in office!

You can't evaluate 8 years in office or an entire decade by just looking at the first year and the last year.

The poverty rate DID NOT go up every single year Bush was in office! It declined in both 2005 and 2006! The average poverty rate during the Clinton years was 13.3%, the average during the Bush years was 12.5%. The FACT is, a larger percentage of people lived in poverty during the Clinton years than the Bush years!

Yes, it was low, compared to pre 1970s or late 80s/early 90s, but not as low as Clinton got it! Again, what happened when each was in office- what did the trajectory look like? That is what matters.

Trajectories for such economic indicators often go up and down over such a long period of time. The first month and the last month of a two presidential administrations or an entire decade is NOT what is relevant when evaluating what life was like for people THROUGHOUT the entire decade. In order to analyze that, you must use every bit of economic data one has from the time, not just the first month and the last month which tells you virtually nothing about what happened during the other 118 months of the decade.

The fact that some Bush years are lower poverty than some Clinton years does not tell us anything about the situation each President started with or anything about how the policies of each helped or hurt the poverty rate.

It tells you far more than just looking at the first month of a decade and looking at the last month of a decade and attempting to analyze what the decade was like just on that. There were 118 other months in the decade, and yes, sustained periods of time where people live relatively very well compared to even the 1990s! But you don't get to see that when you narrow the data you consider to just the first month and the last month of the decade!

Median household income, 2000 vs 2008, how is that not fair?

No one said it was not fair, just that it was not as representitive of the level of hardship during the decade compared to economic indicators like Unemployment rate, inflation rate, poverty rate etc. No one uses median household income figures to evaluate the Great Depression or the late 70s or early 80s economic downturn.

It gives an accurate picture of what happened at beginning of Bush vs end of Bush. Those wonderful middle years you talk about did not see any increase in household income anyway.

I'm actually not sure about that given that you have inaccurately reported the poverty rate during those years, and have ignored all the other economic indicators which show a more complex sequence of events.

The "good times" were financed by easy credit and using homes as ATM's!

For some people yes, for most people it was because they had a JOB and were not living in POVERTY!

Households are mostly families, and the 2 trends mirror each other, so your attempt at cleverness is nothing more than hair splitting.

Actually, only half are families and the number is declining. A household can be just one person, or multiple people living together. The median income for families is higher than just that for households.

Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

Talking about yourself?

It misses something? Are you on crack?

Are you?

Bush created Millions of jobs- count them- 2 MILLION NET versus 23 MILLION NET for Clinton.

Just taking a lump some net figure again misses so many of the jobs that were created and that people had BEFORE the recession started in 2008!

Even when jobs were being created- during the 04-06 period, it was still the weakest post war recovery on record.

Not when looking at unemployment, inflation, poverty rate, and GDP growth as well as debt as a percentage of GDP. Again, we saw the 4th longest run of uenmployment being BELOW 5% during this period of time!

It is not cherry picking in anyway, looking at the period from 2000-2009 includes ALL MONTHS.

No it doesn't. When you just look at the first month and last month of Clinton or the first month and last month of Bush, your only looking at those months. Figures from 2000 and figures from 2009, DO not include figures from 2001 through 2008. When you take the average of all those months as I have done, THAT DOES INCLUDE those months from 2001 to 2008, which is why it is a more accurate and representitive statistic of how things were during the decade.

No things were not very, very good. Unemployment declined, but it always does after recessions.

Again, thats false. Unemployment does not always decline after recessions. In fact, it often goes up. It took nearly 15 years for the country to get out of the Great Depression. The current recession ended in July, but compare the current unemployment rate now, to that in July.

The overall jobs picture, both in terms of number created and how well they pay, show clearly the economic situation was worse than all other post war recoveries.

The unemployment rate, inflation rate, poverty rate, GDP growth rate, and debt as a percentage of GDP do not show that! The averages of those economic indicators during the Bush years are some of the best ever in US history. This is a FACT!

If you want to call that very, very good, it is just another way of showing you don't know what you are talking about! The annual poverty rate figures have already been addressed.

I'm looking at the actual numbers for the relevant statistics, not attempting assess other forum members knowledge on the subject or declare someone as a bad President or that it was the decade from hell. If you look at the statistics on the unemployment rate, inflation rate, poverty rate, GDP growth rate, and debt as a percentage of GDP, you find that the Bush years had the some of the best averages of these indicators in US history. Again, this is a FACT!

Really?!! Get Strongbow a nobel prize in economics, right now!!! Really? People are going to be better off in a lukewarm expansion than they are in the worst recession since the great depression?! How profound, never thought this notion would see the light of day!

Guess what the topic of this thread is, The Decade From Hell. I'm only pointing out that it was NOT the decade from hell and NOT the worst decade since the Great Depression! I'm sorry its taken you this long to realize that!

Just stop. Obama inherited a recession that started in 2007, that Bush policies had alot to due with, and 2008 was the worst yr of this recession in terms of job loss, GDP loss and stock market loss.

Maybe you should stop and consider the data before responding. The annual unemployment rate for 2008 was 5.8%, Bush's last year in office. The annual unemployment rate for 2009 was 9.3%, Obama's first year in office. The worst year of this recession for job loss was 2009, NOT 2008 which saw an unemployment rate as low as 4.8% in February 2008!

Obama has restored real growth, slowed down monthly job loss, and shown a marked improvement in the stock market. Are things as good as 2006, no, but LOOK WHERE OBAMA STARTED THEN LOOK AT THE TRAJECTORY, IT IS POSITIVE SINCE HE ENTERED!!

Well lets look at where Obama started in January 2009 and where he is now based on the latest data:

Unemployment rate 2009:
January 7.7% Obama enters office
February 8.2%
March 8.6%
April 8.9%
May 9.4%
June 9.5%
July 9.4%
August 9.7%
September 9.8%
October 10.1%
November 10.0%
December 10.0% latest unemployment figure available.

Figures don't lie, but liars figure!

Refering to yourself?

And objectively, it sucked. It did not match the 1990s or any other post 1945 expansion.

