Male bovine excrement is getting pretty deep.

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
The actual disaster has happened already. Whether Obama and his Democratic Congress can mitigate it remains to be seen.

That seems unlikely if only because democrats were the ones responsible for what has already happened, and some of obama's ideas, like a trillion dollars in new taxes during a near recession wouldn't be advocated by anyone who got a "D" or better in Econ 101. :rolleyes:

Whether McCain could have done so no one will ever be able to say.

What McCain would have done is not the issue.
 
Werbung:

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
That seems unlikely if only because democrats were the ones responsible for what has already happened, and some of obama's ideas, like a trillion dollars in new taxes during a near recession wouldn't be advocated by anyone who got a "D" or better in Econ 101. :rolleyes:



What McCain would have done is not the issue.

It's the issue if you're going to argue that the economy soured because Obama was elected.

Or, maybe not. Maybe it soured when it became obvious that one or the other would be elected. It did kind of go south before the election, now didn't it?

But I doubt that either of those two ideas are correct. The president simply doesn't have enough power to destroy the economy, particularly before he is even inaugurated.

I don't even blame Bush for the economic downturn, and he was in office for eight years. Eight long, long years....

But he isn't to blame for the recession. Neither is Clinton, nor Obama, nor any president, past or future.
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
It's the issue if you're going to argue that the economy soured because Obama was elected.

Or, maybe not. Maybe it soured when it became obvious that one or the other would be elected. It did kind of go south before the election, now didn't it?

But I doubt that either of those two ideas are correct. The president simply doesn't have enough power to destroy the economy, particularly before he is even inaugurated.

I don't even blame Bush for the economic downturn, and he was in office for eight years. Eight long, long years....

But he isn't to blame for the recession. Neither is Clinton, nor Obama, nor any president, past or future.

Try to get a grip. I'll make this crystal clear for you. There are two time intervals of concern.

1. The month of october, with the banking meltdown and stockmarket crash.

2. The period after the election on November 4th and extending forward for four years.

Period 1, has it's roots in democrat policy of the past, as has been explicated chapter and verse on this site by various posters.

The issue with period 2, is whether Obama will make things even worse than they were in October. That the stock market had a record drop after he was elected shows that it is the market's judgement that he will make things even worse - they had ALREADY discounted the market for what happened in October. Was he in office after November 4th? Noooooooo, but it's idiotic to try to exculpate him based on the fact that there is a 2 1/2 month lag between being elected and actually taking office, because if he promises some things, and those things are judged to be bad for the economy by the market, and it is certain that he will DO those things, than there is no reason to wait around till he actually DOES do them, indeed - that would be foolish.
The PROMISE of those things is already taken into account by the market six months ahead.

Get it yet??? :rolleyes:
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
Try to get a grip. I'll make this crystal clear for you. There are two time intervals of concern.

1. The month of october, with the banking meltdown and stockmarket crash.

2. The period after the election on November 4th and extending forward for four years.

Period 1, has it's roots in democrat policy of the past, as has been explicated chapter and verse on this site by various posters.

The issue with period 2, is whether Obama will make things even worse than they were in October. That the stock market had a record drop after he was elected shows that it is the market's judgement that he will make things even worse - they had ALREADY discounted the market for what happened in October. Was he in office after November 4th? Noooooooo, but it's idiotic to try to exculpate him based on the fact that there is a 2 1/2 month lag between being elected and actually taking office, because if he promises some things, and those things are judged to be bad for the economy by the market, and it is certain that he will DO those things, than there is no reason to wait around till he actually DOES do them, indeed - that would be foolish.
The PROMISE of those things is already taken into account by the market six months ahead.

Get it yet??? :rolleyes:

Uhh.. duh... Sure.

It's the fault of the Democrats. In fact, everything is the fault of the Democrats.

Economic meltdown? Democrats.
Global warming? Democrats.
Federal deficit? Democrats.
Bird plop on the roof of my car? Democrats.
Boil on my butt? Democrats.

Every ill ever suffered in the entire history of mankind, as well as any yet to be suffered is the fault of the Democrats.

Hey, I get it.

Not only do I get it, I've discovered that your way of looking at things is a lot easier than actually thinking.
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
Uhh.. duh... Sure.

It's the fault of the Democrats. In fact, everything is the fault of the Democrats.

Economic meltdown? Democrats.
Global warming? Democrats.
Federal deficit? Democrats.
Bird plop on the roof of my car? Democrats.
Boil on my butt? Democrats.

