Taxes going way up in 2011: new taxes added+old tax cuts subtracted

Look up the definition of recession buffalo roam. I will give you a clue, no where in that definition does it say anyting about the NASDAQ.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I don't have to spin..you do. You showed us your tops.

Below is a link to the body of he organization responsible for calling recessions in The United States:

http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

I will give you a clue, when you are right you don't have to spin. You seem to be fixated with spinning. But that is all you have when facts and reason are not on your side.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The dot com bubble was a downward correction to the false rapid appreciation in the PAPER value of the electronics sector of the NASDAQ stocks, mainly. It did not directly effect most people as they were not owners of these stocks. It did have a psychological effect, as all collapsing bubbles do, on the state of optimism in the economy, but very little real effect on the economy as only PAPER profits were destroyed, not real productive assets. That correction was a paper loss on the order of 4 trillion dollars.

The slower collapse, still on going, of the housing bubble was larger and affected many more people directly. Its effect was more than psychological as people had their underwater homes foreclosed, etc.

It is important to not confuse, as Buffalo does, over-valued asset corrections (paper losses) with real physical losses which directly effect the economy. For example hurricane Katrina, was a real material loss of about one trillion dollars and more important than the larger paper loss correction of the dot com bubble.

To clearly understand that NASDAQ and Dow index corrections are not as directly associated with the real economy as are physical losses one need only consider the 1000 point drop in the Dow which is called the "flash crash." Clearly the real economy did not lose more than a trillion dollars and then recover it a couple of hours later. This is why, despite Buffalo's false invention of a non-standard definition of "recession," the true definition has no relationship to NASDAQ or Dow index corrections, but is tied to the real economy as reflected in the GDP data.

 

So this is not a recession either? just a downward correction of the Housing Bubble?

Yes, spin all you want from Brazil, but a 1/3 lose of value of the market is a recession.

But then if you don't like that fact, how about United States v. Microsoft, another Clinton DOJ action.....that just added to the recession.

Or if you don't like that;

The Y-2-K fiasco.........

Or if you don't like that;

how about the fact that Billy "Slick Willy" Clinton failed to effectivly do a thing to prevent 9/11/2001.....
but it is there in the NASDQ chart time line, a major drop in the value of the market starting, March 10, 2000, under Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton, and continuing until 2003, spin all you want Billy T but a correction doesn't last 3 years, and most people were affected, most people by that time had 401--IRA--Roths--- all of those instruments were holding Dot Comm, stock, and private stock holding, when the bubble broke everyone took a bath.

 

These are distinctions without differences. Psychology has real, direct impacts on the "real economy." That's why things such as "consumer sentiment" and "business climate" are scrutinized and tracked so closely by analysts. People's basic psychological willingness to take on leverage, for example, has a huge, real, direct effect on the entire economy.

Yes, it clearly did. There really were more than a trillion fewer dollars available for people to invest, trade, or whatever, during those few hours. Follow your thinking through, and you'll conclude that "money" has equally little to do with the "real economy." But that's crazy.

The basic point you're missing is that an "economy" is not some physical entity that exists separately and objectively from human psychology. It is the collective process of how people get things that they want and need - take the psychology out of that, and what you're left with is a senseless arrangement of valueless transactions.

 

LOL, care to explain how NASDAQ volume has anything to do with the economy?

Where is your proof that Clinton handed off a recession to george II. Now, here is the deal, you cannot pick up a stone and say it is the recession as you have done in he past.

You need to know what a recession is and use the standard definition of recession. You can not just make stuff up and make it proof because you say so. Your proof needs to conform with rules of scientific proof... and use words as they are defined in the lexicon.

It has been proven to you time and time again that Clinton did not pass a recession to george II but that does not keep you from repeating the same old baseless limbaugh mantra. I will give you a clue, lies do not get more truthful the more you tell them. A lie is a lie and remains a lie no matter how many times you tell it.