In terms of the unemployment rate, inflation rate, poverty rate, GDP growth rate, and debt as a percentage of GDP, the past decade had some of the best averages in US history for these economic indicators. This proves that it was NOT the decade from hell, nor was it the worst decade for people in the country since the Great Depression, which is the claim made by the topic!


Your claim that the 90s were worse than the 00s for debt as a percentage of GDP is just a joke.US Federal Debt As Percent Of GDP in United States 1792-2010 - Federal State Local

I mis-spoke and was actually refering to the Clinton years VS the Bush years. Its true that with all the data in now, that on average the 00s have been worse than the 90s in terms of debt as a percentage of GDP, but not by much. The figures for both decades are close to each other. Certainly not a joke at all!

Average Debt as a percentage of GDP under Clinton: 64.40%
Average Debt as a percentage of GDP in the 90s: 63.80%

Average Debt as a percentage of GDP under Bush: 63.62%
Average Debt as a percentage of GDP in the 00s: 65.75%

Does not matter. Same principle applies here as poverty rates. Debt as percentage of GDP had been increasing for quite some time when Clinton took office.

It does matter because were discussing in this thread the level of burden to the country and the people living there during the past decade. The discussion is not actually about how or why people were living in x level of burden, but wheather or not this past decade was the decade from hell or not? Plus debt as a percentage of GDP continued to increase during the first years of the Clinton administration.

He inherits it high, with slow GDP growth. Of course, it takes time to reverse, so a high % inherited plus a high deficit inherited equals more debt. So it takes Clinton some time to get the deficit down, hence the already high debt burden will be added to for some time.

Lets be clear, Debt as a percentage of GDP was still relatively HIGH when Clinton left office. Thats part of the reason why that during his 8 years in office, the average debt as a percentage of GDP was higher than during the Bush years. Also, the 90s and 00s are virtually no different in terms of Debt as a percentage of GDP on average. There for, the burden to the country and people during both decades in regards to this economic indicator was about the same.

However, that had stabilized since 1993, whereas before that, Reagan and Bush were shooting it up every year. In 1980, debt % of GDP was 32%, when Clinton came in, it was 66%!!

The reason debt as a percentage increased so dramatically from 1980 to the middle of the Clinton years was primarily because of the expansion of entitlement programs starting in the late 1970s and early 1980s not because of defense spending as so many in the past have claimed.

He reduced the deficit every year, added less to the debt burden every year, and then in the end, added nothing to it absent interest from previous deficit years. When Clinton leaves, debt % of GDP is 57%. As soon as Bush gets in, it starts back up again. Increases every year to 90% when he leaves in January 2009!! So 66-57% for Clinton versus 57-90% for Bush clearly shows who did better on this account.

Again, the peacetime of the 1990s allowed for more attention to be payed to reducing the deficit. Bush had to deal with many different crises during his time in office that Clinton did not. Despite that, when we look at the average for each Presidents time in office, debt as a percentage of GDP was lower under Bush than Clinton despite the fact that Bush faced greater crises during his years in office than Clinton!

From 2001 through 2007, debt as a percentage of GDP was lower than the highest point of the Clinton years. This is 75% of Bush's time in office. But again, this point gets missed because you never look at the middle years. Debt as a percentage of GDP did not jump dramatcially until the last 2 years of Bush's time in office.

Hell, the average you talk about would too! One balances a budget and runs 2 surpluses, the other inherits a surplus and never produces anything other than a deficit.

Again, the average debt as a percentage of GDP was lower under Bush than Clinton when looking at the years 1993-2000 and 2001-2008! Again, look at the crises that Clinton had to deal with VS what Bush had to deal with. It makes a huge difference in all of this. Just look at past years in US history. Crises increases debt as a percentage of GDP. Clinton may have passed Bush a surplus, but he also passed onto Bush the problems of Saddam Hussian in Iraq, and the Taliban and Al Quada in Afghanistan!

Means nothing! Again, look at what Clinton inherited vs Bush. You falsely accuse me of cherry picking then pick out 1 year of the Clinton administration? So in case you forgot or did not read what I wrote above, again, Clinton started at 66%, Bush at 57%. Bush went up every year, and was still on his way up in your little mid 00s utopia! If Clinton started at 57%, that is exactly where it would have been in 1996. However, he started higher, thanks to your heroes in the GOP. Midway through the Clinton presidency, the debt% GDP is stable, while midway through Bush, it has increased 7 percentage points.

Means EVERYTHING because crises is typically what causes debt as a percentage of GDP to rise. Since you obviously have not looked at the history of this, look at what happened during the Civil War and World War II to the ratio. Are you going to put all the blame on the rise of debt as a percentage of GDP during the Civil War on Abraham Lincoln or on Roosoevelt during World War II, which saw the worst Debt as a percentage of GDP ratio in the nations history?

I know the numbers for each year. But again, if your going to accurately assess the decade or each presidency, you MUST look at each year, not just the first year and the last year and make a wild extrapolation based on that.

Better than the 1930s, sure. Worst since, put together, who knows, I never claimed that. People were living well- the standard of living in the US mostly increases over time, so of course. Remember, again, the only economically "good" part of the decade 04-06 featured false assurances through borrowed money, public and private. This bubble burst as expected, and left us with the very sour end to the decade. Was it anywhere near as good as the 90s, as you are obsessed with claiming? NO. People were saving more in the 90s, borrowing less and actually were seeing their paychecks increase.

Well, others in this thread have claimed that it was the worse decade since the 1930s which is totally false.

Again look at the average unemployment rate, inflation rate, poverty rate, GDP growth rate, and debt as a percentage of GDP and there is very little difference at all between the 00s and 90s. With some of the indicators, the 00s were better, but not by much. With some of the indicators, the 90s were better but not by much.

Again, when you just look at the median house hold income in 2000 VS 2008, your only getting part of the story.

Oh and 2004 to 2006 was NOT the only good economic part of the decade. The unemployment rate was below 5% from December 2005 through February 2008!!!!!!!!

