How Do We Grow Our Economy?

[freedombecki]

Take me down, clown.

The charts - both of them - stand.

That a gaggle of nutballs can't handle the truth isn't news.

As to your introductory point about insults, that didn't start with me, but I'm playing. The original post was to make a general point that is absolutely substantiated by the second chart, which clearly has a split baseline. My posts met -and thoroughly trashed every challenge.

The most hilarious aspect of the wild-eyed bullshit you people are throwing out is that I am a "liberal". I am no more a liberal than any nutball from 1980 on is a legitimate Republican. You and today's liberals represent the worst kind of political partisan blindness.

The charts - both of them - stand.

That house of cards? Oops. It just fell.

The original post was to make a general point that is absolutely substantiated by the second chart, which clearly has a split baseline

Let me see if I have that straight. The first one is a cherry picked crock based on different things occuring not simultaneously as a lost leader. The second is a verifiable lie, since there is no link, and you have no idea where the DNC talking points agents hid it.

"I am no more a liberal" I'd have voted for the actual DEVIL in 2008 before voting for another <Fruedian insult omitted> neocon.
You ... represent the worst kind of political partisan blindness

And you view everybody else as nutballs because your rearranged numerical laughs support Obama the mmisunderstood thriftmuffin? Oh yes, and that $16,527,400,000,000 National Debt that I linked is just imaginary in other economists minds?

You're a newbie to spin room obfuscation, aren't you.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Money spent on infrastructure, technology, healthcare, and education is what drives an economy, not tax cuts for the rich.

Stocks do 9 times better with a Democrat in the White House....

While Republicans promote themselves as the friendliest party for Wall Street, stock investors do better when Democrats occupy the White House. From a dollars- and-cents standpoint, it’s not even close.

The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades since John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday.

That’s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office.

Stocks Return More With Democrat in White House: BGOV Barometer - Bloomberg

This is a not a Democrat vs. Republican question. The question is what policies or steps do we need to take now to improve the economy. Democrats can pursue policies that make energy more affordable, more take home pay for those working, and lower taxes for businesses. Stocks? How about Main Street? How about watching that Real Unemployment number plummet? Give me a Democrat that will deliver that for US and I will support him/her 110%.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Take me down, clown.

The charts - both of them - stand.

That a gaggle of nutballs can't handle the truth isn't news.

As to your introductory point about insults, that didn't start with me, but I'm playing. The original post was to make a general point that is absolutely substantiated by the second chart, which clearly has a split baseline. My posts met -and thoroughly trashed every challenge.

The most hilarious aspect of the wild-eyed bullshit you people are throwing out is that I am a "liberal". I am no more a liberal than any nutball from 1980 on is a legitimate Republican. You and today's liberals represent the worst kind of political partisan blindness.

The charts - both of them - stand.

That house of cards? Oops. It just fell.

The original post was to make a general point that is absolutely substantiated by the second chart, which clearly has a split baseline

Let me see if I have that straight. The first one is a cherry picked crock based on different things occuring not simultaneously as a lost leader. The second is a verifiable lie, since there is no link, and you have no idea where the DNC talking points agents hid it.

"I am no more a liberal"
You ... represent the worst kind of political partisan blindness

And you view everybody else as nutballs because your rearranged numerical laughs support Obama the mmisunderstood thriftmuffin? Oh yes, and that $16,527,400,000,000 National Debt that I linked is just imaginary in other economists minds?

You're a newbie to spin room obfuscation, aren't you.

Can someone interpret that for me?

NOTHING I wrote "supports" Obama. Jesus, is English being spoken here? That the facts make a filthy fucking scum like Clinton and a clueless wonder like Obama look better than the great nutball icons, Reagan and Junebug, appears to be taking a bigger toll on the nutball psyche than my direct attacks on Reagan on his birthday.

To recap: loathing scum like Reagan and Junebug is not the same as being "liberal", especially today when the words conservative and liberal have lost generally agreed meaning.

No nutball posting here loathes Clinton more than me. None.

As to Obama? What did you expect from a man who never managed more than forty or fifty million dollars in his life before being PRESIDENT of the United States? That people like Reagan and Junebug and Clinton and Obama are even taken seriously is evidence of problems all by itself.

