All these posts and still none of you have answered the initial question, nor refuted my claim.

I'm still waiting.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:All these posts and still none of you have answered the initial question, nor refuted my claim.

I'm still waiting.

I answered you with legitimate info from a legitimate source (i.e. not the NY Times). You also didn't answer my question. Why should we waste more time with someone who either does not understand economics or has so much hatred towards anything non-Clinton that he justs blows it off with comments like "The chart you show is inaccurate". You leave little room for debate in your "I am always right (but usually not), your always wrong" approach.

blah Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:All these posts and still none of you have answered the initial question, nor refuted my claim.

I'm still waiting.

I answered you with legitimate info from a legitimate source (i.e. not the NY Times). You also didn't answer my question. Why should we waste more time with someone who either does not understand economics or has so much hatred towards anything non-Clinton that he justs blows it off with comments like "The chart you show is inaccurate". You leave little room for debate in your "I am always right (but usually not), your always wrong" approach.

Ah, you attack the source (NY Times) instead of the argument. Of course, they got their info from the Department of Commerce, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Economic Policy Institute, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

And you got your chart from where exactly? A blog?

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

blah Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:All these posts and still none of you have answered the initial question, nor refuted my claim.

I'm still waiting.

I answered you with legitimate info from a legitimate source (i.e. not the NY Times). You also didn't answer my question. Why should we waste more time with someone who either does not understand economics or has so much hatred towards anything non-Clinton that he justs blows it off with comments like "The chart you show is inaccurate". You leave little room for debate in your "I am always right (but usually not), your always wrong" approach.

Ah, you attack the source (NY Times) instead of the argument. Of course, they got their info from the Department of Commerce, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Economic Policy Institute, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

And you got your chart from where exactly? A blog?

I did not attack your source until after you said mine was "inaccurate". I just provided another source. Then you call me out for questioning the source of your chart, when you have questioned mine twice now (hypocrite). You called out everyone in this forum for not rebutting, which wasn't true (liar) and you still haven't answered my question.

blah Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

blah Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:All these posts and still none of you have answered the initial question, nor refuted my claim.

I'm still waiting.

I answered you with legitimate info from a legitimate source (i.e. not the NY Times). You also didn't answer my question. Why should we waste more time with someone who either does not understand economics or has so much hatred towards anything non-Clinton that he justs blows it off with comments like "The chart you show is inaccurate". You leave little room for debate in your "I am always right (but usually not), your always wrong" approach.

Ah, you attack the source (NY Times) instead of the argument. Of course, they got their info from the Department of Commerce, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Economic Policy Institute, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

And you got your chart from where exactly? A blog?

I did not attack your source until after you said mine was "inaccurate". I just provided another source. Then you call me out for questioning the source of your chart, when you have questioned mine twice now (hypocrite). You called out everyone in this forum for not rebutting, which wasn't true (liar) and you still haven't answered my question.

Yep, your chart was from a blog. Really, you should quit while you're behind.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:All these posts and still none of you have answered the initial question, nor refuted my claim.

I'm still waiting.

I did both in my last post. But as usual you ignore it when logic and reason prove you false.

It's official, you are the Black Knight of the spin room.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

blah Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

blah Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:All these posts and still none of you have answered the initial question, nor refuted my claim.

I'm still waiting.

I answered you with legitimate info from a legitimate source (i.e. not the NY Times). You also didn't answer my question. Why should we waste more time with someone who either does not understand economics or has so much hatred towards anything non-Clinton that he justs blows it off with comments like "The chart you show is inaccurate". You leave little room for debate in your "I am always right (but usually not), your always wrong" approach.

Ah, you attack the source (NY Times) instead of the argument. Of course, they got their info from the Department of Commerce, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Economic Policy Institute, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

And you got your chart from where exactly? A blog?

I did not attack your source until after you said mine was "inaccurate". I just provided another source. Then you call me out for questioning the source of your chart, when you have questioned mine twice now (hypocrite). You called out everyone in this forum for not rebutting, which wasn't true (liar) and you still haven't answered my question.

Yep, your chart was from a blog. Really, you should quit while you're behind.

The chart may have been from a blog, but the data was from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Really, you should have never have even started.

If you want to make it political and be consistent economically, this is roughly how they compare, Bush v. clinton economies

the Bush 43 Economy/cycle came out of recession around August 2003, it was prolonged by the obvious events.

August 2003 Unemployment Rate was 6.1 %

August 2007 isn't out yet, but in July it was 4.5%

So we are now roughly 4 years into the latest Economic Expansion.....although since the GDP didn't decline some argue we are now in a different era anyway...

As for the "Clinton Economy", the economy was already out of recession by the time he took office in Jan. 93 but not too far removed. So if you look at the 4 years of that economic expansion and attach Clinton's name to it then we can do Jan 93 to Jan. 97...

