UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (21) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 1933257  
Subject: Oh golly, the Wall Street Journal Date: 12/2/2012 3:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 73
In the continuing attempt to smear Obama, the Wall Street Journal now presents a chart of "2-term Presidents" and the growth rates they achieved...

and, of course, Reagan's is higher (no mention of the ballooning deficit), and Clinton's is higher (no mention of the shrinking deficit), but whatayaknow, they forgot about that other two-term President whose name shall not be mentioned by Republicans.

Yes, the Wall Street Journal, arbiter of frank and factual analysis, neglected to include George W. Bush in their charts of the success of other recent Presidents. One can only wonder why... (Well, perhaps it was the financial cataclysm, the increasing deficit, and the lack of economic growth that contributed to their forgetfulness?)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/30/wall-street-journal...
Print the post Back To Top
Author: richieds Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1841700 of 1933257
Subject: Re: Oh golly, the Wall Street Journal Date: 12/2/2012 4:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
"Yes, the Wall Street Journal, arbiter of frank and factual analysis, neglected to include George W. Bush in their charts of the success of other recent Presidents. One can only wonder why.."

Well, if you read the WSJ rather than the left wing blog that references it, you'd see why Bush was left out of the chart.


"For each of the last three two-term Presidents, the economy went a long way to determining success or failure. George W. Bush's eight years ended in an economic panic that ruined his legacy. But note in the nearby table the tales of the Reagan and Clinton second terms. In the Gipper's last four years, GDP growth averaged 3.73% a year. In Bill Clinton's last four years, the economy averaged 4.45% growth."

Oh golly?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jerryab Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1841704 of 1933257
Subject: Re: Oh golly, the Wall Street Journal Date: 12/2/2012 4:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
For each of the last three two-term Presidents, the economy went a long way to determining success or failure. George W. Bush's eight years ended in an economic panic that ruined his legacy. But note in the nearby table the tales of the Reagan and Clinton second terms.

http://economyinperspective.com/gdp

GWB = 1.7% GDP growth, inheriting a reasonably good economy AND budget. Obama is above that and inherited a massively failing economy with huge ongoing deficits.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: richieds Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1841706 of 1933257
Subject: Re: Oh golly, the Wall Street Journal Date: 12/2/2012 4:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"GWB = 1.7% GDP growth, inheriting a reasonably good economy AND budget. Obama is above that and inherited a massively failing economy with huge ongoing deficits."


Well, first, that's not the point of the article and of Goofy's problem with it, which was an opinion piece and second, George Bush inherited a recession that lasted through most of his first year in office and was exasberated, obviously, by 9/11.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NemesisToLibs Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1841707 of 1933257
Subject: Re: Oh golly, the Wall Street Journal Date: 12/2/2012 4:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"GWB = 1.7% GDP growth, inheriting a reasonably good economy AND budget."

LOL! A recession started in March of 2001.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1841716 of 1933257
Subject: Re: Oh golly, the Wall Street Journal Date: 12/2/2012 5:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
It's the Fox News school of statistical graphics.

http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-charts-tricks-data-2...

Moreover, the article and graphic make the common mistake of ascribing the economic conditions of the first year of a president's term to that president and not his predecessor. For example, the 2.1% GDP increase in 1981 should be ascribed to Carter, the 1993 2.9% increase Bush I and the -3.1% fall in 2009 to Bush II.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NemesisToLibs Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1841717 of 1933257
Subject: Re: Oh golly, the Wall Street Journal Date: 12/2/2012 5:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
It's a pointless debate. The question you need to ask is the following:

Did conservative or liberal policies cause the problem we are in today?
I believe, if you looked at it honestly, it is clearly liberal policies that have caused the huge debt.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1841718 of 1933257
Subject: Re: Oh golly, the Wall Street Journal Date: 12/2/2012 5:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Did conservative or liberal policies cause the problem we are in today?
_____________________________________

Is that the real question?

To conservatives the answer is fairly easy.

The question is it very liberal policies or brutally liberal policies that caused the problems we have today.

Neither party has practiced anything conservative for a while. Progressive policies that have a slight Christian twist are not significantly better than those with slight anti-Christian twist.

