Republican economic wisdom

[Toro]

A wise man knows what he doesn't know. A wise man would have STFU up a long time ago, not blather on endlessly.

The more you talk, the more you reinforce title of this thread. Thinking Republicans are cringing.

 

[Gunny]

- “We don’t believe we’re going to have a recession though.” [Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/08]
- “I think the experts will tell you we’re not in a recession.” [President Bush, 2/10/08]
- “The answer is, I don’t think we are in a recession right now.” [Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Edward Lazear, 2/11/08]
– “First of all, we’re not in a recession.” [President Bush, 4/22/08]
– “The data are pretty clear that we are not in a recession.” [Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Edward Lazear, 5/7/08]
- “I don’t think we are” in a recession. [Director of the National Economic Council Keith Hennesy, 6/3/08]
– “I think we have avoided a recession.” [White House Budget Director Jim Nussle, 7/31/08]
– “I don’t think anybody could tell you right now if we’re in a recession or not” [Dana Perino, 10/7/08]


Think Progress » For Nearly A Year After Recession Started, Bush White House Insisted That ‘We’re Not In A Recession’

​

Democrat economic wisdom: Let's put this nation hock for a century and spend out way out of it.

 

[Swoop187]

Democrats only care about NOW and redundant pandering to keep their party popular..

I got a question for that retard Obama... How is my life going to be better when I'm 35?

Will I be discriminated against because I'm white?

Will I need a doctors note to buy a fast food cheeseburger if I want to keep my government medical insurance?

Will I be allowed to ask such questions?

 

[Toro]

I don't blame PubliusInfinitum for thinking that a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of decline. I do blame him for droning on that he is correct, when he is ignorant. This is why he is wrong.

Let's say this is the output for eight quarters. Remember, PI says that a recession is defined as two successive quarters of contraction.

-6
+1
-6
+1
-6
+1
-6
+1

Now, there has not been two quarters in a row of economic contraction. But total economic activity has declined 20% over two years. Would anyone seriously argue that we wouldn't be in a recession?

Similarly, if the pattern of growth looked like this

-5%
0%
+1%
-6%
2%
0%
+1%
-5%

This is also a recession, as the economy has detracted 12% over two years.

This is why economists do not use the two quarters of contraction as a definition of recession.

There are also other, more technical reasons why the economy can be in a recession even while headline GDP is expanding.

 

[Ravi]

Who came up with the two quarter definition? It seems to me that such black and white thinking is pretty harmful in the long run, especially if it keeps people from identifying what is actually going on.

 

[editec]

I don't blame PubliusInfinitum for thinking that a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of decline. I do blame him for droning on that he is correct, when he is ignorant. This is why he is wrong.

Let's say this is the output for eight quarters. Remember, PI says that a recession is defined as two successive quarters of contraction.

-6
+1
-6
+1
-6
+1
-6
+1

Now, there has not been two quarters in a row of economic contraction. But total economic activity has declined 20% over two years. Would anyone seriously argue that we wouldn't be in a recession?

Similarly, if the pattern of growth looked like this

-5%
0%
+1%
-6%
2%
0%
+1%
-5%

This is also a recession, as the economy has detracted 12% over two years.

This is why economists do not use the two quarters of contraction as a definition of recession.

There are also other, more technical reasons why the economy can be in a recession even while headline GDP is expanding.

You continue to impress me, Toro.

 

[sealybobo]

Who came up with the two quarter definition? It seems to me that such black and white thinking is pretty harmful in the long run, especially if it keeps people from identifying what is actually going on.

And who cares? Especially knowing that Bush fudged the numbers. I heard last week that last year's numbers were actually worse than we were told.

And Bush gave us a stimulus check last year. That prevented him from having an official recession, because many went out and spent their checks. So he had to borrow to get himself out of that recession, and it didn't last long, huh?

2/3'rds of GDP is consumer spending. No one is spending. Maybe if we didn't put all those American manufacturers out of jobs, the economy would be better?

Maybe if Healthcare wasn't so expensive, people would spend on other things.

Maybe if we didn't have up to 12 million illegals taking our dollars back to Mexico....

Maybe those unemployed ex manufacturing guys can take the jobs that the illegals were getting. And the American guys will pay their taxes.

