I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

60 Years of US Economic History, In 1 Graph [Pic]

Hits: 13947 | Rating: (2.7) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: fancylad
Page: 1 2 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
emmettyville
Female, 40-49, Australia
 4268 Posts
Saturday, August 25, 2012 1:09:14 PM
it's not that they forget, it's that they are paying absolutely no attention.

elkingo
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 3483 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 9:05:26 PM
How do people forget recent US history so easily?

elkingo
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 3483 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 6:43:22 PM
How do people forget recent US history so easily?

elkingo
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 3483 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 6:41:52 PM
@FoolsPrussia: The economy wasn't actually "sinking" until 2007, despite two wars. It completely fell out in 2007 when home loans started going into default (You can thank Bill Clinton for that!). However, and despite this, it was beginning to rebound in 2008, then there was panic over an election year (rightfully so!). People stopped investing out of fear that Obama would follow through on his campaign promises (again, rightly so!). It is all in the graph I provided.

elkingo
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 3483 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 6:31:38 PM
I can do a neater graph... I just assumed my overlays would impart the information that seems relatively obvious.

Here you go.


Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10287 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 3:42:45 PM
You were right good, Sir. I was wrong in my initial psychic prediction, damnit.


It's cool, everyone has their shortfalls when it comes to conversation. Even me.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 3:05:08 PM
@SmagBoy1: HumanAction, it's interesting that you assume that I'm a liberal.

Fair enough - perhaps I was being a bit too eager to jump on that one. I've been arguing with the likes of @piperfawn thus far today and find myself in a confrontational state. I apologize about that.

Too, though, I don't think that Obama's policies are any more a "threat to the union" (as I hear so many people say) as any belonging to past presidents

True; Roosevelt, for example, was terrible.

For future reference, I consider myself a libertarian - though I take an interest in fighting with liberals.

SmagBoy1
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4243 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 3:04:00 PM
And, fact is, I think that we need a lot MORE intelligent conversation.

And, finally, I have to apologize to Cajun247. You were right good, Sir. I was wrong in my initial psychic prediction, damnit. And now that I've read all of the posts, find that only a few fall into my prediction. Why, oh why, did we have to start having civil and reasonable discussion on the very thread that I broke out my Great Carnak impression?!

SmagBoy1
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4243 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 2:58:30 PM
HumanAction, it's interesting that you assume that I'm a liberal. Well, okay, I am when it comes to social issues, but I'm relatively centrist or even a little conservative on fiscal issues. I just disagree with how we spend our money.

But, a) I wasn't talking about you, just so you know. And, b) I agree with you! I don't think any administration has been all bad or all good, and I think they could all do better! Too, though, I don't think that Obama's policies are any more a "threat to the union" (as I hear so many people say) as any belonging to past presidents, and I imagine he's done better than some, given what he started with.

I hope that clarifies things a bit.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 2:53:48 PM
@SmagBoy1: Perhaps you're speaking about me? If that is indeed the case, it is a shame you didn't bother to stay and have an intelligent conversation; you would have found that I blame most administrations for the current situation - Democrat and Republican. I would be happy to discuss the economics of Clinton, Bush, and Obama with you and why they were all wrong.

However, as is the typical liberal response, you close your mind to sensible discussion in favor of nothing more that the delusions propagated by your favorite news station.

Enjoy your life in the dark.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10287 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 2:43:44 PM
Is that about right? Thought so.


You don't care if you're wrong? Thought so.

SmagBoy1
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4243 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 2:32:47 PM
Okay, so, I'm not even going to read the comments before I say that the reliable conservatives on here are posting like crazy blaming every single bad thing that's ever happened economically on the Democrats (and really hammering Obama and all of his "failures"), and every good thing that's ever, ever, ever happened, they're crediting the Republicans for having caused. Is that about right? Thought so.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 12:08:17 PM
@FoolsPrussia: My issue with Obama's economics is that they are Keynesian in nature. His efforts to pass Jobs Bills and Bailouts are well intentioned, but foolish. Consider if we fund 10,000 jobs for 2 years with that money. What then happens after the 2 years? Then, we are in the same boat except we also have a debt to account for.

In addition, the money used to provide these jobs has been taken from those who have proven successful in creating profit. Now, government cannot increase total wealth; they can increase the wealth of an individual person, but they cannot increase the wealth of the country. Only production is able to do this (the private market). To me, this suggests that the money should stay in the private market.