Though I freely admit, I do prefer the party that lies about liking what I prefer a great deal more

Obama being honest and having no compunction about what he does also puts him in a special class to me, but still does not bring anything conservative as remotely part of the conversation IMO

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1841722 of 1933257
Subject: Re: Oh golly, the Wall Street Journal Date: 12/2/2012 5:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7

I believe, if you looked at it honestly, it is clearly liberal policies that have caused the huge debt.


Your belief is mistaken.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

And recall that Clinton balanced the budget. Bush II ("deficits dont matter") returned us to deficit spending.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3849

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NemesisToLibs Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1841738 of 1933257
Subject: Re: Oh golly, the Wall Street Journal Date: 12/2/2012 6:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"Your belief is mistaken.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

And recall that Clinton balanced the budget. Bush II ("deficits dont matter") returned us to deficit spending.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3849 "

You don't get it. Just because there is a republican president doesn't mean conservative policies are implemented. You have to look at each policy one by one and ask, is it a liberal or conservative principle at work.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoshRandall Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1841758 of 1933257
Subject: Re: Oh golly, the Wall Street Journal Date: 12/2/2012 8:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Liberals are too stupid to understand that previous tax cuts by Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush all created larger revenue than the revenue of their predecessors, all of who had higher marginal rates. And they are dumber than a box of rocks to conclude that therefore lower tax rates caused higher deficits.

What they are too stoopid to understand is that if spending was not increased in years when tax rates were cut, the deficit would have been smaller than in previous years. They also are too dense to understand that most of the increased spending during those years in which tax rates were reduced came about primarily due to democrats' lust for increased spending. I say primarily because in good faith, Reagan and Bush senior (who trusted democrats' promise to cut spending in the future if only we can raise taxes now)both raised taxes for the good of the country and got the blame for the deficits caused by the democrats who lied and did not cut the spending as they promised. Bush Jr. was no fiscal conservative and he went along with much of the democrats (and too many RINO's) lust for increased spending, so he takes some of the blame for the deficits under his administration. But have you ever met a democrat over several decades other than JFK who sought to decrease tax rates or decrease spending? If so, it's an outlier.

So deficits are therefore not caused by lowering tax rates since they have always resulted in higher revenues. But if spending increases at a greater rate than the rate of the revenue increase resulting from the tax cuts, then OF COURSE you are going to have increasing deficits. Duh!

How can liberals be so stunningly obtuse and continue to argue otherwise?

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: NemesisToLibs Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1841760 of 1933257
Subject: Re: Oh golly, the Wall Street Journal Date: 12/2/2012 8:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"How can liberals be so stunningly obtuse and continue to argue otherwise? "

Denial/Ignoring basic fiscal facts.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jakalant Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1841764 of 1933257
Subject: Re: Oh golly, the Wall Street Journal Date: 12/2/2012 9:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
It's the Fox News school of statistical graphics.

Gee you'd almost think they were the same company, Fox and the WSJ. But you really shouldn't jump to that conclusion, just because they are owned by the same b*ll sh!tt!^g con artists.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1841765 of 1933257
Subject: Re: Oh golly, the Wall Street Journal Date: 12/2/2012 9:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 26
You don't get it. Just because there is a republican president doesn't mean conservative policies are implemented.

Ah, okay. Heads you win; tails I lose. Got it.

So remind me then: why is it you didn't complain about this for the eight years Bush was president? And why is it that Reagan is considered conservative when he reversed a 35 year trend of lower deficits (as a percentage of GDP)?

And why do you think it is that the debt has gone down during every Democratic presidential administration except Obama's? Did all Democratic presidents implement "conservative" policies except Obama? Or can you see from the graph what might explain the difference?

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NemesisToLibs Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1841770 of 1933257
Subject: Re: Oh golly, the Wall Street Journal Date: 12/2/2012 9:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"So remind me then: why is it you didn't complain about this for the eight years Bush was president? "

I did.