I remember when Bush gave his first tax break. I said, "why doesn't he give them a tax break WHEN they spend/hire, rather than just give it to the rich and hope. Many of you said, "it's their money, they can do what they want with it".

So this is why I don't think Bush's tax breaks worked. No incentive to spend. Just hord it away, offshore, and avoid paying US taxes, etc.....and call yourselves patriots.

Then have the middle class pay for everything, or just throw it on the debt.

So why aren't republicans in favor of raising taxes to take care of the debt or pay for all their wars and defense spending?

Republicans don't make sense at all. But its politics, so you don't have to make sense.

PS. Have you heard the stock market is doing bad again? No one is buying there either. Why don't they all start buying American companies? Why don't we too? I'm going to redirect all of my 401K into American companies. If we all do that, consumer confidence will pick up.

Meanwhile, Republicans are investing everywhere else. After 8 years of them leading the way, that's probably wise. Then they pick on guys like Al Gore and the Clinton's because they were smart enough to invest in defense/energy/oil. Duh!

 

[editec]

Pubic, what did your poor mother do to you to make you hate women to this extent? Or was it your father?

Closet case would be my guess, Ravi.

Does he really understand what he is?

Probably.

That's exactly why so many men, men who constantly seek to show everyone what tough guys they are, are so angry with women.

They're really angry with themselves but they project their frustration onto the women who fail to turn them on.

Liberals, women, fem gays, the poor -- anyone who they sense can't or won't fight back can be their targets.

Closet case males are, I think, one of the most potentially toxic groups of people humankind has to share the world with.

The best of them become heros, often in wars. The worst of them become bullies.

Typically they seek to deny their real indentities by playing out the role that they think makes them appear hypermasculine.

What they constantly cannot understand, because, after all, they are not authentic maculine personalities, is that real masculine strength gives one the courage to be kind and the capacity to be merciful.

 

[Meister]

Pubic, what did your poor mother do to you to make you hate women to this extent? Or was it your father?

Closet case would be my guess, Ravi.

Does he really understand what he is?

Probably.

That's exactly why so many men, men who constantly seek to show everyone what tough guys they are, are so angry with women.

They're really angry with themselves but they project their frustration onto the women who fail to turn them on.

Liberals, women, fem gays, the poor -- anyone who they sense can't or won't fight back can be their targets.

Closet case males are, I think, one of the most potentially toxic groups of people humankind has to share the world with.

The best of them become heros, often in wars. The worst of them become bullies.

Typically they seek to deny their real indentities by playing out the role that they think makes them appear hypermasculine.

What they constantly cannot understand, because, after all, they are not authentic maculine personalities, is that real masculine strength gives one the courage to be kind and the capacity to be merciful.

WOW! I never learned that in Psych 101. Thanks for the lesson. Now, how about the hatred the democratic leaders have displayed against Bush for the last 8 years? Can this be your next lesson?

 

[editec]

Pubic, what did your poor mother do to you to make you hate women to this extent? Or was it your father?

Closet case would be my guess, Ravi.

Does he really understand what he is?

Probably.

That's exactly why so many men, men who constantly seek to show everyone what tough guys they are, are so angry with women.

They're really angry with themselves but they project their frustration onto the women who fail to turn them on.

Liberals, women, fem gays, the poor -- anyone who they sense can't or won't fight back can be their targets.

Closet case males are, I think, one of the most potentially toxic groups of people humankind has to share the world with.

The best of them become heros, often in wars. The worst of them become bullies.

Typically they seek to deny their real indentities by playing out the role that they think makes them appear hypermasculine.

What they constantly cannot understand, because, after all, they are not authentic maculine personalities, is that real masculine strength gives one the courage to be kind and the capacity to be merciful.

WOW! I never learned that in Psych 101. Thanks for the lesson. Now, how about the hatred the democrats have displayed against Bush for the last 8 years? Can this be your next lesson?

Glad I could be there to assist you in getting a firmer grasp of that issue, lad.

I'm not sure that Demcorats hated Bush II.

I am fairly certain some of them hated many of his policies, though.

Tell me which policy you're interested in, and I can probably tell you why some democrats hated it.

 

[Meister]

Closet case would be my guess, Ravi.

