Economy shrunk at twice the rate previously reported

[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).

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb


Every Economist has their own way of doing things. You take the Data(aka Facts-albeit not Concrete), then you make Projections based upon a number of things. It is the "number of things" where different Economists will come up with different Projections. That's because most of those numbers are merely Projections themselves and will have a certain degree of Inaccuracy.

You are making a Mountain out of a Molehill...aka Hyperbole.

Because I point out the graph at all or because it was not wrong enough? The graph is indicative of an entity that had no idea how severe the unemployment figures were going to be.

Tell me, have you ever tried to ask for a million bucks from your boss for a project because it would increase sales by $1.5M but in the end it only did it for $750k? And if your boss said I'm pissed off you screwed up, what's your reaction then, that you just used the data at the time? Ignoring the fact that one of your co-workers disagreed with the project to begin with and said that sales wouldn't even hit a million bucks? How do you think your boss would react?

20/20 is great. So he was wrong on the numbers, no one denies that, but so what? Really, what's the point of the exercise other than to avoid serious examination of that issue by merely labelling the obvious difference in numbers as "failure"? It's a weak argument that avoids looking at the facts/results around the Stimulus. It could be many months before the affect of the Stimulus is clear, but already you know everything because of some Projection Chart turned out to be inaccurate.

I'd expect to be fired in that scenario, but that's no where near an equivalent situation to what we are discussing. It would be more like it only produced $1.4million. In which case I wouldn't be Fired and the Boss would still be very pleased.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Because I point out the graph at all or because it was not wrong enough? The graph is indicative of an entity that had no idea how severe the unemployment figures were going to be.

Tell me, have you ever tried to ask for a million bucks from your boss for a project because it would increase sales by $1.5M but in the end it only did it for $750k? And if your boss said I'm pissed off you screwed up, what's your reaction then, that you just used the data at the time? Ignoring the fact that one of your co-workers disagreed with the project to begin with and said that sales wouldn't even hit a million bucks? How do you think your boss would react?

Skoorb is right here. So far, the data we have says that the stimulus package is not working nearly as well as Obama thought it would. It certainly is pumping billions into the economy, but not nearly as efficiently as previously touted, and at what cost? We are spending near a trillion dollars we don't have to artificially inflate the economy. While it might work in the short run, in the long run that trillion dollars will have to be paid back, and especially considering the trillions more Obama wants to spend on UHC, one can only conclude that when payment day comes, the government will have to drop many, many things to repay tomorrow what it borrows today. And when that happens, all this artificial buffering the economy is getting will vanish and who is to say that we won't be in the same place we are now; only years later and with a much higher deficit.

I will say this though. What Obama originally did in bailing out the banks was the right thing to do, whether we had the money or not. We were looking at the possible end of our economy as we know it. But this stimulus, it's not working.

It was Bush that bailed out the banks, Bush signed TARP.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Phokus

Topic Summary: in 2008

Republicans: OBAMA'S FAULT!

Solution : TAX CUTS!

Goes both ways.

Democrats: BUSH'S FAULT!

Solution: TAX THE RICH!

I guess, but when was the last time we had a federal tax increase? A federal tax cut?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Phokus

Topic Summary: in 2008

Republicans: OBAMA'S FAULT!

Solution : TAX CUTS!

Goes both ways.

Democrats: BUSH'S FAULT!

Solution: TAX THE RICH!

I guess, but when was the last time we had a federal tax increase? A federal tax cut?

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.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Skoorb
He fvcked up, it's really quite simple and no need to obfuscate the matter.

There is a reason, it's called deflection.

You did a wonderful job pointing out just how crazy the OP is. To whom we are all fools for insufficient posterior attachment.

Obama got it wrong. So who got it right?

Let me answer that with a question: Who else who spent hundreds of billions got it wrong? Anybody? Nobody else claimed they had it right at the same time as asking for hundreds of billions of tax dollars to spend.

In other words, you don't know.

 

[theeedude]

He got the solution right, the fact that problem was bigger than known at the time just means we are going to need a second stimulus.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Phokus

Topic Summary: in 2008

Republicans: OBAMA'S FAULT!

Idiots: While the stimulus package that we rolled through in mere days so far isn't near the success we imagined it would be, it still isn't Obama's fault. In fact, we're willing to place the blame on anyone else possible.

Now replace "idiots" with "Phokus/party liners"

Well apparently the idiot is you, considering your inability to pick up sarcasm

 

[Engineer]

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.

BS. My taxes were cut under Obama (don't know if you received it or not). If the Bush tax cuts were so important, why did he make them expire? Oh, that's right. Have them set up to expire during the next administration so if they were renewed, it would be a "cut" and if they were not renewed, it would be a tax raise. Gotcha.

What tax hike did those over $250k already incur? A link? Proof?

Show me where the taxes have been actually "RAISED" (already) since Clinton did it in the early 90's?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Engineer
BS. My taxes were cut under Obama (don't know if you received it or not). If the Bush tax cuts were so important, why did he make them expire? Oh, that's right. Have them set up to expire during the next administration so if they were renewed, it would be a "cut" and if they were not renewed, it would be a tax raise. Gotcha.

What tax hike did those over $250k already incur? A link? Proof?