Yes, but these jobs were at lower wages, and being created at lower rates than other decades. 2007 was a year where unemployment and poverty were increasing.

Not really with unemployment:

2007
January 4.6%
February 4.5%
March 4.4%
April 4.5%
May 4.4%
June 4.6%
July 4.6%
August 4.6%
September 4.7%
October 4.7%
November 4.7%
December 4.9%
2008
January 4.9%
February 4.8%


Lets see Obama have a year as good as 2007 in terms of the unemployment rate.

Again, low by historical standards, but both indicators were at record lows in 2000, and were, in 2007 and 2008, making a dramatic acceleration upward.

2000 is NOT 2006 or 2007. The unemployment rate increased in 2001 and 2002, and then it dropped under BUSH. Again, your 6 years away from when Clinton left office and to attribute anything GOOD that happened during the Bush years to Clinton is laughably absurd and obviously biased.

What is your point? Again, look where he started and ended!

Its not where you start and where you end, its the total average of everything you did during your time in office, or what happened during the decade. You don't assess an employee or student by only looking at the first day on the job or in class and the last day on the job or in class.

Look at how the end of the decade proved the middle of it was unsustainable. I never denied that we had 5% unemployment for a good amount of time under Bush.

Well, your making a generalization that could be said about any boom or bust period. The good times are always unsustainable to someone.

Does not mean the policies he was pursuing were good or sustainable. He ended with the worst economy since the Depression, and we were losing jobs at a historically fast rate when he handed it over to Obama.

The topic of this thread is the level of burden suffered by the country and its people over the past decade. The impact each President had on conditions is more debatable and actually not the subject of the thread.

Every month of the decade has to be looked at. You can't cherry pick the first month and last month and make any kind of an accurate assessment of the decade just based on those two months.

Most of recovery is automatic. The deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery(in terms of GDP growth rate) regardless of who is in office. As for unemployment, it always keeps rising after a recession has officially ended(this recession was over last summer). So of course, Obama will not have unemployment back down to 5% by the end of this year, he never claimed he would. No sane person looking at this recession, liberal, conservative or otherwise, would make this claim. Plus, recessions that take down the financial system have taken historically longer to recover from. This is such a recession. Would not matter what Obama did, 5% unemployment by the end of this year would be completely impossible. If we had done what the Republicans wanted to do(nothing), then we would be looking at 12-14% unemployment at end of 2010 according to conservative economist Mark Zandi.

Well if most of the recovery is automatic then your simply claiming that it does not matter what Bush or Obama does during their respective recovery periods. Then, a few lines down, you contradict this by saying that if it were not for Obama's policies over the past year, unemployment would be 14% rather than 10%? No recovery is automatic and if it was, the government would not need to do anything.

This was bad, but nowhere near the level of the depression. I never said that it took less than 15 years to recover from the depression. It would have taken much longer, but even that would have worked its way through eventually. Of course, letting it do so would have been dumb as we would have all been dead. The Depression ended when it did because of World War II and World War II only.

Basically, when things went well during the Bush years, it was automaticly going to happen. Anything that went wrong was all his fault. When things were down during the Clinton years, not his fault. When things were up, all do to him. I suppose this logic will continue for Obama as well.

Again, government does have an important role to play in the economy. Recovery is not automatic. The Bush administration did many things well enough to achieve some of the best numbers on the key economic indicators in the nations history. You can't dismiss that by claiming it was "automatic". Just whatever recovery we see under Obama is certainly not going to be considered as "automatic" and not a consequence of Obama's policies.

What I did say was the recovery from the mild 2001 recession would have happened no matter who was in office, and that is 100% true. Any recession we have had recently has bounced back to recovery quickly, regardless of who was President or what policies they pursued. Nixon and GHW Bush raised taxes and we recovered, Truman and Bush II cut taxes and we recovered, you get the idea. From a small recession like 2001, yes, you can be rest assured of a quick, strong bounce back! Even the 1982 deep recession bounced back to strong real growth by 1983 and 84. Obama is seeing exactly the same kind of recovery as Reagan- strong real growth, unemployment remaining high.

Again, there are multiple factors which impact the economy of which government policies is one. Nothing is certain at all! Ever hear of Jimmy Carter? Bush Sr. raised taxes prior to the start of the recession.

Growth was strong in 1983 and 1984, but unemployment was still relatively high. You can't go around claiming that Bush can't take credit for anything that happened good from an economic standpoing, but is responsible for anything bad that happened. Thats just laughably absurd, but its what you have spent the past couple of post attempting to prove.

Already addressed the debt%. It was stable in the first 4 years. By the time 1996 rolled around, Clinton had cut the deficit 4 straight years, 10 Million jobs had been created(more than Bush I by far), lowest misery index in 25 years, record number of small businesses had been started. Unemployment down 1.5 percentage points. Shall I continue? Clinton got re elected in 1996, when the country was trending Republican, based on his economic record. You are pathetic if you are going to stick to this claim.

Well guess what, Bush got re-elected as well in 2004, a good part of it having to do with his economic record. Debt as a percentage of GDP increased EVERY year of Clintons first four years! The deficit is not the debt by the way. Bush has had some of the lowest misery index's on record as well.

Again, this thread is about this being called the decade from hell, the worst times since the 1930s. It clearly was not based on the factual economic indicators. In many ways, it was better than the 1990s, especially when you look at the average poverty rate. You can attempt to rob Bush of any and all credit for that, but the fact that those were the conditions during the decade is a fact that cannot be disputed.

Yes, but look at the overall trends of the 2. The only one oversimplifying things is you.

I'm not the one only looking at data from just 2 months or 2 years. I'm looking at the full 120 months or 10 years. Your not! Thats why your the one oversimplifying things!

Great, never denied it. Does not tell the whole story, it is simply you cherry picking a time period! You have the concept of cherry picking backwards if you accuse me of it.

