mnealtx 0 #51 July 24, 2010 QuoteClinton was not President in March 2001. So, by that logic, Obama is responsible for the recession from March 2009 on. Whew! Glad we got that straightened out!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,112 #52 July 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteClinton was not President in March 2001. So, by that logic, Obama is responsible for the recession from March 2009 on. Whew! Glad we got that straightened out! There is no recession that started March 2009. www.nber.org/cycles/dec2008.html You are thinking of the one that started in December of 2007. The one that the Republicans were in denial about for months (remember the "R-word" thread). So just to be clear, Clinton inherited an expansion, maintained an expansion and bequeathed an expansion. Bush inherited an expansion and bequeathed a recession. Obama inherited a recession and it remains to be seen what will happen.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #53 July 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteClinton was not President in March 2001. So, by that logic, Obama is responsible for the recession from March 2009 on. Whew! Glad we got that straightened out! There is no recession that started March 2009. www.nber.org/cycles/dec2008.html You are thinking of the one that started in December of 2007. The one that the Republicans were in denial about for months (remember the "R-word" thread). So just to be clear, Clinton inherited an expansion, maintained an expansion and bequeathed an expansion. Bush inherited an expansion and bequeathed a recession. Obama inherited a recession and it remains to be seen what will happen. *yawn* We know...it's all Bush's fault. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,112 #54 July 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteClinton was not President in March 2001. So, by that logic, Obama is responsible for the recession from March 2009 on. Whew! Glad we got that straightened out! There is no recession that started March 2009. www.nber.org/cycles/dec2008.html You are thinking of the one that started in December of 2007. The one that the Republicans were in denial about for months (remember the "R-word" thread). So just to be clear, Clinton inherited an expansion, maintained an expansion and bequeathed an expansion. Bush inherited an expansion and bequeathed a recession. Obama inherited a recession and it remains to be seen what will happen. *yawn* We know...it's all Bush's fault. Facts can be SO boring compared with the myths you apparently prefer.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #55 July 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteClinton was not President in March 2001. So, by that logic, Obama is responsible for the recession from March 2009 on. Whew! Glad we got that straightened out! There is no recession that started March 2009. www.nber.org/cycles/dec2008.html You are thinking of the one that started in December of 2007. The one that the Republicans were in denial about for months (remember the "R-word" thread). So just to be clear, Clinton inherited an expansion, maintained an expansion and bequeathed an expansion. Bush inherited an expansion and bequeathed a recession. Obama inherited a recession and it remains to be seen what will happen. *yawn* We know...it's all Bush's fault. Facts can be SO boring compared with the myths you apparently prefer. No, really...it's ok. We get it. We *all* get it. It's all Bush's fault. You can rest from your labors, now.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #56 July 24, 2010 QuoteQuote So just to be clear, Clinton inherited an expansion, maintained an expansion and bequeathed an expansion. Bush inherited an expansion and bequeathed a recession. Obama inherited a recession and it remains to be seen what will happen. Facts can be SO boring compared with the myths you apparently prefer. These were your facts? Clinton inherited a poor economy and a large deficit. It was a big factor in finally breaking past the GOP domination (5 of 6 terms in the White House). Bush did not inherit an expansion, and he certainly didn't create a recession within 6 weeks in office. He did inherit a budget that was roughly balanced, though aided by the dotcom bubble. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,112 #57 July 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote So just to be clear, Clinton inherited an expansion, maintained an expansion and bequeathed an expansion. Bush inherited an expansion and bequeathed a recession. Obama inherited a recession and it remains to be seen what will happen. Facts can be SO boring compared with the myths you apparently prefer. These were your facts? . No, they are the NBER's facts.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #58 July 25, 2010 QuoteQuote These were your facts? . No, they are the NBER's facts. No, the NBER tries to put dates around the cycle, but your conclusions were entirly your own interpretation of them. Blaming Bush for what started on March, 2001 is fact that you're hardly being objective. You want to tag him for extending it, or the events at the end of his term, great. But here, it shows you to have an ax, not a grasp of the facts. Let's not forget the very recent revisionism by the NBER regarding the timing of the dot bust. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #59 July 25, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote These were your facts? . No, they are the NBER's facts. No, the NBER tries to put dates around the cycle, but your conclusions were entirly your own interpretation of them. Blaming Bush for what started on March, 2001 is fact that you're hardly being objective. You want to tag him for extending it, or the events at the end of his term, great. But here, it shows you to have an ax, not a grasp of the facts. Let's not forget the very recent revisionism by the NBER regarding the timing of the dot bust. Oh, c'mon - what's a little 37.8% loss in the DJIA between friends? Quote10th Worst Stock Market Crash: 2000 - 2002 Key events: Tech bubble bursting, September 11th terrorist attack Date Started: 1/15/2000 Date Ended: 10/9/2002 Total Days: 999 Starting DJIA: 11,792.98 Ending DJIA: 7,286.27 Total Loss: -37.8% Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,112 #60 July 25, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote These were your facts? . No, they are the NBER's facts. No, the NBER tries to put dates around the cycle, but your conclusions were entirly your own interpretation of them. Blaming Bush for what started on March, 2001 is fact that you're hardly being objective. You want to tag him for extending it, or the events at the end of his term, great. But here, it shows you to have an ax, not a grasp of the facts. Let's not forget the very recent revisionism by the NBER regarding the timing of the dot bust. Didn't write any conclusions - just dates as reported by NBER. Fact: the 2001 recession started in March. Fact: There is no recession that started March 2009. http://www.nber.org/cycles/dec2008.html Fact: It started in December of 2007. Fact: Republicans were in denial about for months (remember the "R-word" thread).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #61 July 25, 2010 It's ok, John. We know. It's all Bush's fault.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #62 July 25, 2010 Quote Didn't write any conclusions - just dates as reported by NBER. Saying one guy inherited this or that is certainly a conclusion. Quote Fact: It started in December of 2007. Fact: Republicans were in denial about for months (remember the "R-word" thread). Oh, certainly they said it wasn't so, just as you want to say that nothing was wrong in late 2000. This is politically motivated by both parties. But denial suggests they knew it wasn't true, rather than just didn't believe it. As we well know, recessions are determined after the fact. You shouldn't expect the incumbent party to say "this might be a recession." Esp when leading indicators like the stock market didn't show the decline yet...in this case the market was in line with the event, not a lead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,112 #63 July 25, 2010 QuoteQuote Didn't write any conclusions - just dates as reported by NBER. Saying one guy inherited this or that is certainly a conclusion. No it's the definition of inheritance.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #64 July 25, 2010 QuoteQuoteNo, Reagan virtually tripled the bebt, seee if you can follow along. 952B to 2.7T = 1.8T additon = 1.89% addition, or he left 289% of what he inherited. Now if you say he added double to the existing debt, I'll agree. QuoteAnd what year are THOSE dollar amounts based on, Lucky? I'm sure you have that answer at your fingers since it was SO important to you, above. Yea, those are 1980's dollars, but taking a stable debt and cutting taxes to virtually a third of where you inherited them, probably doubling or more spending is ageless and timeless; it translates to any time in history. QuoteQuoteObama will double the debt (given current spending) in 8 years - guess they really ARE alike. QuoteObama hasn't changed spending, he will let the tax cuts expire QuoteSo much for that "your taxes will not increase one dime" promise, huh? I'm not aware of that promise to people who gross 200-250k/yr. Regardless, whenever taxes increase, on a major fed level, the economic picture improves and you have yet to disprove that. Quoteand taxes will increase, hence receipts will increase and the deficit will fall and rich tears will also fall. QuoteAnd businesses and the rich will move overseas, lessening the take. They have been for 40 or 50 years, so what's your point. Obama imposed a tarrifff on Chinese tires and was crucuifed. Can't win. QuoteAnd the people that actually BELIEVED Barry's promises will be fucked. You opinion, probably the same when Clinton took office. Your theories and opinions are as relevant now as they were then, huh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #65 July 25, 2010 Quote It's ok, John. We know. It's all Bush's fault. I think someone needs a 12 step program when one is in that much denial. Maybe some day you will come to terms with how butt hurt you were over the people you supported when they let you down so completely and utterly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #66 July 25, 2010 Quote Quote It's ok, John. We know. It's all Bush's fault. I think someone needs a 12 step program when one is in that much denial. Maybe some day you will come to terms with how butt hurt you were over the people you supported when they let you down so completely and utterly. In reality it was Reagan's fault. The Harding/Coolige duo of crooks cut the top brkt from 73% to 25% over 4 years as the first radical tax cuts the US had seen. The result, coupled with a crooked Wall Street was the Great Depression. Hoover figured it would just fix itself and did nothing for the 1st 2.5 years, then restored the top brkt to 63% 9 months before he exited office. Reagan should have been aware enough not to repeat history, yet he was too senile and crooked so he couldn't help himself and lowered taxes from 70% to 28% over 6 years, an almost identical repeat of the other corrupt Republicans, Harding and Coolige. See, Reagan had the advantage of history, but he ignored it or was too senile to understand. GWB, even tho he lowered taxes only 5%, when we get below 40% we have always had disaster since WWI. This country was great when taxes were teh highest, at least > 50%. What high taxes, coupled with generous writeoffs do is to mandate reinvestment, low taxes allow for taking money out of the game, stagnating (recessing) the economy. A full-on Socialist would want high taxes with little writeoffs, I want both high taxes and generous writeoffs to allow for prosperity and continued economic growth vs gross disparity in wealth as is present under low taxes / generous writeoffs. So my point is that as pathetic as GWB is/was, it really is Reagan's fault. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #67 July 25, 2010 Here's a graph that is really illustrative. Look at the top marginal brkt from Harding/Coolige and then compare it to Reagan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarginalIncomeTax.svg Amazingling almost identical. 1922-1925 1981-1986 The step is larger with Reagan's, but the starting and stopping point are virtually carbon copy. The results, well similar but in a different way. In the 1920's they didn't believe in deficit spending, so they suffered and waited for the economy to come around. Reagan believed in deficit spending so his good deeds weren't really noticed until after his death or at least his mind left us. If Reagan didn't deficit spend as he did, I think we would have been in a depression by the end of his illustrious 2nd term. Rhetorically, when will the morons quit thinking that cutting taxes to shreds is a good idea? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #68 July 26, 2010 QuoteHere's a graph that is really illustrative. Look at the top marginal brkt from Harding/Coolige and then compare it to Reagan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarginalIncomeTax.svg Amazingling almost identical. 1922-1925 1981-1986 So identical! Did 32 million (what's your latest made up number?) people die in the 80s? Did Reagan go down as the most unpopular President in the GOP party since Cooledge? Did the entire world fall apart? Oh, guess not. > GWB, even tho he lowered taxes only 5%, when we get below 40% we have always had disaster since WWI. We didn't have disaster in the 80s when Reagan did this, nor in the 90s when Clinton kept them below your magic (pulled out of your ass) 40% figure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #69 July 26, 2010 QuoteQuoteHere's a graph that is really illustrative. Look at the top marginal brkt from Harding/Coolige and then compare it to Reagan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarginalIncomeTax.svg Amazingling almost identical. 1922-1925 1981-1986 QuoteSo identical! Well, as I said, almost identical, but I don't expect honest portrayal of what I write from you. Quote Did 32 million (what's your latest made up number?) people die in the 80s? No, if you had the ability to read you would have seen that I wrote that Reagan deficit spent, hence the massive debt not in time of war. QuoteDid Reagan go down as the most unpopular President in the GOP party since Cooledge? Popularity means little, look at the 2004 election, the worst guy won the popularity contest and is now the 5th most unpopular pres ever. QuoteDid the entire world fall apart? After Reagan, basically the country did, he took the debt from 900B to 2.7T and it took GHWB and Clinton 12 years to stop the bleeding, by then the debt was 5.5T. So yes, it really killed the nation. And it laid the template for the dumbest US president ever to follow Reagan's plan and finish us off. QuoteOh, guess not. The world didn't end after Harding Collige, just killed many and millions suffered. > GWB, even tho he lowered taxes only 5%, when we get below 40% we have always had disaster since WWI. QuoteWe didn't have disaster in the 80s when Reagan did this, nor in the 90s when Clinton kept them below your magic (pulled out of your ass) 40% figure. Tripling the debt isn't disater and you and your cronnies here whine about Obama allegedly being at fault for hammering the debt? You can't even help yourself from contradiction even in the same post can you? They were like .4% below 40%; I see you must be semantic to make a non-point. You can't bitch about the debt of others if you ignore the party who keeps taking a stable debt and turning it vertical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #70 July 26, 2010 As for most bad news this was to be released late Friday. Then they did it one better and released it 3 hours late so it would not make the week end talking heads show Enjoyhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2011_msr/11msr.pdf?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #71 July 26, 2010 QuoteAs for most bad news this was to be released late Friday. Then they did it one better and released it 3 hours late so it would not make the week end talking heads show http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2011_msr/11msr.pdf?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell Even the RW viral blogosphere, from which you lifted this silly talking point, notes that it was released at 3:00 p.m. on Friday. The conclusion that that prevented it from being talked about on the weekend news shows is just plain stupid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #72 July 26, 2010 QuoteQuoteAs for most bad news this was to be released late Friday. Then they did it one better and released it 3 hours late so it would not make the week end talking heads show http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2011_msr/11msr.pdf?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell Even the RW viral blogosphere, from which you lifted this silly talking point, notes that it was released at 3:00 p.m. on Friday. The conclusion that that prevented it from being talked about on the weekend news shows is just plain stupid. Due at noon But the content is irrelevant too......"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #73 July 26, 2010 Quote > GWB, even tho he lowered taxes only 5%, when we get below 40% we have always had disaster since WWI. QuoteWe didn't have disaster in the 80s when Reagan did this, nor in the 90s when Clinton kept them below your magic (pulled out of your ass) 40% figure. Tripling the debt isn't disater and you and your cronnies here whine about Obama allegedly being at fault for hammering the debt? You can't even help yourself from contradiction even in the same post can you? They were like .4% below 40%; I see you must be semantic to make a non-point. You said disaster occurs every time it was lowered to under 40. It's hardly semantics to note that we had a pretty nice run when Clinton raised it to a level that was still under that made up number. If < 40 is diaster, 41 or 42 can hardly be good. Just admit you're a lousy back tester who can't even keep his data straight. There's absolutely no thinking behind your 40 value, and it doesn't stand up to simple scrutiny. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 210 #74 July 26, 2010 QuoteQuoteAs for most bad news this was to be released late Friday. Then they did it one better and released it 3 hours late so it would not make the week end talking heads show http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2011_msr/11msr.pdf?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell Even the RW viral blogosphere, from which you lifted this silly talking point, notes that it was released at 3:00 p.m. on Friday. The conclusion that that prevented it from being talked about on the weekend news shows is just plain stupid. Not so fast there esquire. Timing of that was planned. Unlike the rest of the real world DC is closed for business after lunch on most Fridays.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #75 July 26, 2010 Yet you claim that the economy changes on a dime???? Were you not also the person that claimed that only the NBER can call a recession? So, how can you blame someone for not claiming something before the NEBR AND blame them for calling something before the NEBR???? Irony score 10/10 for you, 10/10 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 3 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Amazon 7 #65 July 25, 2010 Quote It's ok, John. We know. It's all Bush's fault. I think someone needs a 12 step program when one is in that much denial. Maybe some day you will come to terms with how butt hurt you were over the people you supported when they let you down so completely and utterly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #66 July 25, 2010 Quote Quote It's ok, John. We know. It's all Bush's fault. I think someone needs a 12 step program when one is in that much denial. Maybe some day you will come to terms with how butt hurt you were over the people you supported when they let you down so completely and utterly. In reality it was Reagan's fault. The Harding/Coolige duo of crooks cut the top brkt from 73% to 25% over 4 years as the first radical tax cuts the US had seen. The result, coupled with a crooked Wall Street was the Great Depression. Hoover figured it would just fix itself and did nothing for the 1st 2.5 years, then restored the top brkt to 63% 9 months before he exited office. Reagan should have been aware enough not to repeat history, yet he was too senile and crooked so he couldn't help himself and lowered taxes from 70% to 28% over 6 years, an almost identical repeat of the other corrupt Republicans, Harding and Coolige. See, Reagan had the advantage of history, but he ignored it or was too senile to understand. GWB, even tho he lowered taxes only 5%, when we get below 40% we have always had disaster since WWI. This country was great when taxes were teh highest, at least > 50%. What high taxes, coupled with generous writeoffs do is to mandate reinvestment, low taxes allow for taking money out of the game, stagnating (recessing) the economy. A full-on Socialist would want high taxes with little writeoffs, I want both high taxes and generous writeoffs to allow for prosperity and continued economic growth vs gross disparity in wealth as is present under low taxes / generous writeoffs. So my point is that as pathetic as GWB is/was, it really is Reagan's fault. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #67 July 25, 2010 Here's a graph that is really illustrative. Look at the top marginal brkt from Harding/Coolige and then compare it to Reagan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarginalIncomeTax.svg Amazingling almost identical. 