 McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 10257 Posts
|
Monday, January 07, 2013 8:11:58 AM
Charts don't cure boredom they start political talks which generate boredom. |
|
 patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
5290 Posts
|
Monday, January 07, 2013 6:08:32 AM
I'm not so fond of people who have such one-dimensional analysis as to think that Bush single-handedly caused the housing crisis and destroyed the economy.
Well that's pretty much what the right has always accused Obama of, so I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander. |
|
patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
5290 Posts
|
Monday, January 07, 2013 6:07:22 AM
Seriously? We're talking about the inevitable bubble here.
That's not necessarily accurate. The commission appointed to analyze the causes of the crisis found that "the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve’s failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels." |
|
 Andrew155
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
1074 Posts
|
Sunday, January 06, 2013 8:53:35 PM
And I must say, I'm not so fond of people who have such one-dimensional analysis as to think that Bush single-handedly caused the housing crisis and destroyed the economy. Surely, I am no fan of him. I am a fan of intellectual honesty, however.
You really think that the housing crisis would not have happened if John Kerry had got elected??? Seriously? We're talking about the inevitable bubble here. The one that arose from the ashes of the previous dot.com bubble. Right, we would've been booming if John Kerry got elected. Europe would be stellar. No wars, either. Totally. |
|
Andrew155
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
1074 Posts
|
Sunday, January 06, 2013 8:50:34 PM
tedgp, it's debt of gdp. That means that you can incure more debt, but the ratio doesn't have to increase if the economy is growing.
As for the whole Obama "two wars" thing, this is the weirdest thing I hear. We have 16.5 trillion now. If we take all the Iraq war money away, we would be 15.7 trillion in debt. Moreover, basically all that money was spent before Obama. I'm telling you honestly, you all focus a little too much on that one spending item that was, yes, a bad idea.
But all in all, this graph tells a great story. However, not very much by itself. Still, how is it not interesting? This is just raw, statistical data. It has no bias.
|
|
rosieodonnel
Male, 18-29, Western US
27 Posts
|
Sunday, January 06, 2013 6:26:39 PM
@tedgp Right because all those wars stopped when Obama got elected. |
|
rosieodonnel
Male, 18-29, Western US
27 Posts
|
Sunday, January 06, 2013 6:25:19 PM
@markust123 Why the hell even comment then? Oh right, you're a self-righteous asshat. |
|
tedgp
Male, 30-39, Europe
2933 Posts
|
Sunday, January 06, 2013 9:09:17 AM
Not to mention that when GW Bush took the US into deep recession, of course obama's debt scenario would spike. It's logical economics. |
|
tedgp
Male, 30-39, Europe
2933 Posts
|
Sunday, January 06, 2013 9:08:02 AM
The part about G W Bush having a steady debt is 100% wrong. Unless he magically pulled all that money used to wage wars and throw a country into recession, out of thin air |
|
 Finker
Male, 40-49, Europe
480 Posts
|
Sunday, January 06, 2013 8:47:29 AM
@robthelurker, how do you feel about an intelligence test before being able to vote? |
|
 ssalty
Male, 60-69, Western US
100 Posts
|
Sunday, January 06, 2013 8:44:51 AM
Okay, there was a decline after FDR. That had to be the plan. Recovery is tough and long-term. We're living through it right now, though it isn't as hard as my parents lived through in the '30's.
|
|
robthelurker
Male, 18-29, Canada
813 Posts
|
Sunday, January 06, 2013 8:25:04 AM
im sorry, i took one look at this and was just like, "NOPE!" seriously im not gonna take the time out of browsing the internet to try and comprehend some graph money president chart thing. i mean come on people, are there those of you who are actually looking at this and going, "omagod i cant believe this or that." i dont even really understand what this means to begin with, economics is stupid. if i ruled the world it would be a communist dictatorship, everyone would receive the same amount of money every month, lets say 50 thousand a month, and me, the dictator, rules fairly and justly from atop my mountain in my harem filled with wenches. |
|
TheGuySmiley
Male, 18-29, Canada
1187 Posts
|
Sunday, January 06, 2013 8:02:12 AM
...
 |
|
Keggar
Male, 50-59, Western US
39 Posts
|
Sunday, January 06, 2013 7:59:17 AM
Are we missing the most important years here like 10, 11 and 12. Something tells me that my computer monitor is not tall enough to show it anyway. America! Why you so stupid? Very lucky that the right had control over the purse strings during the last part of the Clinton era. |
|
 Zeegrr60
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
1514 Posts
|
Sunday, January 06, 2013 7:44:00 AM
I miss the cold war. the thought of SOMEONE nuking congress was good stress relief.
|
|
 drawman61
Male, 50-59, Europe
1404 Posts
|
Sunday, January 06, 2013 6:06:33 AM
Are you spending more on guns?...just askin' |
|
 botfly
Male, 50-59, Eastern US
549 Posts
|
Sunday, January 06, 2013 5:41:54 AM
Saturday, January 05, 2013 9:12:12 PM
How about telling the whole truth and not stopping at 2009? It would show a very different picture of the debt.
They would have to make the chart a lot taller. |
|
 3002-3038
Female, 18-29, Western US
480 Posts
|
Sunday, January 06, 2013 5:21:31 AM
yeah yeah, and by the time obama is out of office the debt will be down and the economy will be better and everyone will cheer for the new president thinking he was the cause, because people are drating retarded and don't understand economics. |
|
ilyaD
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
61 Posts
|
Sunday, January 06, 2013 12:04:14 AM
@Beternal - The United States congress is divided into two parts, the Senate (50 seats[2 reps from each state]) and the House (?435 seats[reps based on population]) so like right now, we have a Democratically controlled Senate but a Republican controlled House. |
|
ilyaD
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
61 Posts
|
Sunday, January 06, 2013 12:02:09 AM
Man, really makes me yearn to those good ol' Nixon-Ford years. |
|
 beternal
Male, 18-29, Europe
1849 Posts
|
Saturday, January 05, 2013 11:53:09 PM
Why is space wasted on the graph with both House and Senate?! - they both appear to be saying the same thing... (someone feel free to explain!)
57th house = 57th senate
101 house = 101 senate... |
|
 handimanner
Male, 50-59, Western US
1214 Posts
|
Saturday, January 05, 2013 10:28:35 PM
How about telling the whole truth and itemizing what percentage is 10 years of Bush tax cuts and two wars? |
|
 patticakes
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
457 Posts
|
Saturday, January 05, 2013 9:12:12 PM
How about telling the whole truth and not stopping at 2009? It would show a very different picture of the debt. |
|
 markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
3783 Posts
|
Saturday, January 05, 2013 9:09:51 PM
You can't have a partisan fight if you don't have an enemy. I'm stepping out of this one. I invite every liberal to do the same. I don't need it anymore. |
|
scapegoat7
Male, 18-29, Western US
200 Posts
|
Saturday, January 05, 2013 8:23:38 PM
The worst political joke is that we keep electing them.
Still better then Romney though, lol. Its gonna be a tough long crawl back to the top but the US will go on. |
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}