You deny it by refusing to consider any economic data that occured outside of the year 2000 or the year 2009. No one here would even know or be discussing the 27 consecutive months of unemployment being below 5% if I had not brought it up. Its data no one gets to see when they simply look at your generalization of the decade based on just figures from 2000 and 2009. Thats why its cherry picking. Cherry picking is when you don't consider other data. The 27 consecutive months of unemployment below 5% which gets considered when I use my averages of all the data throughout the decade, but gets MISSED when we only look at 2000 and 2009 like your doing.

61% in a 2009 Gallup Poll. Get up to date! Plus, everyone has a stake in the market, because it reflects how many of our employers and banks are doing. If the stock market sucks, less people want products, less people are employed, less loans are given out for capital investment and economic expansion, etc.

Stock Owners More Positive About Market in Coming Year

Does not matter. The determining factors for marking a recession involve GDP. The misery index attempting to measure the burden on Americans involves inflation and unemployment. The Stock Market has an impact, but its not what is used to assess the level of burden on the country or standard of living. The UNDP does not use any stock values in determining a country's standard of living.

Ask anyone, they worry about retirement. Its not a luxury, its a necessity as people age and their health declines. What planet do you live on?

Well, if its a necessity, why is it largely not present in US or any society before 1930? Anyone can see this by looking at the publically available census records from 1790 and to 1930 which list age and employment status. People can get sick or have a health decline at any age. People can also work far beyond the age that people lable as being retirement age. Current statistics show that many people are working beyond 65 which disproves the claim that its a necessity as one ages. Again, your assuming way to much here.

I was not saying the engineer, business owner, professor or President are the only ones who suffer, just pointing out the wide variety of people who care about the stock market! You cant see that?

Relative to what other people have to go through, I would not call that suffering. The people you listed are generally above the median household income point. Yes, they loss some money in the stock market, but they still have their healthcare, and money for food, water, shelter, the basic necessities, while the people who are living pay check to pay check just to survive until the next week may have lost their job and have relatively nothing compared to your engineer, business owner or professor who's only worry is about how they will pay for some extended retirement period that is decades away.

You never read about the interconnectedness of the economy? If the stock market takes a plunge, it is simply a reaction to other economic indicators. Less demand for everything else, reflected in the stock market, equals less demand for the services of the janitor, the ditch digger and the retail clerk.

If you think the montly unemployment rate and the annual poverty rate can be directly coralated with the stock market, post the numbers!

People living paycheck to paycheck still think about retirement, you are naive to think otherwise.

You are naive to think that someone who is trying to survive over the next week is worried about whether or not they can retire in 3 or 4 decades. The vast majority of people are focused on TODAY, not what may or may not happen decades from now.

Most Americans retire or plan on it, its not a luxury anymore, hasnt been for quite some time! Maybe they work after retirement, but that is for a lower income.

It is only over the last several decades the number of Americans that retire or plan too has increased. Again, you will not find very many people listed as retired on the latest publically available census from 1930.

Many average Americans, yes janitors and retail people included here, have pensions or 401 K accounts that are invested in the stock market.

The majority do not.

My point stands, you can not brush off a stock market collapse as having anything but negative consequences for people from all income brackets. The stock market, again, is not some vacumn, it is a reflection of actual economic conditions!!

Then please post the data that precisely corallates the stock market with the monthly unemployment rate and the annual poverty rate.

Again, its two negative quarters of GDP growth that defines a recession, NOT a drop in the stock market. Its unemployment + inflation which defines the misery index, NOT the stock market level!

Plus, given the fact that job growth was slow(did not even keep up with population growth), incomes were falling and poverty rates were rising, this was not a good decade for the ditch digger, the retail clerk or the janitor.

The average poverty rate, average unemployment rate, average inflation rate, and average GDP growth rate is what determines whether this decade was good or bad for many people on the bottom. They are the ones that are most impacted by such numbers. The fact of the matter is, the past decade saw one of the lowest average poverty rates of any decade in US HISTORY. Its an indisputable fact!

And those numbers were far from great this decade. Main street had a much better decade in the 1990s. There were multiple stories on this even during your 2004-2006 utopia. The stock market, as a reflection of these same conditions(or inputs that lead to them) also can tell us how Main Street is doing. Is Main street employed, are their pensions safe, can they save for college, are our schools funded, can Main street's residents get loans from banks? Can the college afford to give the steelworker's kid a break on tuition? Wall Street doing well does not mean Main street is, not by a long shot, but Wall Street tanking can't be anything but NEGATIVE for Main Street.

Please, Please, have the facts when you challenge me!

Well, here are the average economic indicators during the Bush and Clinton years which covers much of the decades in question. Bush did better on average Debt as a percentage of GDP and the average Poverty rate. Clinton did a little better on GDP growth, unemployment and inflation. The figures on unemployment and inflation were very close.

Again, what is the topic of this thread. That this past decade was the "decade from hell", the worst decade since the 1930s. The facts below indicate that it was NOT!

Oh, and as for the college, consider the fact that 40% of the population never goes. 60% do, but only half graduate. Most of the population does not actually have a four year degree although, the number who do is actually higher at the end of this decade, than in any prior decade in history!


The Average National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:
Clinton Years 64.40%
Bush Years 63.62%



Average GDP growth rate:
Clinton Years 5.4%
Bush Years 4.8%


Average Annual Poverty Rate:
Clinton Years 13.3%
Bush Years 12.5%



Average Annual Unemployment Rate:
Clinton Years 5.21%
Bush Years 5.27%



Average Annual Inflation Rate:
Clinton Years 2.60%
Bush Years 2.69%

 

[BVS]

Holy crap Batman...

 

[Strongbow]

Yes, and that is fine by my reading of the forum rules.

Do I get it?

Yes, I get it. I am a reasonable person here, and you are the one here to defend one person, at all costs, no matter the facts, and to name call and make generalizations against anyone who disagrees.

Really, what name did I use to call you or another forum member?

All I have done is point out numerous statistics from the past decade that have been ignored here. If that helps to defend the person who was President during that time, so be it. This is a debate forum, and its ok if people are Republicans and defend President Bush. Understand?

I am not a blind left wing nut, I am a moderate Democrat who respects all views.

Did I say you were a blind left wing nut?


What is respectful in the following comments you made? What does it have to do with the thread topic?

You have proven time and again that intelligent and objective responses from myself(shall we look at the history?)and other members lead to 1 of 2 things:
1.)You ignore them and go on an irrelevant tirade assuming all kinds of things from what was said.
2.)You change the subject or bring up something irrelevant.

There is not a post in FYM that I make that you do not come back on with some distortion.

As long as it is exclusively about the thread topic it does not matter whether in your OPINION you think its a distortion or not.

I pointed that out, as I am getting sick of it, then you cried foul without reading the forum rules. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

Again, its ok to comment on the topic, not a good idea to comment about another person. I simply pointed that out. I don't recall making any personal comments about your alleged posting habbits? Why would I? What does that have to do with the topic of the thread?

1 or 2 line responses may give you the feeling that you have picked apart and refuted other posters here line by line, but it does not work with me! I see right through what you are trying to do with all of them, and just because you are using statistics does not mean you are right.

Who cares as long as the discussion remains on topic and does not turn into this fantasy crap about why someone post something, what their feeling, thinking, all of this is just in your head.

It is how you interpret and represent those statistics. Your conclusions are derived from this interpretation, and all of your conclusions are absolutely absurd and baseless, by any objective standard, so I call them out.

Well, one could easily make the same comment about your interpretation and representation of the statistics.

LOL, well that is your opinion. But if you want to discuss myself, why don't you start another thread so others who interested in the TOPIC rather than your ideas about another forum member can continue to focus on that.

Apparently, the idea that someone would defend Bush or the past decade in any way shape or form is a little too much for you to handle.

Wanting to avoid making a big long post like I just did actually explaining how your representations and conclusions are wrong, I simply pointed out that with you, it is always this way!

And I responded showing how much of what you just posted is incorrect!

Responding factually to the topic with comments directed only toward the issue being discussed is how the thread should continue.

But going away from that and into your delusional comments about another forum member is pointless. At a minimum, you should at least start another thread since its obviously a different topic.

Again, sorry if you are offended.

I'm sure you are with comments like the following:

Strongbow teaches us one lesson: Never conclude that someone in possession of statistics and data is correct.

Again, an objective person only interested in debating the issue would never make such a comment.

BTW, ever consider making a U2 related post?

Because that is the only place you will ever run into me again, as I am completely ignoring anything else you write in FYM.

I've heard that before, so I doubt it.

 

[PhilsFan]

In a debate where you've decided which stats are relevant and which ones aren't, of course you're going to appear correct. But you're simply wrong about which ones are. I've studied (and worked in the field of) statistics for a long time. What you have displayed here is statistical bias. You began searching specifically for statistics that would support the premise that George W. Bush did not negatively impact the economy. Which such a vast array of statistics in an eight year term, it's very easy to find some statistics that make Bush look competent. Aiding you even more is the fact that Bush came into office with the economy in very good shape.

However, it's simply bias and nothing more. There's no point in specifically addressing your cited stats because I'd just be repeating myself. They all contain the same flaw.

 

[Bluer White]

I for one appreciate the effort Strongbow puts into his posts

 

[indra]

Eh, last decade wasn't the best or the worst.

 

[U2387]

Really, what name did I use to call you or another forum member?

Diemen addressed that.

All I have done is point out numerous statistics from the past decade that have been ignored here. If that helps to defend the person who was President during that time, so be it. This is a debate forum, and its ok if people are Republicans and defend President Bush. Understand?

I ignored no statistics that you mentioned. I just pointed out how none of your indicators really showed that GW Bush was that great in terms of economic performance. I showed how your conclusions from the statistics are wrong and that the numbers can not be used in any reasonable way to defend the President. If you want to try, I never said you couldn't. Nor did anyone else here. I simply pointed out that you are obsessed with trying to use numbers to defend one person at all costs. Many real conservatives and sane Republicans RAN AWAY from the Bush economic record. I can point out where your conclusions are completely wrong. I understand people want to defend Bush, or are Republicans, and that is fine, I am not an idiot. You can have your own opinion but not your own facts. You continue to stick to false assertions despite the facts.



Did I say you were a blind left wing nut?

No, just providing some context. Never said you did. Maybe providing some contrast too, as you blindly defend Bush's economic record despite all evidence to the contrary. When the Democrats screw up, I admit it. I opposed the public option and don't like what a majority of them are saying on the surge. I support Obama on that. I would never say that most of this country had it good under Jimmy Carter. I could debate whether/how his policies contributed or not contributed to this. You should take a hint here. The numbers show things were not good. Now tell us why you think that was in spite of, not mostly because of Bush's policies.


What is respectful in the following comments you made? What does it have to do with the thread topic?

I respect all views. Not all posts. Certainly not from people who consistently insist they are right about everything and come back with the same distortions even after they have been addressed. Multiple times. If you wanted to say "agree to disagree" on the level of influence the President had over X or Y policy, wonderful, have a nice life. I respect that. I don't have any patience for what you constantly pull. Your posts in this thread show the same pattern I predicted when I first explained why you had no concept of these things.

The fact that a poster has a history of not being able to see the difference between opinion and fact and will try and twist every fact to fit their own views is more than relevant to the thread topic.





As long as it is exclusively about the thread topic it does not matter whether in your OPINION you think its a distortion or not.

Its not my opinion that something is a distortion. A distortion is a distortion. No person without ax to grind would conclude what you conclude from the statistics we have discussed. This is not an opinion here. I was not trying to say you were off topic or out of bounds, just pointing out that your continued distortions make you not worth arguing with.

I wasn't the one who turned someone into the mods over some non existent rule violation.



Again, its ok to comment on the topic, not a good idea to comment about another person. I simply pointed that out. I don't recall making any personal comments about your alleged posting habbits? Why would I? What does that have to do with the topic of the thread?

How is it not a good idea? It lets people know you are not to be taken seriously in anything you post. Its not against the rules to point out someones history. The fact that a poster has a history of not being able to see the difference between opinion and fact and will try and twist every fact to fit their own views is more than relevant to the thread topic.