So, why be foaming at the mouth against Obama. Again, what did you expect? You nutballs elected him. Every American that voted for a scum like Junebug in 2004 is directly responsible for electing Obama.

Live with it.

 

[Oddball]

Blame public education for the current ugliness, not me.

Unable to learn from experience, packs of nutballs appear to believe social intimidation can influence findings of fact - the same mentality found in lynch mobs.

The rope that hangs me in front of a nutball crowd hasn't been made.

I blame the gubmint education system for a dumb fuck who can't do the simple math of noticing that $10 trillion to $16 trillion is a 60% increase.....Dumb fuck.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Blame public education for the current ugliness, not me.

Unable to learn from experience, packs of nutballs appear to believe social intimidation can influence findings of fact - the same mentality found in lynch mobs.

The rope that hangs me in front of a nutball crowd hasn't been made.

I blame the gubmint education system for a dumb fuck who can't do the simple math of noticing that $10 trillion to $16 trillion is a 60% increase.....Dumb fuck.

Who you blame for your not noticing that the bar chart stopped in 2010? Or that that the line chart illustrated two scenarios, one of which supports the number above?

None of which changes the reality that in proportion to presidents before them Junebug and Reagan were credit card bugs to the max.

Or the reality that locked down nutballs who voted for Junebug in 2004 - a total trainwreck as president by then - are directly responsible for electing Obama.

 

[Oddball]

 

[nitroz]

First, you regulate it.


Lets look at it this way. Capitalism Economy represents water.
Whats going to hold that water and prevent it from trickling away (outsourcing)?

The more trade surplus there is, the more water will come dripping from above.

Regulation can act as a cup for the water and trade surplus could help it fill up more.

 

[asterism]

A preponderance of the evidence from the US Treasury Department seems to indicate that filthy god damned neocon scum borrow unsupportable amounts of money to fool morons into believing things are better, while sane presidents like pap Bush and others don't. This chart makes it crystal clear who the culprits are when it comes to fucking our children: nutball scum by ten miles. Many of them actually look like pedophiles. Did anyone notice that smirk on Junebug, or the way Reagan's hands seemed to linger on chlidren? (Maybe the Reagan children have another book to write?)

Bush increased the debt by less than $5 trillion in 8 years. Obama increased it by $5.8 trillion in 4 years.
Your liberal math is weak.

Math facts are neither liberal nor conservative, son. Math facts are what they are.
You appear to be confusing math and facts with statistics, in particular, adjusted statistics. Something The Icon, Reagan's people and Clinton's fake-liberal hacks became especially adept at using to fool morons, their primary constituencies.

To understand the first chart one must be able to understand proportion.

For example, which proportion is larger: 9/3 or 7/4?

Until you can UNDERSTAND the answer to that in relation to the national debt, you (and most partisans on both sides) looking at a proportion chart are closer to a monkey looking at a book of Shakespeare than you are to a high school graduate of my generation examining the theory of relativity.

How does gong from $11.9T with a GDP of $14T - 85% debt to GDP to $16T with a GDP of $15.7T - 102% equal a 16% increase under Obama but $5.8T with a GDP of $10.3T - 56% to $11.9T with a GDP of $14T 85% equal 115% under Bush?

Something funky is going on with the math used by the source of your chart, "Office of the Democratic Leader."

 

[asterism]

First, you regulate it.


Lets look at it this way. Capitalism Economy represents water.
Whats going to hold that water and prevent it from trickling away (outsourcing)?

The more trade surplus there is, the more water will come dripping from above.

Regulation can act as a cup for the water and trade surplus could help it fill up more.

Under your premise regulation would ALWAYS be good for the economy like a cup that always holds water. This isn't true. Proper regulation and oversight CAN form a foundation and level playing field for prosperity and otherwise free-market effects.

The key is finding the balance. We're waaaay off balance and getting worse.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

How does gong from $11.9T with a GDP of $14T - 85% debt to GDP to $16T with a GDP of $15.7T - 102% equal a 16% increase under Obama but $5.8T with a GDP of $10.3T - 56% to $11.9T with a GDP of $14T 85% equal 115% under Bush?