Jan 93 Unemployment Rate: 7.3% 93' GDP = 6.7 Trillion

Jan 97 Unemployment Rate: 5.3% 97' GDP = 8.3 Trillion


the comparisons can be spun many ways, but they should line up economic expansion years together if being intellectually honest. instead of the day bush took office vs. day CLinton took office. This is how the NYT and other partisian hacks spin the numbers to make the 'clinton economy' look superior to the 'bush economy'. When bush came into office a recession had already started, when Clinton came it was already out of a recession! there are alot of other differences, but the trap is trying to compare 8 years to 8 years, which is all about politics.

blah Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

blah Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

blah Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:All these posts and still none of you have answered the initial question, nor refuted my claim.

I'm still waiting.

I answered you with legitimate info from a legitimate source (i.e. not the NY Times). You also didn't answer my question. Why should we waste more time with someone who either does not understand economics or has so much hatred towards anything non-Clinton that he justs blows it off with comments like "The chart you show is inaccurate". You leave little room for debate in your "I am always right (but usually not), your always wrong" approach.

Ah, you attack the source (NY Times) instead of the argument. Of course, they got their info from the Department of Commerce, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Economic Policy Institute, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

And you got your chart from where exactly? A blog?

I did not attack your source until after you said mine was "inaccurate". I just provided another source. Then you call me out for questioning the source of your chart, when you have questioned mine twice now (hypocrite). You called out everyone in this forum for not rebutting, which wasn't true (liar) and you still haven't answered my question.

Yep, your chart was from a blog. Really, you should quit while you're behind.

The chart may have been from a blog, but the data was from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Really, you should have never have even started.

Apparently, you never read the source of the NY Times chart.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ah, you attack the source (NY Times) instead of the argument. Of course, they got their info from the Department of Commerce, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Economic Policy Institute, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

And you got your chart from where exactly? A blog?

Are you really that dense? I'm beginning to think that you are a parody.

I've bolded the parts that point out your obvious cognitive dissonance.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Ah, you attack the source (NY Times) instead of the argument. Of course, they got their info from the Department of Commerce, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Economic Policy Institute, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

And you got your chart from where exactly? A blog?

Are you really that dense? I'm beginning to think that you are a parody.

I've bolded the parts that point out your obvious cognitive dissonance.

I was pointing out the irony of his claims.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

blah Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

blah Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

blah Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:All these posts and still none of you have answered the initial question, nor refuted my claim.

I'm still waiting.

I answered you with legitimate info from a legitimate source (i.e. not the NY Times). You also didn't answer my question. Why should we waste more time with someone who either does not understand economics or has so much hatred towards anything non-Clinton that he justs blows it off with comments like "The chart you show is inaccurate". You leave little room for debate in your "I am always right (but usually not), your always wrong" approach.

Ah, you attack the source (NY Times) instead of the argument. Of course, they got their info from the Department of Commerce, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Economic Policy Institute, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

And you got your chart from where exactly? A blog?

I did not attack your source until after you said mine was "inaccurate". I just provided another source. Then you call me out for questioning the source of your chart, when you have questioned mine twice now (hypocrite). You called out everyone in this forum for not rebutting, which wasn't true (liar) and you still haven't answered my question.

Yep, your chart was from a blog. Really, you should quit while you're behind.

The chart may have been from a blog, but the data was from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Really, you should have never have even started.

Apparently, you never read the source of the NY Times chart.

I didn't question your info until you questioned mine. I don't feel there is any difference between a blog and the NY Times. The data is the same, which I also stated above and you ignored. In case you forgot, you were the one who initially claimed that my chart was "inaccurate".

P.S. You still haven't answered the question.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:I was pointing out the irony of his claims.

I used to think this was for Dogger, but now I know you have taken the mantle for your own. Congrats.

Quote:Togc:
None shall pass.
ARTHUR:
What?
Togc:
None shall pass.
ARTHUR:
I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight, but I must cross this bridge.
Togc:
Then you shall die.
ARTHUR:
I command you, as King of the Britons, to stand aside!
Togc:
I move for no man.
ARTHUR:
So be it!
ARTHUR and Togc:
Aaah!, hiyaah!, etc.
[ARTHUR chops Togc's left arm off]

ARTHUR:
Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
Togc:
'Tis but a scratch.
ARTHUR:
A scratch? Your arm's off!
Togc:
No, it isn't.
ARTHUR:
Well, what's that, then?
Togc:
I've had worse.
ARTHUR:
You liar!
Togc:
Come on, you pansy!
[clang]
Huyah!
[clang]
Hiyaah!
[clang]
Aaaaaaaah!
[ARTHUR chops Togc's right arm off]

