Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Maybe a better way to put it is that the Democrats and Republicans in those years held each other in check, preventing the other from doing anything with the surpluses generated by the strong economy.

Unfortunately, then the Republicans came to power and blew it all on the budgetary equivalents of hookers and blow.

And Obama then made that hooker and blow party look like Romper Room.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If people think the Keynesian approach to the recession hasn't worked, they're confused -- it hasn't been tried yet.

Oh yes it has. See 1939-1945.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Bridge. To. Nowhere. That's your stimulus. No transformative technology, no private sector picking-up of that "slack" on the other side.

What transformative technology was invented in 1983? How about the '40s? Heck, the end of the 1991 recession wasn't even about a transformative technology.

Beyond that, where do you keep your crystal ball that lets you see so clearly into the future? It would be great if you could let the rest of us have a peak.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Believe what you want to believe.
The real driver here was the dot.com boom. Makes life a lot easier when the revenues are up.

To the credit of the Democrats and Republicans of the time, the progress on the budget came before the dot-com bubble, which was more at the end of the decade. Here's the NASDAQ Composite Index:



eta: (There was an economic expansion, too, but not all of it was tech bubble. There was a lot of real expansion going on, much of it tech-based.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

And Obama then made that hooker and blow party look like Romper Room.

No:



(Source is the NYT.)

All those Tea Partiers weren't upset by the 90% of the problem that came on Bush's watch, but they go ballistic over that Obama 10%.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No:



(Source is the NYT.)

All those Tea Partiers weren't upset by the 90% of the problem that came on Bush's watch, but they go ballistic over that Obama 10%.

Keep citing Pravda, and those who think we're on the path to a workers' paradise will keep calling you on it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No:



(Source is the NYT.)

All those Tea Partiers weren't upset by the 90% of the problem that came on Bush's watch, but they go ballistic over that Obama 10%.

I'll ask again why the yellow wedge isn't grey.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm genuinely curious who the fuck has bought travelers checks in the last fifteen year.

I have been wondering the same. Although maybe it's 12 years, and hence the question matters for now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

I'll ask again why the yellow wedge isn't grey.

If you're arguing that Obama's spending makes Bush's hookers and blow look like Romper Room, as club was, then you're not blaming Obama for continuing to do what Bush and Republican Congresses do -- you're suggesting he was much worse. And that's simply false.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Your answer, apparently, is that those workers need to experience pain and destruction of unemployment so that somehow, magically, they (and the Underpants Gnome) will create a pot of gold. Honest to God, I can't understand how you think that will happen. These people want to work now, and theren't jobs for them because no one is hiring. As they continue not to work, society loses. If this goes on for a few years, they become less employable, and society loses more. The loss to society from all of this unemployment is massive and real, and you just don't have any suggestion about what to do about it.

You'll get nowhere with Sebby on this because it's not an economic issue for him (and lots and lots of other people), it's a moral one. It's about who deserves what, and the necessity of suffering, and who are the righteous and elect who see change coming and will prosper, like the Good Pilgrim who used to sell air conditioners and now repairs them. This country is fucking Calvinist down to its bones, and I'm not talking about the kid and the tiger. Spending government money on putting people who can't otherwise find a job to work is just wrong, because if they deserved a job, they'd have one.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

I'll ask again why the yellow wedge isn't grey.

It looks orange on my screen. I'm less focused on whose name is attached and would be more interested in how each one gets sliced up by policy (e.g., tax rates, War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, etc.).

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

While this is generally true, you quickly forget that Clinton did not balance the budget and run surpluses alone. He had a GOP congress that, at least in the first few years after 1994, was committed to the items in the Contract for America.

Yes, the GOP gets credit for not passing unfunded massive tax cuts for the rich when they were certain to get votoed. After that...

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Yours and every other Keynesian's argument only makes sense when there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

The rainbow is the pot of gold.

ETA: To be less glib, economies don't grow because of some magic driving factor. They grow because people have ideas and are optimistic enough to invest in them and grow a business. The whole point of Keynsian policy is to give business a reason to keep investing and hiring.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

To the credit of the Democrats and Republicans of the time, the progress on the budget came before the dot-com bubble, which was more at the end of the decade. Here's the NASDAQ Composite Index:



eta: (There was an economic expansion, too, but not all of it was tech bubble. There was a lot of real expansion going on, much of it tech-based.)

I didn't say bubble, I said boom. I think this is the type of technological innovation to which Sebby
refers.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

I'll ask again why the yellow wedge isn't grey.

You really can't be serious with this (which I think was the same response I had the first time you posted it).