Every ill ever suffered in the entire history of mankind, as well as any yet to be suffered is the fault of the Democrats.

Hey, I get it.

Not only do I get it, I've discovered that your way of looking at things is a lot easier than actually thinking.

Don't want to debate your side? :) OK - white flag raising duly noted. :D
 

Pandora

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
11,790
Location
The people's republic of Eugene
I doubt that talk radio had much of an impact on the number of votes for Obama. The ranters were mostly preaching to the choir anyway. There may have been a few like me listening to see what they had to say, but we make up out own minds anyway.

When did he favor wiretapping and homosexual marriage? I must have missed that.

And, I'm sure that you won't put your faith into him. As for me, I'm willing to give him a chance to prove himself. He has taken on a nearly impossible job, with the economy being what it is, and the wars in Iraq and Afganistan.

Not that I'm dancing in the streets and calling for a national holiday, you understand.


First Obama said he was against fisa then he voted for it
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/20/obama_supports_fisa_legislatio.html

obama said a number of times he did not support gay marriage, according to popey in another link from today he is against prop 8 and does support gay marriage.

he also said he was for taking matching fed funds for elections then said he wasnt going to after saying he would

he said he was against guns in inner cities then supported the SC when it shot down the gun ban

he also said he was against the Death P. then said he would support the Death P for child rape.

I dont care what his position is but I do care when he changes it so often. so if he says he is against the fairness act I hold little hope that I can believe him.

this was a small list
we could put nafta in there and a number of others
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
Don't want to debate your side? :) OK - white flag raising duly noted. :D

My side? My side being the side that says that the president elect isn't responsible for an economic disaster that happened before he was even elected?

OK, fair enough. Let's take a look at your time line:

Period 1, has it's roots in democrat policy of the past, as has been explicated chapter and verse on this site by various posters.

Various posters have, indeed, expressed the opinion that the Democrats are behind the economic problems. Since Obama is a Democrat, he must be a part of that problem, according to the partisans. This is why my previous post was a good summary of their position.

However, there is also this:

President Bush's weekend campaign promise that he will push legislation allowing for no money down on some federally insured mortgages could cost taxpayers as much as $500 million over four years because of a higher rate of defaults, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The 500 million, was, of course, wildly optimistic.

But, the fact is that Bush and his advocacy of zero down mortgages didn't cause the housing crisis either. I've already said that.

And, Obama most certainly didn't cause the recession just by his campaign speeches. No president has that kind of power.

As for the second period, which hasn't happened yet:

2. The period after the election on November 4th and extending forward for four years.

The issue with period 2, is whether Obama will make things even worse than they were in October. That the stock market had a record drop after he was elected shows that it is the market's judgement that he will make things even worse

Correlation does not prove causation.

The fact that Obama was elected does not mean that his election caused Wall Street to decide that he "will make things even worse", and drop further.

We don't know what the market would have done had McCain been elected. My guess is that it would have made no difference.

The drop in the stock market happening after the election does not mean that the election caused the stock market drop.

It's more likely that the market would have dropped even if the election had not happened at that particular time. It has been dropping for quite a while.

Now, the drop in oil prices is no doubt due to Obama's energy policy. Why, his emphasis on alternative energy just scared the market into giving us cheaper oil.

I'm just kidding, of course, but I'm afraid that you're actually serious about your assertion that the market downturn is the fault of the president elect.
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
First Obama said he was against fisa then he voted for it
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/20/obama_supports_fisa_legislatio.html

obama said a number of times he did not support gay marriage, according to popey in another link from today he is against prop 8 and does support gay marriage.

he also said he was for taking matching fed funds for elections then said he wasnt going to after saying he would

he said he was against guns in inner cities then supported the SC when it shot down the gun ban

he also said he was against the Death P. then said he would support the Death P for child rape.

I dont care what his position is but I do care when he changes it so often. so if he says he is against the fairness act I hold little hope that I can believe him.

this was a small list
we could put nafta in there and a number of others

I'm not going to argue that he has never flip flopped. All politicians flip flop from time to time.

On the issue of gay marriage and proposition 8, he said:

I've stated my opposition to this. I think [Prop 8 is] unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them.

And the link to the FISA vote talks about a compromise bill he voted for.

Obama is neither a messiah, nor a devil. He is a politician, and a pretty astute one. He may be a little too "liberal" for some, whatever the term "liberal" may mean to one person or another. He certainly is not a limited government, tenth amendment, libertarian sort of guy, but he is not a "socialist", as some have said either.

He is also willing to compromise, and seek a pragmatic solution. What we need right now is compromise, and pragmatism.

