djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2013 10:58:08 GMT -5
1) Actually if I'm not mistaken it was you that started this thread that insinuated that Obama is responsible for the improvement in the economy you are mistaken. i specifically said that i had no opinion on the position in the OP. edit: you can go back and rephrase your post in light of this fact. i will withhold comment until then. No you actually may be mistaken. I said you started this thread. Correct? i started it for discussion, yes. i often do that. it doesn't mean i endorse the position. in fact in this case, i specifically stated that i do NOT. i don't think presidents have nearly as much to do with economic success and failure as the guy in the OP.The article you posted insinuates that Obama is responsible for the improvement. Correct? yes. wrongly, i think.Nothing about your opinion or position. Correct? correct. i will state my position when everyone has had the chance to speak.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 4, 2013 14:13:40 GMT -5
If you guys want to tear into a BS claim, make it "deficit 2% of GDP by 2015". That one's built solidly out of pixie dust and unicorn farts. Acknowledging it is a matter of fairness, since we happen to know that the far rosier predictions being made in 2007 while the economy was roaring away turned out to be pure bunkum. Or I suppose we could compare the rosiness of the 2007 predictions to the rosiness of the May 2013 ones and declare whoever was president during the rosier of the two to be the winner.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2013 14:25:25 GMT -5
If you guys want to tear into a BS claim, make it "deficit 2% of GDP by 2015". That one's built solidly out of pixie dust and unicorn farts. Acknowledging it is a matter of fairness, since we happen to know that the far rosier predictions being made in 2007 while the economy was roaring away turned out to be pure bunkum. Or I suppose we could compare the rosiness of the 2007 predictions to the rosiness of the May 2013 ones and declare whoever was president during the rosier of the two to be the winner. with the exception of a VERY FEW people (Peter Schiff among them), nobody saw what happened in 2008/9 coming. that kind of a discontinuity is a once in a century kind of event. that does not make all projections invalid or stupid, or worthless. it means that they are subject to changes, within a certain range, with 2008/9 being on the extreme edge of possible.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 4, 2013 15:46:55 GMT -5
>>The deficit is now only 4% of the GDP, down from over 10% at the end of Bush’s administration – and projections are for it to be only 2% by 2015 (before Obama leaves office.) America’s “debt problem” seems largely solved, and almost all due to growth rather than austerity.<<
These two statements pretty much sum up the lack of information regarding the writer. Our "debt problem" is far from solved and is actually getting worse. The deficit may be down for now, but that only means less is being added to the debt. And Obamacare will do nothing to help solve that issue, and going by history will only add to it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2013 15:48:45 GMT -5
>>The deficit is now only 4% of the GDP, down from over 10% at the end of Bush’s administration – and projections are for it to be only 2% by 2015 (before Obama leaves office.) America’s “debt problem” seems largely solved, and almost all due to growth rather than austerity.<< These two statements pretty much sum up the lack of information regarding the writer. Our "debt problem" is far from solved and is actually getting worse. good catch.The deficit may be down for now, but that only means less is being added to the debt. And Obamacare will do nothing to help solve that issue, and going by history will only add to it. according to whom?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 4, 2013 15:58:30 GMT -5
>>deficit spending? of course. this is the worst downturn since WW2. you don't get out of that without deficits, imo. what is Bush's excuse?<<
Bush's first term also started on a downturn, and then 9/11 intensified the economic instability. Does no one recall the markets tanking during Clinton's last year and into Bush's first year? I do because that's when I started my first 401k and got to watch as I lost principal every month.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 4, 2013 15:59:59 GMT -5
IMO most Presidents are either just lucky or unlucky for the most part when it comes to the economy. I happen to agree with this for the most part but think the recent Democrats have been much smarter about the perception they leave with the public in the fact that they spend like lunatics for the first years and then reduce the spending levels in their final years so they can leave looking like they fixed things. No one really seems to notice or care about the averages or the mountain of debt left behind for the next generation to deal with. with the exception of Obama and Nixon, Republican presidents have had a FAR worse record on deficits since WW2 than Democrats. And if you look, those presidents usually had congress's made up of opposing parties...so is it Dem presidents that had better fiscal policies, or Rep congresses that did?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 4, 2013 16:07:26 GMT -5