Does he really understand what he is?

Probably.

That's exactly why so many men, men who constantly seek to show everyone what tough guys they are, are so angry with women.

They're really angry with themselves but they project their frustration onto the women who fail to turn them on.

Liberals, women, fem gays, the poor -- anyone who they sense can't or won't fight back can be their targets.

Closet case males are, I think, one of the most potentially toxic groups of people humankind has to share the world with.

The best of them become heros, often in wars. The worst of them become bullies.

Typically they seek to deny their real indentities by playing out the role that they think makes them appear hypermasculine.

What they constantly cannot understand, because, after all, they are not authentic maculine personalities, is that real masculine strength gives one the courage to be kind and the capacity to be merciful.

WOW! I never learned that in Psych 101. Thanks for the lesson. Now, how about the hatred the democrats have displayed against Bush for the last 8 years? Can this be your next lesson?

Glad I could be there to assist you in getting a firmer grasp of that issue, lad.

I'm not sure that Demcorats hated Bush II.

I am fairly certain some of them hated many of his policies, though.

Tell me which policy you're interested in, and I can probably tell you why some democrats hated it.

No, no, I think you have that wrong. The democratic leaders really did despise Bush for winning in 2000 (I don't know if you noticed, they never got over that), and for defeating kerry in 2004. No matter what policies he had, they were against it. Except, when they voted for going to war with Iraq, they were for that, before they were against it.
Now you had Pub all figured out, but you fail to see anything with the democrats. Hmmm...
I guess I was just expecting more.

 

[Toro]

And who cares? Especially knowing that Bush fudged the numbers. I heard last week that last year's numbers were actually worse than we were told.

Bush didn't fudge the numbers. The White House does not meddle in the NBER research and statistical calculations.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I don't blame PubliusInfinitum for thinking that a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of decline. I do blame him for droning on that he is correct, when he is ignorant. This is why he is wrong.

Let's say this is the output for eight quarters. Remember, PI says that a recession is defined as two successive quarters of contraction.

-6
+1
-6
+1
-6
+1
-6
+1

Now, there has not been two quarters in a row of economic contraction. But total economic activity has declined 20% over two years. Would anyone seriously argue that we wouldn't be in a recession?

Similarly, if the pattern of growth looked like this

-5%
0%
+1%
-6%
2%
0%
+1%
-5%

This is also a recession, as the economy has detracted 12% over two years.

This is why economists do not use the two quarters of contraction as a definition of recession.

There are also other, more technical reasons why the economy can be in a recession even while headline GDP is expanding.

ROFL... Man that's BRILLIANT! You are a function of Government schools aren't ya sis?

Ok, let's begin...

SO... What we're discussing is what? It's a trend isn't it?

The purpose of considering TWO consecutive quarters which realized negative growth is to chart the TREND... since ONE element of time, in this case a SINGLE REPORTING PERIOD OF ONE QUARTER CAN NOT POTENTIALLY INDICATE A TREND... only over two (or more) reporting periods, as I've repeatedly stated, do TRENDS become evident.

Where we have two consecutive quarters which realize negative growth in the product of the economy, this proves that the economy was not merely adjusting or reacting to, or correcting from a given set of economic circumstances, but that in fact, the economy is trending towards RECEDING IN TERMS OF OUTPUT, AKA: realizing recession... the product of the economy is RECEDING, CONTRACTING or otherwise SHRINKING...

Now our opposition has run to post what she and those of lessor intellectual means, feel is a illustration where two consecutive quarters do not show negative growth; the first quarter (in her example scenario) charts a strong retraction of the economy... the second a marginal gain, but flat, for all intents and purposes, repeating the same trend for 8 consecutive quarters... ultimately showing an economic retraction of -5 over the scope of the first two quarters... and an indisputable trend of the product of the economy RECEDING by 20% over the two year period, demonstrated in Toro's scenario.

But isn't it wonderful how Toro was prepared to prove my argument by posting such a wonderfully pedantic scenario... and that's what I love about Moderates... their severe intellectual limitations; which, if we could just prevent them from VOTING, would render them little more than comic relief... and harmless to the means of Americans to exercise their God given rights.