This nation is in a huge mess right now, no question about it. The new president and his congress have an enormous job to do. It is quite possible that they will fail, which will impact the lives of all of us.

I'm not ready to say that Obama or Congress, or anyone else has already failed before being given a chance. Are you?
 

Pandora

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
11,790
Location
The people's republic of Eugene
I'm not going to argue that he has never flip flopped. All politicians flip flop from time to time.

On the issue of gay marriage and proposition 8, he said:



And the link to the FISA vote talks about a compromise bill he voted for.

Obama is neither a messiah, nor a devil. He is a politician, and a pretty astute one. He may be a little too "liberal" for some, whatever the term "liberal" may mean to one person or another. He certainly is not a limited government, tenth amendment, libertarian sort of guy, but he is not a "socialist", as some have said either.

He is also willing to compromise, and seek a pragmatic solution. What we need right now is compromise, and pragmatism.

This nation is in a huge mess right now, no question about it. The new president and his congress have an enormous job to do. It is quite possible that they will fail, which will impact the lives of all of us.

I'm not ready to say that Obama or Congress, or anyone else has already failed before being given a chance. Are you?

Yeah, I am willing to say he has failed even before he starts unless he was lying the whole time and is planning something else. Then he might have a shot at doing a good job, but if he does what he promised then failing is a done deal.

on a smaller scale for example. I see my kiddo say im doing this dont you have faith in me that it will work, i will tell them no, I already know it wont work but go ahead and try it, and i am seldom shocked at the result.
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Don't want to debate your side? OK - white flag raising duly noted.

My side? My side being the side that says that the president elect isn't responsible for an economic disaster that happened before he was even elected?

I didn't say that, I said he CAN be responsible for things that happened after he was elected, but before he took office.

Quote:
Period 1, has it's roots in democrat policy of the past, as has been explicated chapter and verse on this site by various posters.

Various posters have, indeed, expressed the opinion that the Democrats are behind the economic problems. Since Obama is a Democrat, he must be a part of that problem, according to the partisans. This is why my previous post was a good summary of their position.

I'm not here defending what other posters say - I said past democrat policies are responsible.

And, Obama most certainly didn't cause the recession just by his campaign speeches. No president has that kind of power.

STILL ignoring my arguments - OK. :rolleyes:

As for the second period, which hasn't happened yet:

Quote:
2. The period after the election on November 4th and extending forward for four years.

The issue with period 2, is whether Obama will make things even worse than they were in October. That the stock market had a record drop after he was elected shows that it is the market's judgement that he will make things even worse

Correlation does not prove causation.

The fact that Obama was elected does not mean that his election caused Wall Street to decide that he "will make things even worse", and drop further.

Using a mathematical standard of proof, NOTHING about economics in this area could be proven. But historically, stock markets tend to surge UP after a presidential election, because it removes uncertainty. That the market made a record move DOWN is therefore all the more remarkable. The next thing to happen within the next six months that will strongly affect the american economy, that is known, is Obama's accession - that's a FACT. To then discount obama's election as having no effect immediately on the market ignores all established market wisdom and experience.

We don't know what the market would have done had McCain been elected. My guess is that it would have made no difference.

Once again, that is now completely academic and not the issue. We'll never know what would have happened. We DO know what happened when obama was elected.

I'm afraid that you're actually serious about your assertion that the market downturn is the fault of the president elect.

That's another thing we'll never know if you refuse to rebut my actual arguments. :rolleyes:
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
Yeah, I am willing to say he has failed even before he starts unless he was lying the whole time and is planning something else. Then he might have a shot at doing a good job, but if he does what he promised then failing is a done deal.

on a smaller scale for example. I see my kiddo say im doing this dont you have faith in me that it will work, i will tell them no, I already know it wont work but go ahead and try it, and i am seldom shocked at the result.

Actually, neither candidate would have been able to fulfill his campaign promises, particularly given the state of the economy.

I'm not sure just which promise you're talking about. Universal medical care, maybe. That isn't going to happen any time soon. In fact, any increase in government services is going to have to wait until things turn around. I give Obama credit for being astute enough to understand that. What Congress may try to do, I'm not sure. The future doesn't look too bright just now, but it hasn't looked too bright for some time now.

Will raising the top marginal tax rate have a negative or positive effect on the economy? Let's consider the state of the economy 50 years ago, when the rate was 91%. How was the economy then? Can we really state that raising the taxes of the wealthiest of us is going to worsen the economy, based on what has happened in the past? That is a complex question with no simple answers.
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
I didn't say that, I said he CAN be responsible for things that happened after he was elected, but before he took office.