>>The deficit is now only 4% of the GDP, down from over 10% at the end of Bush’s administration – and projections are for it to be only 2% by 2015 (before Obama leaves office.) America’s “debt problem” seems largely solved, and almost all due to growth rather than austerity.<< These two statements pretty much sum up the lack of information regarding the writer. Our "debt problem" is far from solved and is actually getting worse. good catch.The deficit may be down for now, but that only means less is being added to the debt. And Obamacare will do nothing to help solve that issue, and going by history will only add to it. according to whom? According to the CBO: washingtonexaminer.com/cbo-obamacare-costs-double-to-1.8-trillion-in-first-decade/article/2529655CBO: Obamacare costs double to $1.8 trillion in first decade The costs have doubled without new "revenues" to offset it. The original CBO estimates said that Obamacare would reduce the deficit, but I doubt they would show that now. I don't think there was any cushion for the costs doubling. Interstingly enough, the article mentions this: The CBO’s updated cost projections do not include an updated estimate of the effects of the law on the deficit. -Now I wonder why that is
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2013 16:10:05 GMT -5
According to the CBO: washingtonexaminer.com/cbo-obamacare-costs-double-to-1.8-trillion-in-first-decade/article/2529655CBO: Obamacare costs double to $1.8 trillion in first decade The costs have doubled without new "revenues" to offset it. The original CBO estimates said that Obamacare would reduce the deficit, but I doubt they would show that now. I don't think there was any cushion for the costs doubling. Interstingly enough, the article mentions this: The CBO’s updated cost projections do not include an updated estimate of the effects of the law on the deficit. -Now I wonder why that is i think that the examiner's analysis overestimates a number of factors, including medical cost inflation. but thanks for at least acknowledging the competing data which directly contradicts your claim.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 4, 2013 16:41:35 GMT -5
According to the CBO: washingtonexaminer.com/cbo-obamacare-costs-double-to-1.8-trillion-in-first-decade/article/2529655CBO: Obamacare costs double to $1.8 trillion in first decade The costs have doubled without new "revenues" to offset it. The original CBO estimates said that Obamacare would reduce the deficit, but I doubt they would show that now. I don't think there was any cushion for the costs doubling. Interstingly enough, the article mentions this: The CBO’s updated cost projections do not include an updated estimate of the effects of the law on the deficit. -Now I wonder why that is i think that the examiner's analysis overestimates a number of factors, including medical cost inflation. but thanks for at least acknowledging the competing data which directly contradicts your claim. Not really, in that same article it states the orginial CBO projections relied on the methodology of the ACA when it was presented. The originial methodology was 6 years of costs against 10 years of revenues...so OF COURSE the ACA looked great budget-wise when you looked at it that way. Anything would look good if you compared it that way
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2013 16:42:26 GMT -5
so, is everybody done, here? i think so. i think presidents have some influence in economic matters- mostly by helping to develop optimism, which leads to consumer spending, and sending signals to congress about the type of bills he is likely to sign. it is like the captain of a ship. the ship doesn't run aground because of him, NOR does it make the quickest, safest journey because of him. an administrator hands stuff down the line, and eventually it falls to the crew, or the elements. but to say he has NO influence i think is being naiive and unfair. the highs and lows of the economy, however, have nothing to do with the president. that is like the tide. it can't be controlled at all. however, where the ship is when that happens, and whether it runs aground or not or takes advantage of it, the captain has some influence over. do i think that Obama deserves credit for the economic failures or successes? not really. he has some influence, but it is not his economy any more than it is mine to wreck or save. so, yes, i think the OP is silly. but it is the opposite kind of silly that i usually find in Forbes.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2013 16:48:15 GMT -5
i think that the examiner's analysis overestimates a number of factors, including medical cost inflation. but thanks for at least acknowledging the competing data which directly contradicts your claim. Not really, in that same article it states the orginial CBO projections relied on the methodology of the ACA when it was presented. The originial methodology was 6 years of costs against 10 years of revenues...so OF COURSE the ACA looked great budget-wise when you looked at it that way. Anything would look good if you compared it that way it really depends on whether the ACA has any impact on healthcare costs. if it does NOT, then the net impact will be ask you described.
|
|