Show me where the taxes have been actually "RAISED" (already) since Clinton did it in the early 90's?

That's how Congress designed it. My guess is dems probably made it sunset.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Show me where the taxes have been actually "RAISED" (already) since Clinton did it in the early 90's?

Actually, the poor were hit with the largest tax increase this year -- so far -- the Admin was just a bit more sneaky about it:
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...goes-effect-wednesday/

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Engineer
Show me where the taxes have been actually "RAISED" (already) since Clinton did it in the early 90's?

Actually, the poor were hit with the largest tax increase this year -- so far -- the Admin was just a bit more sneaky about it:
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...goes-effect-wednesday/

I don't buy cigs so it doesn't effect me one damn bit. I would bet that the smokers get more free Medicaid care than most do (if not more than the taxes that the cigs rake in) but that's another thread.... I'm talking about Federal Income Tax here. When was the last time it was raised?

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Phokus

Topic Summary: in 2008

Republicans: OBAMA'S FAULT!

Idiots: While the stimulus package that we rolled through in mere days so far isn't near the success we imagined it would be, it still isn't Obama's fault. In fact, we're willing to place the blame on anyone else possible.

Now replace "idiots" with "Phokus/party liners"

Well apparently the idiot is you, considering your inability to pick up sarcasm

orly, you're blaming Obama too? I never thought I'd see the day, my deepest apologies and condolences for any feelings that were hurt in the making of the above forum post.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Engineer
Show me where the taxes have been actually "RAISED" (already) since Clinton did it in the early 90's?

Actually, the poor were hit with the largest tax increase this year -- so far -- the Admin was just a bit more sneaky about it:
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...goes-effect-wednesday/

yeah this would only be true if nobody but the poor smoked and everyone who was poor was a smoker.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: themusgrat


orly, you're blaming Obama too? I never thought I'd see the day, my deepest apologies and condolences for any feelings that were hurt in the making of the above forum post.

/facepalm, do you have any sense of reading comprehension at all?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Engineer
Show me where the taxes have been actually "RAISED" (already) since Clinton did it in the early 90's?

Actually, the poor were hit with the largest tax increase this year -- so far -- the Admin was just a bit more sneaky about it:
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...goes-effect-wednesday/

yeah this would only be true if nobody but the poor smoked and everyone who was poor was a smoker.

Studies indicate that the poor smoke more.

"Consumption is inversely related to the socio-economic level ? it goes up as the standard of living goes down" -- Lee Jong-wook, former director-general of the World Health Organization

Next...

 

[Darwin333]

It seems like every time they release numbers on GDP, unemployment, etc... this months numbers are "less bad" but last months numbers get revised to be much worse than reported last month when everyone was jumping for joy at the "less bad" numbers.

Anyone wanna make a bet that the GDP numbers released today are negatively "revised"? I'll even give ya 2-1 odds. How about a side bet that when those numbers do get revised that the new numbers are "less bad" or better than expected?

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

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

"Consumption is inversely related to the socio-economic level ? it goes up as the standard of living goes down" -- Lee Jong-wook, former director-general of the World Health Organization

Next...

What do you mean Next? He didn't say that the poor weren't the majority of smokers, only that ALL poor aren't smokers and all smokers aren't poor. Next....

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Studies indicate that the poor smoke more.

"Consumption is inversely related to the socio-economic level ? it goes up as the standard of living goes down" -- Lee Jong-wook, former director-general of the World Health Organization

Next...

That doesn't contradict my statement in the least

 

[themusgrat]

oh god, my bad, lol, for a second I felt that some sense of profound revelation had come upon you. I guess you didn't catch though that my whole post was trolling yours? Or are you actually cleverly trolling me? And if your whole thing is about 2008.... well, try again I guess.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
It seems like every time they release numbers on GDP, unemployment, etc... this months numbers are "less bad" but last months numbers get revised to be much worse than reported last month when everyone was jumping for joy at the "less bad" numbers.

Anyone wanna make a bet that the GDP numbers released today are negatively "revised"? I'll even give ya 2-1 odds. How about a side bet that when those numbers do get revised that the new numbers are "less bad" or better than expected?

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

The Trend(Improvement/Worsening) is usually available with the numbers. Not always true of course, but you never know for sure when an exception is going to happen.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Engineer
Show me where the taxes have been actually "RAISED" (already) since Clinton did it in the early 90's?

Actually, the poor were hit with the largest tax increase this year -- so far -- the Admin was just a bit more sneaky about it:
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...goes-effect-wednesday/

yeah this would only be true if nobody but the poor smoked and everyone who was poor was a smoker.

Studies indicate that the poor smoke more.

"Consumption is inversely related to the socio-economic level ? it goes up as the standard of living goes down" -- Lee Jong-wook, former director-general of the World Health Organization

Next...

What do you mean Next? He didn't say that the poor weren't the majority of smokers, only that ALL poor aren't smokers and all smokers aren't poor. Next....

...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.

 

[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')

 

[Pens1566]

Don't get him into income taxes ....

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

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

And those of us that don't smoke got a tax cut. Federal Income Taxes have not been raised. Mine has been cut as has most of the people in this country. Smoking is a choice. I choose not to smoke therefore, the tax effects me (and many (most?) others) not.

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).