Something funky is going on with the math used by the source of your chart, "Office of the Democratic Leader."

Not really. The bar chart stops in 2010.

Not to mention that the Treasury issues two statements on debt, actual total and "on budget".

It's been a lot of fun. Let's do this again next week.

 

[Oddball]

How does gong from $11.9T with a GDP of $14T - 85% debt to GDP to $16T with a GDP of $15.7T - 102% equal a 16% increase under Obama but $5.8T with a GDP of $10.3T - 56% to $11.9T with a GDP of $14T 85% equal 115% under Bush?

Something funky is going on with the math used by the source of your chart, "Office of the Democratic Leader."

Not really. The bar chart stops in 2010.

Not to mention that the Treasury issues two statements on debt, actual total and "on budget".

It's been a lot of fun. Let's do this again next week.

Ahh...So we stop counting the spending spree that has occurred in the ensuing 2+ years.

Excellent job of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Samson]

How does gong from $11.9T with a GDP of $14T - 85% debt to GDP to $16T with a GDP of $15.7T - 102% equal a 16% increase under Obama but $5.8T with a GDP of $10.3T - 56% to $11.9T with a GDP of $14T 85% equal 115% under Bush?

Something funky is going on with the math used by the source of your chart, "Office of the Democratic Leader."

Not really. The bar chart stops in 2010.

Not to mention that the Treasury issues two statements on debt, actual total and "on budget".

It's been a lot of fun. Let's do this again next week.

Ahh...So we stop counting the spending spree that has occurred in the ensuing 2+ years.

Excellent job of intellectual dishonesty.

A chart from the Office of the Democratic Leader, 2011 that shows Obama creating the lowest Budget Deficite in the past 30 years......

...."Dishonest?"




Really?

 

[asterism]

How does gong from $11.9T with a GDP of $14T - 85% debt to GDP to $16T with a GDP of $15.7T - 102% equal a 16% increase under Obama but $5.8T with a GDP of $10.3T - 56% to $11.9T with a GDP of $14T 85% equal 115% under Bush?

Something funky is going on with the math used by the source of your chart, "Office of the Democratic Leader."

Not really. The bar chart stops in 2010.

Not to mention that the Treasury issues two statements on debt, actual total and "on budget".

It's been a lot of fun. Let's do this again next week.

Ah.

So it's misleading because it only counted Obama's first year.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A preponderance of the evidence from the US Treasury Department seems to indicate that filthy god damned neocon scum borrow unsupportable amounts of money to fool morons into believing things are better, while sane presidents like pap Bush and others don't. This chart makes it crystal clear who the culprits are when it comes to fucking our children: nutball scum by ten miles. Many of them actually look like pedophiles. Did anyone notice that smirk on Junebug, or the way Reagan's hands seemed to linger on chlidren? (Maybe the Reagan children have another book to write?)

Bush increased the debt by less than $5 trillion in 8 years. Obama increased it by $5.8 trillion in 4 years.
Your liberal math is weak.

Math facts are neither liberal nor conservative, son. Math facts are what they are.
You appear to be confusing math and facts with statistics, in particular, adjusted statistics. Something The Icon, Reagan's people and Clinton's fake-liberal hacks became especially adept at using to fool morons, their primary constituencies.

To understand the first chart one must be able to understand proportion.

For example, which proportion is larger: 9/3 or 7/4?

Until you can UNDERSTAND the answer to that in relation to the national debt, you (and most partisans on both sides) looking at a proportion chart are closer to a monkey looking at a book of Shakespeare than you are to a high school graduate of my generation examining the theory of relativity.

You appear to be confusing math and facts with statistics, in particular, adjusted statistics.

Bush increased the debt by less than $5 trillion in 8 years. Obama increased it by $5.8 trillion in 4 years.

Why would you need to adjust those statistics?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

NO burn here, d'ye see?

The chart is clear the data come from the US treasury- I am laughing out loud that someone can read 'preponderance of evidence from the US Treasury' then project "government website" from it. That charge is evidence of mental defect. Bottom line: a handful of nutballs can't read an absolutely factual chart and it burns their ass. They need to take it up with the schools they went to, not me.