I'm not here defending what other posters say - I said past democrat policies are responsible.



STILL ignoring my arguments - OK. :rolleyes:



Using a mathematical standard of proof, NOTHING about economics in this area could be proven. But historically, stock markets tend to surge UP after a presidential election, because it removes uncertainty. That the market made a record move DOWN is therefore all the more remarkable. The next thing to happen within the next six months that will strongly affect the american economy, that is known, is Obama's accession - that's a FACT. To then discount obama's election as having no effect immediately on the market ignores all established market wisdom and experience.



Once again, that is now completely academic and not the issue. We'll never know what would have happened. We DO know what happened when obama was elected.



That's another thing we'll never know if you refuse to rebut my actual arguments. :rolleyes:

I have rebutted your actual argument, and quite effectively.

The election happened, Obama was elected, the stock market took another of a series of plunges.

Your argument is that Obama's election caused the stock market to take another downturn, and, by extension, the charge that the recession is Obama's fault is valid.

Your argument is based on the premise that correlation equals causation, which we all know is a logical fallacy.

We also know that the economy has been going sour for quite a while now, and we know that there is no simple answer to the question of why.

Yet, you persist in saying that the recession is the fault of the Democrats, just as you seem to think that everything is the fault of the Democrats. Your argument is simplistic and wrong, seems to be based on blind party loyalty.
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
I just found a great illustration of why Obama is most likely not going to be able to keep all of his campaign promises:

cole.jpg


I'm not sure whether anyone is going to be able to tame the tiger. Probably Romney would have had the best shot, given his history of getting organizations out of the red, but we'll never know for sure now.

Not unless he gets elected in 2012, of course.
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
I have rebutted your actual argument, and quite effectively.

No, you made a very feeble non-argument. :D

The election happened, Obama was elected, the stock market took another of a series of plunges.

Your argument is that Obama's election caused the stock market to take another downturn, and, by extension, the charge that the recession is Obama's fault is valid.

Did I say obama caused a recession? No, I didn't say that. If he goes through with his huge tax increases, he WILL cause a recession.

Your argument is based on the premise that correlation equals causation, which we all know is a logical fallacy.

No I never claimed that - you've lost the argument so your putting straw man words in my mouth. With that defense, you could argue that no president was responsible for ANYTHING good or bad that happened to the economy, because nobody could offer an mathematical proof of consequences. My argument is based on the long experience of economic analysts and their reasons why the market reacts to certain events - in this case a presidential election.

Note, folks: If he responds, he'll ignore the above paragarph and just repeat his causation/correlation line. :D

We also know that the economy has been going sour for quite a while now

That's beside the point, and you just keep ignoring what I've already said. Do you listen to anyone but yourself? Do you read the first sentence or two of a post, and then dive into a "response"? :D I said the market had >>>already discounted<<< events previous to the Bot King's election.
 
Werbung:

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
No, you made a very feeble non-argument. :D



Did I say obama caused a recession? No, I didn't say that. If he goes through with his huge tax increases, he WILL cause a recession.



No I never claimed that - you've lost the argument so your putting straw man words in my mouth. With that defense, you could argue that no president was responsible for ANYTHING good or bad that happened to the economy, because nobody could offer an mathematical proof of consequences. My argument is based on the long experience of economic analysts and their reasons why the market reacts to certain events - in this case a presidential election.

Note, folks: If he responds, he'll ignore the above paragarph and just repeat his causation/correlation line. :D



That's beside the point, and you just keep ignoring what I've already said. Do you listen to anyone but yourself? Do you read the first sentence or two of a post, and then dive into a "response"? :D I said the market had >>>already discounted<<< events previous to the Bot King's election.

Getting back to reality for a moment (perhaps just a moment):

This is the statement that started this discussion. I say it is BS. You came back to argue that it is justified:

The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen. Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. This is an Obama recession. Might turn into a depression. He hasn't done anything yet but his ideas are killing the economy. His ideas are killing Wall Street.

You have shown no evidence that his "ideas are killing Wall Street", that there is any justification for calling this recession the "Obama recession."

Now, I'm tired of talking in circles, so let's get back to the original premise:

There is no logical way to blame the current recession on the president elect. It was caused by complex factors beyond the control of the presidency.

So, specifically, what idea of Obama is "killing wall street" before he is even inaugurated? Do you have an actual argument that is not based on rant radio and its partisan nonsense?
 
Top