That being said, the current conservative mantra of tax cuts does nothing without incredibly drastic spending cuts.

dang007
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 591 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 12:02:26 PM
>>>He was the only POTUS to ever completely balance the US budget.<<<

I am not sure that is exactly true. Can you sight the specific year were revenue = expenses or revenue > expenses. I believe what he did was have a budget that over the 10 projection became balanced because of some never materialized decrease in growth of expenses and or never materialized sudden increase in revenue. But would be happily surprised if that is not the case. Recall that the feds do not budget the way you or I would, they use some screwy rolling 10 year projection that is based on what might happen.

FoolsPrussia
Male, 30-39, Western US
 3399 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 11:51:19 AM
@Demynted: I think you missed my point. I'm actually blaming Bush for the most part. Clinton does share responsibility for the housing bubble, however, even though he had a budget surplus.

Regarding HA's comments, I'm glad we can agree somewhat. However, my problems with Obama's administration is that it has been too tepid in it's response. In a word, too conservative. It's hard for me to take conservatives seriously when they say that liberal policies haven't fixed the economy, when much of the last four years of economic policy have been tax cuts and austerity meaures. Those are conservative economic policies, and they're not working.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 11:42:42 AM
@Demynted: You should read into the CPA policies of Clinton.

His policies allowed subprime lending to propagate much more vigorously than his predecessors. I'd be happy to explain them, and their economic impacts, moreso if you would like.

Demynted
Male, 30-39, Western US
 78 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 11:23:27 AM
@FoolsPrussia: I understand if you want to get across the point that it is not entirely Bush's fault (either of them), however, you gravely misspeak when you shift blame to Clinton. He was the only POTUS to ever completely balance the US budget. Had his policies remained in place, the USA would not be trillions of dollars in debt, but would be out of debt and breaking even (cause lets face it, any government would immediately spend a surplus of cash). After Clinton, we went to war and spent and borrowed ourselves to death. And that WAS the Bushes.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 10:35:44 AM
@FoolsPrussia: I agree entirely. I've never supported the Bush administrations policies. I merely tired of hearing how Bush caused all of the current problems. There were other players, including our current president.

FoolsPrussia
Male, 30-39, Western US
 3399 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 9:46:12 AM
Clinton does deserve some share of the criticism for the housing market crash, but Bush fiddled while Rome burned, cutting taxes while he waged two wars. Complain all you want about Keynesian economic policies waged in attempt to rescue a sinking ecomony, but the expense of a stimulus wouldn't have been as difficult to swallow had we not bankrupt ourselves the previous 8 years of unnecessary war while taking in less revenue.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5718 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 7:11:32 AM
@Elkingo: Musuko was correct, your graph is a mess.
1) What do the dark vertical bars represent?
2) Is the bright blue line at the top supposed to be some sort of trend line or something?
3) What is the horizontal pink line right below the black income line?

I even went to the website full of these messy graphs, and the most I can find really is that the pink seems to be a trend line, but it almost looks like a trend line of the base or something. Get a better graph next time or explain yours better.

auburnjunky
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 10131 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 7:10:22 AM
"the housing market collapse was Clinton's fault?"

It was Clinton, and CARTER! *gasp!*

Carter originally gets credit for the CRA, and Clinton expanded it.

This will never be admitted.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 6:58:08 AM
So wait. I know the liberals among us suggest that the current economic situation is wholly the fault of Bush policies.

Does that then imply that, using the same logic of delayed economics, the housing market collapse was Clinton's fault?

elkingo
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 3483 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 4:30:36 AM
It seems rather obvious that the very large dip in income is from the housing market crash, and not Bush policies. The steep climb back up is Obama's Stimulus. It is a failed stimulus because:

a. It cost somewhere around $831 billion.

b. Unemployment rate is still around 8.1% (It was 7.8% at the end of Bush's presidency at the beginning of the housing market crash, and around 4.5% before the crash.) Source

c. personal income is going back down less than two years after that stimulus

Rather straight forward information if you ask me, and rather silly that people blame all of that on Bush.

elkingo
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 3483 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 4:22:12 AM
"If, going by the black line, you mean the massive trough just after the housing market crash: I'd assume THAT is the credit crunch/recession (which, afaik, came on the heels of the housing crash, not at the exact same time)."

You get a cookie for that keen observation! =D

So, lets extrapolate what that information means:

Clinton screwed over the housing market = Clinton's fault; and not Bush's.

It really isn't rocket surgery. (heh heh)

elkingo
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 3483 Posts
Friday, August 24, 2012 4:19:52 AM
@Musuko42 Are you retarded? You see the Text at the beginning of the lines I made? It is the same color of what the line indicates.

Page: 1 2 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.