I will show you again that the US was not in recession when george II came to office. Below is the link to the organization responsible for declaring US recessions. And you will notice the US was not in recession when george II took over government.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

Democrats did not control congress during the george II years and you know it. It was a Republican president who invaded foriegn lands and lied to congress to justify it. And it was the Democrats who fought against entitlement expansions complete with "no bid" restrictions on government. And it was the Democrats who fought Republicans the single largest hit to the deficit (tax cuts to the rich). I wonder why you over looked those little facts.

I wonder why you also over looked the issue that Obama's first budget did not kick in until October of 2009. Not suprisingly you are blaming Obama for deficits that were created under george II and his merry band of Republicans.

Why don't you explain to us the Republican solution to the deficit and the debt? That is something your leaders have not been able to do as recently as last weekend.

 

joe, the Democrats controlled Congress starting in 2007;

President of the Senate: Dick Cheney (R)
President pro tempore: Robert Byrd (D)
Speaker of the House: Nancy Pelosi (D)
Members: 100 Senators
435 Representatives
5 Non-voting members

Senate Majority: Democratic Party
House Majority: Democratic Party ​

The House stood at;

256 Democrats
178 Republicans
1 Independent
Making 435 Members.​

The Senate stood at;

55 Democrats
02 Independents
43 Republicans
Making 100 Members​

Now joe, even I don't need to use my fingers and toes to see that the Democrats have had the majority in congress since 2007, and control of all three branches of Government since Jan. 2009

 

A question for Buffalo, MadAnthony and others who tend to act like Republicans:

Here is quote from today's Email from Obama's internet organization:

"... after years of policies that landed us in the worst recession since the 1930's, the Republicans who got us there have not come up with anything different from the policies of George W. Bush. ..."

Question to Republicans is: What did GWB do wrong? **
I.e. how do current GOP policy recommendations differ from "Return to the policies of GWB."

I remind you of Einstein’s definition of insanity:
"Doing the same thing over again and expecting different results."

** For a partial list of GWB's unprecedented errors, IMHO, see final section of: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2599722&postcount=131

 

And all of the trangressions, all of the major spending which created the debt and deficits occured within george II's first term in office (2001-2004). So what Democrats took control of the House and had a collation majority of 51 in the Senate when it takes a majority of 60 to excercise effective control? The damage was done by 2007.

Now why don't you answer the questions put to you by Billy T and myself?

 

joe:

I do answer your's and BillyT questions, it is just that You and BillyT don't like the answers I give, because they don't agree with your liberal views.

Now lets see, the Unemployment averaged 4.7% from 2001-2007, and then the Democrats took over congress, and today it stands at.....9.7% under Obama and the Democrats.

As of 01/19/2001 when George took office, the national debt was $5,727,776,738,304.64

and when George ended His first term;

01/20/2005 the national debt stood at $7,613,215,612,328.37

A little less than $2 trillion dollars added to the national debt, in 4 years, nothing to be proud of but......

01/19/2007 Intragovernmental Holdings $3,786,833,548,360.02 Total Public Debt Outstanding 8,675,085,083,537.48

Another $1 trillion dollars added in two years, .....and then the Democrats took the power of the purse, control of the House.......

So George and the Republicans on their own, are responsible for a little over $3 trillion dollars of national debt.

Then the Democrats in control of the purse....

01/18/2007 Intragovernmental Holdings $3,786,833,548,360.02 8,675,085,083,537.48

Th e Democrats in control of the House added $2 trillion dollars

01/20/2009 Intragovernmental Holdings $4,319,566,309,231.42 Total Public Debt Outstanding $10,626,877,048,913.08

and Then Obama arrives.....

