All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Let's face it...
10/24/2012 5:43 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/24/2012 4:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 10/24/2012 3:54:00 PM (view original):
I guess the only way to get people to discuss anything on an intelligent level is to just redline 80% of the comments.  Starting with anything from cresty or swamphawk...
So can you define what Cresty and I...not really the same people in political forums....have done to make you want to limit political speech by banning us?

Both of you are obnoxiously partisan and unwilling to concede any point to the other side.  Logic dictates that that forces you into ridiculous positions.  90% of what you say is moronic.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
10/24/2012 5:49 PM
At least cresty is periodically funny.
10/24/2012 6:15 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/24/2012 5:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/24/2012 5:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/24/2012 4:36:00 PM (view original):
That's been your reasoning.  Which is fine.  To each his own.
No, my reason for voting for Obama is that his policy preferences are closer to mine than Romney's. The only reason that we are talking about the economy is that some people insist that we aren't in better shape today than we were four years ago. Which is not true.
What people have said is America isnt better off than we were 4 years ago.

Obama took over at the bottom of a crash.

The natural physics of the economy would lead logical people to believe things would get better.

Obama's reckless agedna driven polcies have made that recovery stagnate and his wild debt has caused capital needed for growth to dry up.

That is why Obama needs to be replaced with someone with experience and training in economic issues.
Wow, there is a whole lot going on there.

How did the debt cause capital to dry up?


10/24/2012 7:18 PM
There is only so many pieces of pie in the global economy chart.

If you are borrowing a slice from the Chinese to fund Obamacare than a small business in Indiana cannot have a part of that piece to start a dry cleaning business.
10/24/2012 7:22 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/24/2012 5:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/24/2012 4:36:00 PM (view original):
That's been your reasoning.  Which is fine.  To each his own.
No, my reason for voting for Obama is that his policy preferences are closer to mine than Romney's. The only reason that we are talking about the economy is that some people insist that we aren't in better shape today than we were four years ago. Which is not true.

Saying "we're better off today than 4 years ago" over and over again doesn't make it true.   Not even if you jump in the air and click your heels.

10/24/2012 7:24 PM
If you're borrowing it from the Chinese then wouldn't it be a small business in Canton?  The province, not the town in Ohio.

Of course, it's a pointless triviality since your whole point demonstrates a very poor knowledge of economics.  Though my guess is that at least my first approximation would be that money going to pay for Obamacare actually goes less far than money paying for starting small businesses.  I can't imagine the money multiplier is as large on federal funds than small businesses pouring it into equipment, contractors, and employees.
10/24/2012 7:30 PM (edited)
Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/24/2012 7:18:00 PM (view original):
There is only so many pieces of pie in the global economy chart.

If you are borrowing a slice from the Chinese to fund Obamacare than a small business in Indiana cannot have a part of that piece to start a dry cleaning business.
If there was crowding out interest rates would rise. And they haven't. I don't think there is a shortage of capital. But there is a shortage of capital movement.

Plus, the return on treasury bonds is nothing (or very close to it). It's an extremely low risk investment. Someone considering investing in an Indian dry cleaner (extremely high risk investment) isn't considering investing that money in treasury bonds.
10/24/2012 7:29 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/24/2012 7:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/24/2012 5:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/24/2012 4:36:00 PM (view original):
That's been your reasoning.  Which is fine.  To each his own.
No, my reason for voting for Obama is that his policy preferences are closer to mine than Romney's. The only reason that we are talking about the economy is that some people insist that we aren't in better shape today than we were four years ago. Which is not true.

Saying "we're better off today than 4 years ago" over and over again doesn't make it true.   Not even if you jump in the air and click your heels.

And you denying it over and over again doesn't make your argument true. But every economic indicator we have shows that things are better today than they were at the start of Obama's term. That's what makes my statement true.
10/24/2012 7:34 PM
I guess unemployment and housing prices aren't part of your economic indicators.   Nor is the increasing number of people who require govt assistance.

Oh well, I guess you're right, Dorothy.
10/24/2012 7:38 PM
Unemployment is down from something like 10% in 2009.
10/24/2012 7:39 PM
Housing was a bubble. It will likely never come back. Regardless of the President.

10/24/2012 7:40 PM
Well if we are looking at straight numbers than I make more than George washington did as President.

Of course with adjustments he made a lot more than me.

Some static measures show things are better.

He took over in a collpase. Things were going to get better. Economic physics move everything to the center. If you are on top it is harder to stay there, and if you are on the bottom it is easier to get out of there.

So looking at how bad things still are one has to conclude that the economy should be better by any logical standard.



10/24/2012 7:40 PM
Government assistance has been expanded to help the unemployed and keep the economy from falling back into a recession.
10/24/2012 7:41 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/24/2012 7:40:00 PM (view original):
Well if we are looking at straight numbers than I make more than George washington did as President.

Of course with adjustments he made a lot more than me.

Some static measures show things are better.

He took over in a collpase. Things were going to get better. Economic physics move everything to the center. If you are on top it is harder to stay there, and if you are on the bottom it is easier to get out of there.

So looking at how bad things still are one has to conclude that the economy should be better by any logical standard.



That doesn't change the fact that the economy IS better now than it was when Obama took office.
of 11
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Let's face it...

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.