The problem comes when they actually DO vote and begin to assert themselves as High-Priest of Reason and Truth by virtue of their 'study' of the 'subjective sciences'

So Toro... In cased ya missed it... an economy which recedes by 6% in the first quarter (for instance) and returns in the second quarter TO REPORT A PRODUCT WHICH GREW BY 1% from the previous quarter... realizes an averages of 5% NEGATIVE GROWTH for the TWO CONSECUTIVE FISCAL QUARTERS, which, as has been noted MANY TIME IN THIS THREAD: is a TREND realized BY: TWO CONSECUTIVE QUARTERS OF NEGATIVE GROWTH...

Thanks for sharing tho'... It was a GAS!

Now again... here is what the BEA charts as US economic Performance from 2007 to the last quarter of 08... I think it was YOU that stated that the product of the economy RECEDED in December of 2007 and that the US economy continued to recede up through the present...

2007q1 - (4.3)
2007q2 - (6.9)
2007q3 - (6.3)
2007q4 - (2.3)
2008q1 - (3.5)
2008q2- (4.1)
2008q3 - (3.4)
2008q4 - (-5.8)

I see a product which realized an averaged growth of 2.9 over the last qrtr of 07 through the 1st qrtr of 08 and I see a product which realized an averaged growth of 4.3% from the 3rd through the 4th qrt of 07... Where's the receding values which you spoke to? Were you trying to assert that a reduction IN GROWTH VALUES indicates a RECEDING ECONOMY? Because that's pretty close to a lie right there, sis. It's hauntingly close to the species of leftist 'reasoning' which claims a reduction in the rate of growth in SPENDING, produces a CUT... when in truth the relevant spending GREW FROM IT'S PREVIOUS LEVELS, but THE RATE OF INCREASE or GROWTH WAS REDUCED... which is nothing short OF A LIE and one of the LEFTIST VARIETY... not that you're a Leftists... or sympathetic to leftist reasoning... NOooooooooo...

Toro's argument wants to use a drop in the RATE OF POSITIVE GROWTH to declare a recession... which is absurd. An economy which is growing IS NOT RECEDING... and THAT is the problem with these people... they want to redefine the terms, project them to imply their actual meaning and when challenged to support their misinformation, fall back on the absurdity that the word no longer means what you ignorantly thought it meant.

It's cultural subversion of the lame variety... it should never be tolerated by any American, for any reason.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

In reveiwing this thread; adding up the score... I came across this post...

Now I should point out that I do not know Editec personally... I've not amde any arrangement with her, wherein she's been compensated to come along and say crap which appears to support my positions... such appearances are merely the natural order and she's simply helpless to avoid it.

And with that, I give you Editecs own words, which lend additional evidence to the heaps already on the table that the left is the feminine ideology; and what's more, the left represents the very worst of feminine 'feelings'...

It should also by noted that I am not suggesting that Ravi be castigated by staff for her eggregeous violation of site policy by projections, which deningrate the progenitors...

Pubic, what did your poor mother do to you to make you hate women to this extent? Or was it your father?

Closet case would be my guess, Ravi.

Does he really understand what he is?

Probably.

That's exactly why so many men, men who constantly seek to show everyone what tough guys they are, are so angry with women.

They're really angry with themselves but they project their frustration onto the women who fail to turn them on.

Liberals, women, fem gays, the poor -- anyone who they sense can't or won't fight back can be their targets.

Closet case males are, I think, one of the most potentially toxic groups of people humankind has to share the world with.

The best of them become heros, often in wars. The worst of them become bullies.

Typically they seek to deny their real indentities by playing out the role that they think makes them appear hypermasculine.

What they constantly cannot understand, because, after all, they are not authentic maculine personalities, is that real masculine strength gives one the courage to be kind and the capacity to be merciful.

Notice how EDITEC CLASSIFIED THESE ELEMENTS INTO A COMMON GROUP!

Now clearly, 'the poor' is the oddball here, and purely a function of reaching to make a point, as there is nothing inherently femine about being poor, and no conservative denigrates the poor or otherwise castigates them for their poverty... Editec simply sought to add that group as a means to expand the scope of her red herring.

The point here is that she, EDITEC HERSELF, lumps the left and their various sacred cows into that which SHE sees as inherently ideologically, feminine...