"And why do you think it is that the debt has gone down during every Democratic presidential administration except Obama's? Did all Democratic presidents implement "conservative" policies except Obama? Or can you see from the graph what might explain the difference?
"

Liberal policies got implemented. It can't get any simpler than that.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1841780 of 1933257
Subject: Re: Oh golly, the Wall Street Journal Date: 12/2/2012 10:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
"And why do you think it is that the debt has gone down during every Democratic presidential administration except Obama's? Did all Democratic presidents implement "conservative" policies except Obama? Or can you see from the graph what might explain the difference?
"


So since 1945, Democrats have implemented conservative policies, Republicans have implemented liberal policies, and the exception to the rule is Obama? Your analytical skills need some work.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoshRandall Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1841781 of 1933257
Subject: Re: Oh golly, the Wall Street Journal Date: 12/2/2012 10:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
http://www.investors.com/image/2A1cuts_121203_345.png.cms

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NemesisToLibs Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1841784 of 1933257
Subject: Re: Oh golly, the Wall Street Journal Date: 12/2/2012 10:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Go ahead and confuse the point. What I said is very basic and yet you still can't get it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1841795 of 1933257
Subject: Re: Oh golly, the Wall Street Journal Date: 12/3/2012 12:49 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
Well, if you read the WSJ rather than the left wing blog that references it, you'd see why Bush was left out of the chart.

I did read it. I see that they produced a chart topping several columns with the data they wanted to highlight, and threw away a mention of the President who shall not be named in Paragraph 49 or something of the text.

Do you not know how to manipulate a story to your own liking? (Hint: this is one of the ways.)

Well, first, that's not the point of the article and of Goofy's problem with it, which was an opinion piece and second, George Bush inherited a recession that lasted through most of his first year in office and was exasberated, obviously, by 9/11.

The recession lasted eight months, and was the mildest in the modern era, showing a -0.3% decline in GDP decline, peak to trough. It probably goes without saying that 9/11 happened in September. It was two months later that the economy emerged from recession, so it is fairly difficult to pin the recession on that, wouldn't you say?

In fact, if you fairly evaluate the economy during years 2, 3, and 4 of The President who shall not be named, you'd have to say it was, well, pretty dismal performance, in spite of massive tax cuts and economic policy prescriptions passed by a Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican President.

And the Wall Street Journal is worried about Obama's second term, following an economic collapse which occurred during Bush's second, an economic catastrophe unmatched since the Great Depression.

OK. Apologize for them if you like. I'd prefer it if they stuck to economic analysis rather than partisan cheap shots. But then it's thoroughly Murdoch, so what else would you expect?
 


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: alchook Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1841837 of 1933257
Subject: Re: Oh golly, the Wall Street Journal Date: 12/3/2012 9:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I did read it. I see that they produced a chart topping several columns with the data they wanted to highlight, and threw away a mention of the President who shall not be named in Paragraph 49 or something of the text.


Well, yeah, it was the data they wanted to highlight. The point of the editorial was to argue that strong economic growth differentiates a successful presidency from an unsuccessful presidency.

To back up that argument it presented the data from two "successful" presidencies, that of Clinton and Reagan. The Bush administration was, to them, a failure.

True, as you say, to understand what they were you doing did require that one actually read the article rather than just look at the pictures. Doubtless, the Huffington audience would do better with a Youtube video.

But if you know anything at all about the WSJ op/ed page and possess even the slightest appreciation of irony, you'd realize that the significant feature of the piece is that they put Clinton right next to Reagan as an example of success.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: richieds Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1842048 of 1933257
Subject: Re: Oh golly, the Wall Street Journal Date: 12/3/2012 7:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"Do you not know how to manipulate a story to your own liking? (Hint: this is one of the ways."

You do realize this was an OPINION piece? In the OPINION section of the newspaper?

"The recession lasted eight months, and was the mildest in the modern era, showing a -0.3% decline in GDP decline, peak to trough"

Stock market dropped 40%. Poster I responded to said Bush came into a good economy. Mild recession is not a good economy. I never compared it to 2008/2009.

"And the Wall Street Journal is worried about Obama's second term,"

This was the opinion section and the thrust of the piece was about Obama's legacy. The premise was that the economy has decided presidential legacies and for Obama to be compared to the winners, he will need to have a very good run the next 4 years.

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (21) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement