Economy shrunk at twice the rate previously reported

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Skoorb


I hate to do it, but can you think of another administration that was completely off base after projections that "used the Data available"? I can. Think 2002/2003.

Not sure if you mean Bush on the economy or BushCo thinking (and stating) that we would only have 30,000 troops left in Iraq by September 2003.

Obama got it wrong....he and Congress have 1.5 to 3.5 years to see if they can right the ship. If not, the GOP will take over (people have short memories).

I actually meant on Iraq. Because when you take your biases along, as Bush did, as Obama has done, as we all do, it skews your interpretation of the data. In this case I believe it severely skewed Obama's team's. If everybody got it wrong this argument would be hard to make, but since many said his plan wouldn't work well, he was just plain wrong.

The point, sandorski, is not even whether the stimulus was better than nothing. Maybe it was. The point is really that Obama doesn't have a commanding perception on what's going on and the ability to affect change in ways he desires to. A fool would ignore this, but I think somebody is not being foolish if they use this to temper what might otherwise be a blissful confidence in his abilities in other areas.

In other words, you don't know.

Of course not. I never claimed to and never asked to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, though, did I?

Why do we take any of this crap seriously when they always seem to be wrong?

Another point I agree with!

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

No, I used the correct Word. One can only Project based upon available Data.

I don't see your point; if everybody had the same projection there may be more to it, but many thought his numbers were crap when he came up with them. And they were right. They didn't even charge billions for it.

There are always varying Opinions and Naysayers. This is especially true concerning Economic matters. You criticism is over the top as Obama used the Data available.

Similar to how bush Inc. used "the available data" to invade Iraq?
I had the suspicion that he is the cleaner for the previous admin, he's certainly created enough distraction and diversion.
Still its amusing to watch "intelligent" people still blame the puppets, while never even wondering to looking behind the curtain.

And until I see some regulation changes to how banks and the share market are allowed to operate, how legal loopholes in law remain, how funds are raised for political campaigns, how defense and civil contracts are tendered, I will consider my suspicions to be plain old common sense. Heck, it's not rocket science!

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: spidey07 ~~~

You're kidding, right? Obama has raised taxes in his term for people making more than 250,000. He also plans to let the Bush tax cuts expire.

So the last tax cuts were in 2001 and 2003 I believe (bush tax cuts). And O has already raised them.

Pants on Fire

The Recovery Act cut taxes $297 billion.

Obama's budget for 2010 and subsequent out-years, including 2011 when the majority of Bush tax cuts expire, were left largely untouched.

This fact (IIRC the total impact of the Bush tax cuts is projected at $5.4 trillion over the next ten years) was clearly spelled out in great detail in all budget documents and executive budget summaries.


And what is interesting is that the OP shats ""Economy shrunk at twice the rate previously reported"" !!! when in fact he is misrepresenting the principle BEA report released today that states:

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- decreased at an annual rate of 1.0 percent in the second quarter of 2009

It ain't great but is a marked improvement over 1Q09 when the economy shank at an anual rate of 6.4%.


I guess the OP is a 'glass half empty' kind of guy ...

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Phokus

Topic Summary: in 2008

Republicans: OBAMA'S FAULT!

Solution : TAX CUTS!

Oh! I wanna play

SOCIALISM!!!!

ABOOOOORTION!!!!

THE POOR SMALL BUSINESSMAN!!!!

RAAAAATIONING!!!

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: spidey07 ~~~

You're kidding, right? Obama has raised taxes in his term for people making more than 250,000. He also plans to let the Bush tax cuts expire.

So the last tax cuts were in 2001 and 2003 I believe (bush tax cuts). And O has already raised them.

Pants on Fire

The Recovery Act cut taxes $297 billion.

Obama's budget for 2010 and subsequent out-years, including 2011 when the majority of Bush tax cuts expire, were left largely untouched.

This fact (IIRC the total impact of the Bush tax cuts is projected at $5.4 trillion over the next ten years) was clearly spelled out in great detail in all budget documents and executive budget summaries.


And what is interesting is that the OP shats ""Economy shrunk at twice the rate previously reported"" !!! when in fact he is misrepresenting the principle BEA report released today that states:

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- decreased at an annual rate of 1.0 percent in the second quarter of 2009

It ain't great but is a marked improvement over 1Q09 when the economy shank at an anual rate of 6.4%.


I guess the OP is a 'glass half empty' kind of guy ...

"Real exports of goods and services decreased 7.0 percent in the second quarter, compared with a decrease of 29.9 percent in the first. Real imports of goods and services decreased 15.1 percent, compared with a decrease of 36.4 percent."

Source

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan


...and I never said that they were the only ones hit with the tax either, so here we are.

They were, without a doubt, the demographic that was hardest hit by the largest Federal surtax on tobacco in history.

IOW, Obama has indeed already raised taxes on people in every class, but especially the poor.

You guys were talking about income taxes (look a page or two back). The vast majority of poor people do not smoke. Your statement would've been more accurate if you prefaced it with 'poor smokers (as well as some middle class/rich smokers')

Perhaps somebody else was, but I wasn't. Engineer originally just said "taxes," and didn't specify type.

Originally posted by: Engineer
By the way, I'm surprised that you aren't happy that the cig tax is primarily hitting the poor, especially since so many people complain about the bottom 50% of the people paying no tax (and that includes the poor).

I'd don't recall ever complaining about that. I was merely stating a fact.