Who cares as long as the discussion remains on topic and does not turn into this fantasy crap about why someone post something, what their feeling, thinking, all of this is just in your head.

Not in my head, just looking at your habits over time. I never claimed to know why you posted something, or what you are feeling or thinking. Talk about fantasyland!! Do you think I or anyone else here ever has any idea what you are thinking when you say half the things you say??



Well, one could easily make the same comment about your interpretation and representation of the statistics.

No, not at all. I explained myself every single time re: what these statistics show and what can reasonably be concluded from them . You are still stuck on one or two line rehashes of what has already been addressed. You mostly get the statistics wrong, and when you get them right, you conclude unreasonable things without explaining them or taking them in context.

LOL, well that is your opinion. But if you want to discuss myself, why don't you start another thread so others who interested in the TOPIC rather than your ideas about another forum member can continue to focus on that.

No interest in discussing you as a person, just your very relevant posting habits.

Apparently, the idea that someone would defend Bush or the past decade in any way shape or form is a little too much for you to handle.

No, not too much for me to handle at all. I don't care if you defend him. I have numerous friends who are Republicans who truly think his POLICIES were good. I just showed how you can not defend his economic record using the indicators we discussed, as they clearly show weak performance. You don't understand the difference between defending Bush on legitimate policy grounds and attempting to do it by claiming objective statistics say things they clearly do not about the economy in the 00s. I have NEVER seen you defend a Bush policy(legislation, executive order, appointment, his character, his decisions, etc) in any way shape or form. You just misrepresent what actually happened and think you are defending Bush. Then you put words in my mouth by claiming that I think no one should be allowed to defend Bush. Be my guest- tell us how his policies were not responsible for the performance, or how you think he acted in good faith when saying there were WMD. Or how we had to invade even without WMD's Where I get off the boat here is where you try to tell us the weak job growth, drop in income, drop in the stock market, recessions, record deficits and debt and questionable war did not happen. Go ahead and defend him, but you cant take your own set of facts about actual conditions with you.


And I responded showing how much of what you just posted is incorrect!

With the same bullshit you always post, with the same MO of ignoring, misrepresenting and clearly not reading what was posted.

Responding factually to the topic with comments directed only toward the issue being discussed is how the thread should continue.

Not worth it with you. You don't respond factually or in good faith.

But going away from that and into your delusional comments about another forum member is pointless. At a minimum, you should at least start another thread since its obviously a different topic.

Again, your history is quite relevant. We comment on each other all the time here, read some other forums once in a while. The ones that talk about U2!!




I'm sure you are with comments like the following:



Again, an objective person only interested in debating the issue would never make such a comment.

Yes, but an objective person only interested in debating the issue and WHAT THE DATA ACTUALLY SAY BY ANY REASONABLE MEASURE would!

How is this not objective? You expect us to believe your SUBJECTIVE interpretation of OBJECTIVE statistics and you continue to substitute these interpretations for fact, even when they are completely unreasonable when you actually look at what the data say. I want people to debate in good faith, not make baseless conclusions to fit their own pre conceived biases.

I am pointing out to other debaters that you should stop having an expectation that the conversation is over just because you can misrepresent data.

Everyone, this is important here. Strongbow is telling us that no objective person interested in debating the issues WOULD EVER EVEN CONSIDER pointing out that he constantly makes completely unreasonable conclusions and remains in denial even when they are shown to be unreasonable.

Strongbow's definition of objective, get ready here, folks is this: Objectivity is the absence of questioning his SUBJECTIVE interpretations of data.





I've heard that before, so I doubt it.

No, I am truly done now.

Not only do you misrepresent everything, you still do not get the numbers right. I linked a chart on debt % GDP being stable in Clinton's first term, and you still tried to claim otherwise.

You are clearly:
A.)Not capable of looking at data without trying to fit it to your opinion.
B.) A pathological liar, as you still continue to use your own statistics on debt as a percentage of GDP even when I link the official charts.
C.)And most importantly, not worth another second of my time.

 

[Jive Turkey]

"I predict another long post by Strongbow"

 

[U2387]

In a debate where you've decided which stats are relevant and which ones aren't, of course you're going to appear correct. But you're simply wrong about which ones are. I've studied (and worked in the field of) statistics for a long time. What you have displayed here is statistical bias. You began searching specifically for statistics that would support the premise that George W. Bush did not negatively impact the economy. Which such a vast array of statistics in an eight year term, it's very easy to find some statistics that make Bush look competent. Aiding you even more is the fact that Bush came into office with the economy in very good shape.

However, it's simply bias and nothing more. There's no point in specifically addressing your cited stats because I'd just be repeating myself. They all contain the same flaw.

Exactly. Not worth it, many have come to this conclusion.

You, as someone who knows statistics, clearly should not waste time debating someone who claims to know and does not.

I hold 2 economics degrees and know he is misrepresenting, I feel no need to keep running around in circles with him about things he has proven he does not understand.

 

[PhilsFan]

I for one appreciate the effort Strongbow puts into his posts

The length of his posts are simply disguises for his lack of point. Every time.

Also, quite a bit of his posting appears to be copy-and-paste work.

 

[Strongbow]

In a debate where you've decided which stats are relevant and which ones aren't, of course you're going to appear correct. But you're simply wrong about which ones are.

Every analysis of any period of time in economic history often involves these economic indicators:

1. Unemployment
2. Inflation
3. GDP Growth
4. Poverty Rate
5. Debt as a percentage of GDP

These are the basic indicators that tell you how a country is doing. Other factors take a back seat to these and are often ranked in importance in terms of their impact on the ones above.

What you have displayed here is statistical bias. You began searching specifically for statistics that would support the premise that George W. Bush did not negatively impact the economy. Which such a vast array of statistics in an eight year term, it's very easy to find some statistics that make Bush look competent.

Again, thats not at all what was done here. If your going to look at any period of time and try to determine the performance of the economy and the burden or lack there of for people during that time, those 5 economic indicators are often the most important.