Pretty charts with accurate information like the ones posted above tell us a lot - including sometimes amusing information about the people looking at them.

1/2009 to 4/2011? That's funny.

 

[Samson]

How does gong from $11.9T with a GDP of $14T - 85% debt to GDP to $16T with a GDP of $15.7T - 102% equal a 16% increase under Obama but $5.8T with a GDP of $10.3T - 56% to $11.9T with a GDP of $14T 85% equal 115% under Bush?

Something funky is going on with the math used by the source of your chart, "Office of the Democratic Leader."

Not really. The bar chart stops in 2010.

Not to mention that the Treasury issues two statements on debt, actual total and "on budget".

It's been a lot of fun. Let's do this again next week.

Ah.

So it's misleading because it only counted Obama's first year.

Regardless, I still do not see one fucking administration that has DECREASED the debt or even simply NOT GROWN the Debt.

Admittedly, it is the congress, not the president, that does the spending.

 

[rdean]

GOP recent History:

What Obama did:

Started two unpaid for wars.

Passed trillions in tax cuts with 62% going to the top 10%.

Passed an enormous drugs for votes bill.

Deregulated Wall Street.

Tricked America into a war that left tens of thousands maimed for life costing trillions over decades.

Helped move millions of jobs to China.

And what did Bush do?

Merely danced naked while spreading sparkly fairy dust and healing sickly children.

 

[asterism]

Not really. The bar chart stops in 2010.

Not to mention that the Treasury issues two statements on debt, actual total and "on budget".

It's been a lot of fun. Let's do this again next week.

Ah.

So it's misleading because it only counted Obama's first year.

Regardless, I still do not see one fucking administration that has DECREASED the debt or even simply NOT GROWN the Debt.

Admittedly, it is the congress, not the president, that does the spending.

Yeah well there's that.

And people wonder why we don't like the current President. He's just as bad as all the others.

 

[asterism]

GOP recent History:

What Obama did:

Started two unpaid for wars.

Passed trillions in tax cuts with 62% going to the top 10%.

Passed an enormous drugs for votes bill.

Deregulated Wall Street.

Tricked America into a war that left tens of thousands maimed for life costing trillions over decades.

Helped move millions of jobs to China.

And what did Bush do?

Merely danced naked while spreading sparkly fairy dust and healing sickly children.

I get it, it's all Bush's fault.

So why can't Obama keep his promises? We were supposed to be doing quite well by now. Is he not up to the job? Is he just out of ideas? Can he just not execute on his promises?

 

[auditor0007]

Economic growth, for the greatest part, is due to growth in population.


if divvying up the pie is the issue it should be easier per resources with a stable population, growth takes care of itself and is not dependent on an expanding population.

I'm not suggesting that there should be some systemic divvying up of things. I want to know how we create new opportunities with zero population growth. Think of it this way; you want to open up a restaurant, and you would really like to open a chain of restaurants all over the country. The problem is that there are already plenty of restaurants and only so many people to eat at those restaurants. If your restaurant is successful, it will be so at the expense of another as more and more restaurants cannot all survive and be successful without more people to eat at all those restaurants. So your success comes at the expense of another, and there is no actual growth in the real economy due to your success.

Now the argument can be made that we can increase the standard of living for everyone by creating new technologies, but the fact is that with a steady population, you will only need so many CEO's, so many doctors, so many lawyers, so many janitors, so many restaurant workers, etc...

If at this point, you actually understand the question, then you should also understand that economic growth will be difficult to come by under such a scenario, and it will leave little if no opportunity for personal economic growth for many.

Yes! Classic liberal misinformation that there is a fixed pie so one guy can become wealthy only if another guy becomes poor.
No, the other posters get it. You are the clueless one.

You are clueless if you believe that population growth has nothing to do with economic growth. It's not to say there cannot be any economic growth if population growth is stagnant, but it sure as hell becomes more difficult. Here in the US the housing market is a very good indicator of economic growth. When we are not building new homes, economic growth tends to come to a standstill as it has the past few years. Without any increase in population, the entire housing market dies. But hey, you know more than me. It's obvious.