1922-1925 1981-1986 The step is larger with Reagan's, but the starting and stopping point are virtually carbon copy. The results, well similar but in a different way. In the 1920's they didn't believe in deficit spending, so they suffered and waited for the economy to come around. Reagan believed in deficit spending so his good deeds weren't really noticed until after his death or at least his mind left us. If Reagan didn't deficit spend as he did, I think we would have been in a depression by the end of his illustrious 2nd term. Rhetorically, when will the morons quit thinking that cutting taxes to shreds is a good idea? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #68 July 26, 2010 QuoteHere's a graph that is really illustrative. Look at the top marginal brkt from Harding/Coolige and then compare it to Reagan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarginalIncomeTax.svg Amazingling almost identical. 1922-1925 1981-1986 So identical! Did 32 million (what's your latest made up number?) people die in the 80s? Did Reagan go down as the most unpopular President in the GOP party since Cooledge? Did the entire world fall apart? Oh, guess not. > GWB, even tho he lowered taxes only 5%, when we get below 40% we have always had disaster since WWI. We didn't have disaster in the 80s when Reagan did this, nor in the 90s when Clinton kept them below your magic (pulled out of your ass) 40% figure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #69 July 26, 2010 QuoteQuoteHere's a graph that is really illustrative. Look at the top marginal brkt from Harding/Coolige and then compare it to Reagan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarginalIncomeTax.svg Amazingling almost identical. 1922-1925 1981-1986 QuoteSo identical! Well, as I said, almost identical, but I don't expect honest portrayal of what I write from you. Quote Did 32 million (what's your latest made up number?) people die in the 80s? No, if you had the ability to read you would have seen that I wrote that Reagan deficit spent, hence the massive debt not in time of war. QuoteDid Reagan go down as the most unpopular President in the GOP party since Cooledge? Popularity means little, look at the 2004 election, the worst guy won the popularity contest and is now the 5th most unpopular pres ever. QuoteDid the entire world fall apart? After Reagan, basically the country did, he took the debt from 900B to 2.7T and it took GHWB and Clinton 12 years to stop the bleeding, by then the debt was 5.5T. So yes, it really killed the nation. And it laid the template for the dumbest US president ever to follow Reagan's plan and finish us off. QuoteOh, guess not. The world didn't end after Harding Collige, just killed many and millions suffered. > GWB, even tho he lowered taxes only 5%, when we get below 40% we have always had disaster since WWI. QuoteWe didn't have disaster in the 80s when Reagan did this, nor in the 90s when Clinton kept them below your magic (pulled out of your ass) 40% figure. Tripling the debt isn't disater and you and your cronnies here whine about Obama allegedly being at fault for hammering the debt? You can't even help yourself from contradiction even in the same post can you? They were like .4% below 40%; I see you must be semantic to make a non-point. You can't bitch about the debt of others if you ignore the party who keeps taking a stable debt and turning it vertical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #70 July 26, 2010 As for most bad news this was to be released late Friday. Then they did it one better and released it 3 hours late so it would not make the week end talking heads show Enjoyhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2011_msr/11msr.pdf?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #71 July 26, 2010 QuoteAs for most bad news this was to be released late Friday. Then they did it one better and released it 3 hours late so it would not make the week end talking heads show http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2011_msr/11msr.pdf?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell Even the RW viral blogosphere, from which you lifted this silly talking point, notes that it was released at 3:00 p.m. on Friday. The conclusion that that prevented it from being talked about on the weekend news shows is just plain stupid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #72 July 26, 2010 QuoteQuoteAs for most bad news this was to be released late Friday. Then they did it one better and released it 3 hours late so it would not make the week end talking heads show http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2011_msr/11msr.pdf?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell Even the RW viral blogosphere, from which you lifted this silly talking point, notes that it was released at 3:00 p.m. on Friday. The conclusion that that prevented it from being talked about on the weekend news shows is just plain stupid. Due at noon But the content is irrelevant too......"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #73 July 26, 2010 Quote > GWB, even tho he lowered taxes only 5%, when we get below 40% we have always had disaster since WWI. QuoteWe didn't have disaster in the 80s when Reagan did this, nor in the 90s when Clinton kept them below your magic (pulled out of your ass) 40% figure. Tripling the debt isn't disater and you and your cronnies here whine about Obama allegedly being at fault for hammering the debt? You can't even help yourself from contradiction even in the same post can you? They were like .4% below 40%; I see you must be semantic to make a non-point. You said disaster occurs every time it was lowered to under 40. It's hardly semantics to note that we had a pretty nice run when Clinton raised it to a level that was still under that made up number. If < 40 is diaster, 41 or 42 can hardly be good. Just admit you're a lousy back tester who can't even keep his data straight. There's absolutely no thinking behind your 40 value, and it doesn't stand up to simple scrutiny. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 210 #74 July 26, 2010 QuoteQuoteAs for most bad news this was to be released late Friday. Then they did it one better and released it 3 hours late so it would not make the week end talking heads show http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2011_msr/11msr.pdf?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell Even the RW viral blogosphere, from which you lifted this silly talking point, notes that it was released at 3:00 p.m. on Friday. The conclusion that that prevented it from being talked about on the weekend news shows is just plain stupid. Not so fast there esquire. Timing of that was planned. Unlike the rest of the real world DC is closed for business after lunch on most Fridays.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #75 July 26, 2010 Yet you claim that the economy changes on a dime???? Were you not also the person that claimed that only the NBER can call a recession? So, how can you blame someone for not claiming something before the NEBR AND blame them for calling something before the NEBR???? Irony score 10/10 for you, 10/10 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 3 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
rushmc 23 #70 July 26, 2010 As for most bad news this was to be released late Friday. Then they did it one better and released it 3 hours late so it would not make the week end talking heads show Enjoyhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2011_msr/11msr.pdf?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #71 July 26, 2010 QuoteAs for most bad news this was to be released late Friday. Then they did it one better and released it 3 hours late so it would not make the week end talking heads show http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2011_msr/11msr.pdf?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell Even the RW viral blogosphere, from which you lifted this silly talking point, notes that it was released at 3:00 p.m. on Friday. The conclusion that that prevented it from being talked about on the weekend news shows is just plain stupid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #72 July 26, 2010 QuoteQuoteAs for most bad news this was to be released late Friday. Then they did it one better and released it 3 hours late so it would not make the week end talking heads show http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2011_msr/11msr.pdf?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell Even the RW viral blogosphere, from which you lifted this silly talking point, notes that it was released at 3:00 p.m. on Friday. The conclusion that that prevented it from being talked about on the weekend news shows is just plain stupid. Due at noon But the content is irrelevant too......"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #73 July 26, 2010 Quote > GWB, even tho he lowered taxes only 5%, when we get below 40% we have always had disaster since WWI. QuoteWe didn't have disaster in the 80s when Reagan did this, nor in the 90s when Clinton kept them below your magic (pulled out of your ass) 40% figure. Tripling the debt isn't disater and you and your cronnies here whine about Obama allegedly being at fault for hammering the debt? You can't even help yourself from contradiction even in the same post can you? They were like .4% below 40%; I see you must be semantic to make a non-point. You said disaster occurs every time it was lowered to under 40. It's hardly semantics to note that we had a pretty nice run when Clinton raised it to a level that was still under that made up number. If < 40 is diaster, 41 or 42 can hardly be good. Just admit you're a lousy back tester who can't even keep his data straight. There's absolutely no thinking behind your 40 value, and it doesn't stand up to simple scrutiny. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #74 July 26, 2010 QuoteQuoteAs for most bad news this was to be released late Friday. Then they did it one better and released it 3 hours late so it would not make the week end talking heads show http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2011_msr/11msr.pdf?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell Even the RW viral blogosphere, from which you lifted this silly talking point, notes that it was released at 3:00 p.m. on Friday. The conclusion that that prevented it from being talked about on the weekend news shows is just plain stupid. Not so fast there esquire. Timing of that was planned. Unlike the rest of the real world DC is closed for business after lunch on most Fridays.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #75 July 26, 2010 Yet you claim that the economy changes on a dime???? Were you not also the person that claimed that only the NBER can call a recession? So, how can you blame someone for not claiming something before the NEBR AND blame them for calling something before the NEBR???? Irony score 10/10 for you, 10/10 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