However, it's simply bias and nothing more. There's no point in specifically addressing your cited stats because I'd just be repeating myself. They all contain the same flaw.

If there is bias any where its from those who refuse to look at the basic economic statistics for the decade that show that it was NOT the decade from hell. To ignore the basic statistics that are always used to look at any period of time, and use other statistics that are not as central to determining the level of burden or lack there of for people is indeed far more biased than simply using the basic economic indicators that I used.

I've looked at all the data objectively and can acknowledge what was good and what was bad.

Unfortunately in this forum, its a cardinal sin to acknowledge that Bush did anything right, or that things were not as bad while he was in office as so many have claimed.

I've always acknowledged the good and the bad with any Presidential administration.

When was the last time the majority of people in this forum acknowledged something good about the Bush Administration?

 

[Strongbow]

[/COLOR]

No, I am truly done now.

Not only do you misrepresent everything, you still do not get the numbers right. I linked a chart on debt % GDP being stable in Clinton's first term, and you still tried to claim otherwise.

DEBT AS PERCENTAGE OF GDP UNITED STATES
1992 64.13 BUSH 1 last year
1993 66.26 CLINTON first year
1994 66.35
1995 67.24

My point was that the debt as a percentage of GDP continued to increase during Clintons first term. Your link clearly shows that it did. No misrepresentation here at all, just the facts.

You are clearly:
A.)Not capable of looking at data without trying to fit it to your opinion.
B.) A pathological liar, as you still continue to use your own statistics on debt as a percentage of GDP even when I link the official charts.
C.)And most importantly, not worth another second of my time.

Even if there was an ounce of truth to any of that(WHICH THERE IS NOT), what difference does it make? Why not stick to the topic being discussed? Express what you feel and say what you think is correct or not correct on the topic and move on.

Calling someone else a "pathological liar" or any of the other personal claims does not lend any credibility to the arguements your making on the topic.

 

[Strongbow]

Exactly. Not worth it, many have come to this conclusion.

You, as someone who knows statistics, clearly should not waste time debating someone who claims to know and does not.

I hold 2 economics degrees and know he is misrepresenting, I feel no need to keep running around in circles with him about things he has proven he does not understand.

Again, is the topic of this thread to discuss what someone knows or does not know about a particular subject matter?

The topic of this thread was the "DECADE FROM HELL". The topic starter also claimed it was the worst decade since the 1930s. I simply pointed out that was not so, and why. I used the basic economic statistics for the decade to make that point. Hard factual statistics. Nothing there is a misrepresentation.

Looking at the following key economic indicators:

1. Unemployment
2. Inflation
3. Poverty Rate
4. GDP Growth
5. Debt as a percentage of GDP

When you compare the total statistics for the 00s with the 1990s, the 00s have been either better in some cases or nearly as good as the 1990s. There is no misrepresentation in that.

Yes, George Bush started off with a good economy in January 2001, but an unemployment rate of 4.8% in February 2008, 7 years later is still fantastic. This is a fact that everyone should acknowledge. But no one here would even bring it up unless I had. Cherry picking numbers from 2000 and 2009 does NOT give an accurate picture of what the entire decade was like. It is a distortion. You can't analyze an entire decade by only looking at numbers from the first month and the last month of the decade!

Finally, my main point was to show that the burden on people during the decade, regardless of your opinion of George Bush and his policies, did not at all rise to being "The Decade From Hell" or the worse decade since the 1930s. The basic economic statistics for the decade show that and using them to show that is clearly not a misrepresentation.

 

[PhilsFan]

Every analysis of any period of time in economic history often involves these economic indicators:

1. Unemployment
2. Inflation
3. GDP Growth
4. Poverty Rate
5. Debt as a percentage of GDP

These are the basic indicators that tell you how a country is doing. Other factors take a back seat to these and are often ranked in importance in terms of their impact on the ones above.

Says who? You act like this is common knowledge and that I'm an idiot for questioning it, but I've seen plenty of legitimate statistical analyses that have used other factors and/or don't address or skim over those you've listed. Again, you're trying to cherrypick certain statistics as being the end all-be all of an analysis, when that's just not true.

And, again, each of those statistics can each be looked at in a number of ways: based on average as one, and with start and finishing numbers, both of which tell something important. When the criticism of Bush is how he took a good economy and turned it bad, those start and finish numbers are not only relevant, but telling.

Again, thats not at all what was done here. If your going to look at any period of time and try to determine the performance of the economy and the burden or lack there of for people during that time, those 5 economic indicators are often the most important.

But to say that you can ONLY look at average and have to ignore the start and finish is purely out of bias. There's no statistical justification for that, it's just simply so that you can ignore how bad the downward trend of the Bush era was.

If there is bias any where its from those who refuse to look at the basic economic statistics for the decade that show that it was NOT the decade from hell. To ignore the basic statistics that are always used to look at any period of time, and use other statistics that are not as central to determining the level of burden or lack there of for people is indeed far more biased than simply using the basic economic indicators that I used.

I've looked at all the data objectively and can acknowledge what was good and what was bad.

You're looking at those particular statistics with an extremely narrow viewpoint. That's what's biased.

What was good was the start, which isn't credited to him, and the peak of inflation, which was clearly unsustainable (as the end of Bush era clearly showed).

Unfortunately in this forum, its a cardinal sin to acknowledge that Bush did anything right, or that things were not as bad while he was in office as so many have claimed.

I've always acknowledged the good and the bad with any Presidential administration.

When was the last time the majority of people in this forum acknowledged something good about the Bush Administration?

Who cares? We're talking about the economy now, and Bush sucked at dealing with the economy. In a discussion about the economy, why would I acknowledge something Bush did well? He didn't do well with the economy.

 

[Strongbow]

Says who? You act like this is common knowledge and that I'm an idiot for questioning it, but I've seen plenty of legitimate statistical analyses that have used other factors and/or don't address or skim over those you've listed. Again, you're trying to cherrypick certain statistics as being the end all-be all of an analysis, when that's just not true.