01/20/2009 Intragovernmental Holdings $4,319,566,309,231.42 Total Public Debt Outstanding $10,626,877,048,913.08

to

07/20/2010 Intragovernmental Holdings $4,558,336,243,562.14 Total Public Debt Outstanding $13,245,998,461,216.30

Obama and the Democrats add another $2.6 trillion dollars to the national debt taking the National debt past $13 trillion dollars in less than 20 months

So in 4 years the democrats have added $4.6 Trillion Dollars to the national debt, so joe, as I see it, it is the Politicians in Washington who are responsible, as of this time the Republicans are a little less responsible and the Democrats are a little more responsible, but both of them have put us in this position, and as of today, the Democrats are doing nothing to control the Government overspending of money we don't have, and printing money backed by no value.

 

My last question (What did GWB do wrong?) could be answered either briefly (nothing) or by giving a list (as I did via link in post 114) Your posts discussing Nasdaq crashes, or which party was in control of congress and voted funds for GHWB and GWB's wars etc. is NOT an answer.

Again I ask: What, in your opinion, did GWB do wrong, if anything?
How does current Republican policy recommendations (assuming they have some) differ from "Return to GWB's policies."

Your "answers," if we were to call them that, have such large ducking and weaving (and invention of definitions) that I can not even tell which question they claim to be responding to.

 

And you and joe never answer questions, all you and joe do, is demand that others answer your question to your strictures and satisfaction.

Now as to your "http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=131", what about the Democrats who were in office along with the Republicans and George?

 

I always answer direct questions (not just yours, but anyone's serious question) AFAIK I have answered ALL of yours (except this new one), but if I missed one, tell the post number it was in, as I told you with my last question (post 114) and briefly restate the question, again as I did in post 117.

Now for your new question: The captain is responsible for the actions on his watch. As Harry Truman said: "The buck stops here."

Also your pointing out that Democrats in Congress voted for the money GWB spent (and for the continuing cost GWB's decisions are making still), yes, that is true, but they had to provide the bombs and bullets for GWB's wars, or the current unemployment payouts for the 16 million jobs deficit hole GWB handed to Obama.

It is unfortunate that Obama has not even been able to prevent it from growing deeper, but GWB handed him the worst recession since the great depression and just delaying the arrival of GWB's inevitable depression is about all he can do.

Recall on Clinton's watch 24 million new jobs were created. That is 4 million more than required to keep even with the expansion of the work force. In GWB's 8 years, less than 4 million net new jobs were created - that is a 16 million jobs deficit, but one should expect that with the rich building modern factories in China with GWB's tax relief present to them. These Chinese factories made US factories close and / or out source jobs to stay open.

GWB had two recessions start on his watch - Recessions always contract the labor force that is employed. (I am not sure, but think he is the only POTUS with this to his record.)

SUMMARY:
Until you, as I do, give the post number of your question(s) which I have not replied to (and briefly restate it) you are just ducking and weaving instead of answering my direct question to you.

 

BillyT,we are 20 months into the New administration, that is 1 and 2/3 years, and it's all Gorges fault doesn't wash any more.

We are well into Obamas budget, that the Democrats handed to Him on a golden platter paid for by China Card.

Billy T, what was the unemployment rate when the Democrats and Obama took control of Congress?

For all the trillions in stimulus has it improved?


Who started writing the budgets with the spending way they insisted needed to be added?

Who didn't do a thing to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from creating the situation that created the Housing Bubble, and our present financial crisis?

The Democrats​

Yes, on top the war the democrats ran up the social spending, failed to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, did nothing to stop the NODOC loan situation that was allowing people with out the income, and down payment, to buy houses that were 2-3-4 times their ability to afford.

The Democrats were the ones who set up the bundling scheme that allowed for the sale of these toxic loans onto Wall Street, creating a bubble that burst, and set this all in motion.

Yes, BillyT your precious Democrats blocked every attempt by the evil Republicans to re-regulate the Home Loan Industry under the disastrous management of Fannie and Freddie FU.

Yes BillyT, this is Obama Budget, and the rate of deficits and debt has increased.

It's all Georges fault doesn't cut it any more, and it never was all Georges fault, as the Democrats were well represented in the government in all years of the Bush Administration.