And she's correct... Leftists are ideologically feminine... GOOD CALL Sis...

So anywho... that looks like a wrap...

The OP has been refuted, there is no evidence that the product of the US economy was receding at the time of those statements, as the US GDP was steadily growing throughout 06, 07 and continued to grow through 08, until the PRODUCT OF THE US ECONOMY realized a major CONTRACTION in mid to late 08...

What the left wants to do here is to use declines IN THE RATE OF GROWTH to declare a recession of the economy... which is NOT consistent with their judgment during economic periods NOT LABELED: The BUSH YEARS.

Thus bringing the indisputable conclusion of this thread to be that of yet ANOTHER DEVASTATING LOSS BY THE LEFT... at the hand of their intellactual masters...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

ROFL... Looks like the gals are experiencing a sudden bout of reticence... which is understandble, given their recent humiliation born of refutation...

But hey, 'Conservative Economic Wisdom' tends to have that effect on leftists and their Centrist comrades...

 

[Ravi]

ROFL... Looks like the gals are experiencing a sudden bout of reticence... which is understandble, given their recent humiliation born of refutation...

But hey, 'Conservative Economic Wisdom' tends to have that effect on leftists and their Centrist comrades...

You've proven my thread title well, Pubic. In your silly little mind, there is only one definition of recession. It is thinking like yours that has led us to our current state.

Republican "leadership" under Bush was deaf, dumb, and blind because they are apparently anal-retentives that only see what they want to see.

 

[DiveCon]

ROFL... Looks like the gals are experiencing a sudden bout of reticence... which is understandble, given their recent humiliation born of refutation...

But hey, 'Conservative Economic Wisdom' tends to have that effect on leftists and their Centrist comrades...

You've proven my thread title well, Pubic. In your silly little mind, there is only one definition of recession. It is thinking like yours that has led us to our current state.

Republican "leadership" under Bush was deaf, dumb, and blind because they are apparently anal-retentives that only see what they want to see.

sounds more like YOU

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

ROFL... Looks like the gals are experiencing a sudden bout of reticence... which is understandble, given their recent humiliation born of refutation...

But hey, 'Conservative Economic Wisdom' tends to have that effect on leftists and their Centrist comrades...

You've proven my thread title well, Pubic. In your silly little mind, there is only one definition of recession. It is thinking like yours that has led us to our current state.

Yeah, I've proven that economic wisdom is inherent in Conservatism, to be sure... There is only one definition of recession... but I don't blame ya for now coming back to the table to imply that there are more than one... Recession is little more than a condition wherein the product of the Economy RECEDES... thus the use of the word which is rooted IN RECEDE: Recession...

As I pointed out dozens of times in this thread, you hoped to post some quotes by individuals of the former administration and project that those quotes as inaccurate at BEST and intentionally deceitful, at worst... but when you were challenged to post evidence that the product of the US economy had RECEDED, you and all of your impotent little leftist butt-buddies were unable to do so... what's more, when evidence that the US economy was NOT in recession during the relevant period was incontestably introduced; EVIDENCE INTRODUCED BY YOU AND THE CORPS OF IDIOTS WHO JOINED YOU; EVIDENCE INTRODUCED BY YOUR COLLECTIVE FAILURE TO MEET REPEATED, DIRECT AND UNAMBIGUOUS CHALLENGES TO POST THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS USED AS THE VALID BASIS OF YOUR PROJECTION; you and the idiots simply chose to advance the "WAS SO" defense... which was handily returned and presently rests within the body
of your irreversibly failed argument and is located in a place where the rhetorical sun-don't-shine...

... apparently anal-retentive(s) … only see what they want to see.

Apparently...

Now go find the other gals and tell ‘em that Mr. Infinitum wants to see them in his office.

 

[Toro]

There is only one definition of recession...

Yes there is. And you keep getting it wrong.

Repeating it over and over and over again doesn't make it true.

 

[DiveCon]

There is only one definition of recession...

Yes there is. And you keep getting it wrong.

Repeating it over and over and over again doesn't make it true.

well, its hard to keep up with the changing definitions these days
last i knew it was 2 qts of consecutive decline
and it had been that way since the eary 70's
i guess they'll have to change the definition again for Obama