1. Unemployment - Any analyses of periods of strong economic growth, recession, or depression usually involve looking at the unemployment rate. During the great depression it reached 25% at the annual rate. The monthly rate got up to 35%. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, you have the creation of the "Misery Index" which combines unemployment and inflation. When people lauded the economy during Clinton's second administration, they pointed to the monthly unemployment rate that got as low as 3.8%. Today when people discuss the current economic troubles, they talk about the unemployment rate being at 10%. Who has a job and who does not is definitely an important economic indicator.

2. Inflation - Out of control inflation can quickly take a bite out of people's standard of living as we saw in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Inflation is the other half of the misery index. Many site high inflation as being part of the reason Carter was defeated in 1980.

3. Poverty Rate - How much of the population is living in poverty is definitely an important economic indicator showing how much of the population is really struggling. It could be because of the loss of a job or that the job one has does not pay well enough to support a family or oneself.

4. GDP Growth - Economist define a recession as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. GDP is the value of all goods and services produced in a given year. When GDP grows sufficiently, it usually has a positive effect on the unemployment rate, Poverty rate, and debt as a percentage of GDP.

5. Debt As A Percentage of GDP - For the United States, the worst shape it was ever in in terms of debt was in 1946 just after World War II when the national debt was 121% of GDP. In 2009, the figure was 90%, but the average for the decade is about the same as that for the 1990s. Its important to compare any debt number to a measure of wealth like GDP, since that reflects the country's ability to deal with the debt.



These are the basic most commonly used economic indicators by economist, politicians, journalist to assess periods of strong economic growth, to define a recession, or a depression. They have been consistently looked at every decade and give an accurate picture of the level prosperity or economic burden being experienced by a country. The focus of each statistic is broad and covers and impacts the entire country.

And, again, each of those statistics can each be looked at in a number of ways: based on average as one, and with start and finishing numbers, both of which tell something important. When the criticism of Bush is how he took a good economy and turned it bad, those start and finish numbers are not only relevant, but telling.

When you only look at the first month of an administration or decade and the last month, your missing 99% of the data that tells how that decade or administration went. You miss the fact that the economy was basically in good shape for all of the Bush's 8 years except the last 6 to 8 months he was in office. Again, unemployment was only 4.8% in February 2008, just 11 months before Bush left office. Many presidential administrations have never seen an unemployment rate that low, and its unlikely Obama will see an unemployment rate that low either.

Bush deserves criticism for contributing to the deregulation which helped bring about the financial crises of late 2008 and helped lead to four consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. But that does not change the fact that for most of Bush's 8 years in office, the economy was in excellent shape and the burden on society was relatively low compared with other Presidential administrations and past decades. You can't measure how good or bad this decade was by just looking at the last 18 months of the decade. There are 102 other months in that decade that together or closer to what is really like, than the last 18.

But to say that you can ONLY look at average and have to ignore the start and finish is purely out of bias. There's no statistical justification for that, it's just simply so that you can ignore how bad the downward trend of the Bush era was.

The average takes in all the data. Looking at the first month and the last month does not. It also can be used to mis-represent what happened during the decade by claiming that there was some gradual downward trend each and every month that Bush was in office. THAT DEFINITELY WAS NOT THE CASE! When you look at the monthly numbers they spent most of their time going up and down a little throughout the decade. It was only in the last months that Bush was in office that there was suddenly strong upward trend in the numbers. But your not going to see that when you just look at the first month and the last month. Your going to mistakenly assume that there was this consistent gradual downward trend, month after month, year after year, and that was indeed not the case!

You're looking at those particular statistics with an extremely narrow viewpoint. That's what's biased.

What was good was the start, which isn't credited to him, and the peak of inflation, which was clearly unsustainable (as the end of Bush era clearly showed).

I'm not the one who is narrow looking at things. When your only looking at the first month or year and the last month or year, that produces both an ignorant and extremely narrow viewpoint.

Things were good at the start of the Bush administration economically, but they were still good in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and even into the first months of 2008. A narrow viewpoint which just looks at how things were in 2000 and 2008 or 2009 does not consider all the years in between. You fail to realize that things were in good shape for most of the Bush years until the last few months.

Who cares?

Anyone that values being honest and objective.

We're talking about the economy now, and Bush sucked at dealing with the economy.

Thats not what the statistics show.

In a discussion about the economy, why would I acknowledge something Bush did well? He didn't do well with the economy.

Well, then your showing your level of bias if you can't acknowledge what Bush did well. The fact is, the Bush years had some of the lowest unemployment, inflation, poverty, rates in this country's history. It had some of the best levels of GDP growth and a similar debt to GDP ratio as the 1990s, despite the number of crises and wars that had to be dealt with.

 

[PhilsFan]

I wrote like five replies to this, but I have come to the realization that you're actually just lying. You are lying to all of us in your posts. Simply lying. You're a liar, you're disingenuous, and you're trying to mislead people. It's dirty and it's wrong.

 

[deep]

I wrote like five replies to this

You should have gone with one of the other four

or not replied at all.

 

[Strongbow]

I wrote like five replies to this, but I have come to the realization that you're actually just lying. You are lying to all of us in your posts. Simply lying. You're a liar, you're disingenuous, and you're trying to mislead people. It's dirty and it's wrong.

WOW, let me know when you return to earth.

 

[PhilsFan]

WOW, let me know when you return to earth.

It's pointless to try and explain that there are as many flaws in average as there are in first and last month statistics, and that the important thing is to look at both of them and not exclude one or the other. Because you'll say one outweighs the other for no reason other than you said so and some other people do too. And there's no citing of this random bullshit you spew, and you know there's not, you just say things are "standard" or everyone uses them and it's just all lies to defend your fucked up view of the world.

If you want to continue discussing, read the first sentence. I doubt you do, though, since you'll run away crying like a baby because someone dared to say something bad about you on the Internet and "there are forum rules!" and other random shit. You're a carousel of bullshit.

 

[Diemen]

You're a carousel of bullshit.

That's enough, pfan. Might I offer a suggestion:

http://www.u2interference.com/forums/profile.php?do=ignorelist