ARTHUR:
Victory is mine!
[kneeling]
We thank Thee Lord, that in Thy mer--
Togc:
Hah!
[kick]
Come on, then.
ARTHUR:
What?
Togc:
Have at you!
[kick]
ARTHUR:
Eh. You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine.
Togc:
Oh, had enough, eh?
ARTHUR:
Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left.
Togc:
Yes, I have.
ARTHUR:
Look!
Togc:
Just a flesh wound.
[kick]
ARTHUR:
Look, stop that.
Togc:
Chicken!
[kick]
Chickennn!
ARTHUR:
Look, I'll have your leg.
[kick]
Right!
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops Togc's right leg off]

Togc:
Right. I'll do you for that!
ARTHUR:
You'll what?
Togc:
Come here!
ARTHUR:
What are you going to do, bleed on me?
Togc:
I'm invincible!
ARTHUR:
You're a looney.
Togc:
Togc always triumphs! Have at you! Come on, then.
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops Togc's last leg off]

Togc:
Oh? All right, we'll call it a draw.
ARTHUR:
Come, Patsy.
Togc:
Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!

blah Wrote:I don't feel there is any difference between a blog and the NY Times.

And that is precisely why you never have any credibility.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:I used to think this was for Dogger, but now I know you have taken the mantle for your own. Congrats.

Another worthless post by Ninerfan1. At this point, it's almost expected.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:I used to think this was for Dogger, but now I know you have taken the mantle for your own. Congrats.

Another worthless post by Ninerfan1. At this point, it's almost expected.

pot, meet kettle.

See here's the thing togc, I posted a very logical and reasoned rebuttal to you yesterday, and you just ignored. Why? Because you have to. That's your MO. You ignore posts that refute your claims and then state no one answers you.

I think BR is right. You're a parody.

Always a classic niner...................

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:I used to think this was for Dogger, but now I know you have taken the mantle for your own. Congrats.

Another worthless post by Ninerfan1. At this point, it's almost expected.

pot, meet kettle.

See here's the thing togc, I posted a very logical and reasoned rebuttal to you yesterday, and you just ignored. Why? Because you have to. That's your MO. You ignore posts that refute your claims and then state no one answers you.

I think BR is right. You're a parody.

If you are referring to this:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:If the economy is doing so well, then why is unemployment up from seven years ago and why are real wages down?

I refuted your flawed logic last time we got into this discussion and it didn't take. It's silly for me to try again, but here goes.

The standard of good vs. bad in an economy isn't how it compares to past years. For example, your flawed logic would suggest because unemployment was higher in the mid 80's than it was in the mid 90's, that the economy in the 80's was bad. By your definition we have never had a good economy in the history of this country until 7 years ago.

An unemployment rate of 4.5% as compared to 4% doesn't mean the economy is bad. The Dow is higher now than it was 7 years ago, so by your logic the economy of 7 years ago was worse than it is now.

To make a judgement on the health of the economy, as I've pointed out to you on more than one occassion, requires you to look at it in its totality, not just one or two indicators.

then that is not a logical well-reasoned rebuttal. Your comparison of good vs. bad economy is a straw man at best and a bad analogy at worst.

And in our previous discussion, I pointed out that many indicators show that the economy is bad, and getting worse.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:then that is not a logical well-reasoned rebuttal. Your comparison of good vs. bad economy is a straw man at best and a bad analogy at worst.

While I know you think using terms from Intro to Debate make you seem as though you know more than you do, for those of us who know what they mean you just make a fool of yourself. I didn't make a straw man, I made a valid comparison based on your reasoning.

So professor why don't you enlighten me. How is it that unemployment being up .5% from 7 years ago means the economy is bad, but the market being a few thousand higher than it was 7 years ago doesn't mean we're in a good economy?

Why is .5% difference indicative of a bad economy? Are you really arguing that a mere .5% swings an economy from good to bad?

Historically unemployment has never been below 4%. So since you place so much value in that stat then clearly we've never had a good economy before it hit that.

Quote:And in our previous discussion, I pointed out that many indicators show that the economy is bad, and getting worse.

No, you really didn't. You kept saying the same thing over and over again while ignoring the points people made to refute you. This thread is just de ja vu all over again.

And you never answered Shorebuc. Why don't you tell us what in your mind makes a good economy. My guess is it's as simple as a republican not in the White House. But I still want you to answer the question.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:I used to think this was for Dogger, but now I know you have taken the mantle for your own. Congrats.

Another worthless post by Ninerfan1. At this point, it's almost expected.

pot, meet kettle.

See here's the thing togc, I posted a very logical and reasoned rebuttal to you yesterday, and you just ignored. Why? Because you have to. That's your MO. You ignore posts that refute your claims and then state no one answers you.

I think BR is right. You're a parody.

If you are referring to this:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:If the economy is doing so well, then why is unemployment up from seven years ago and why are real wages down?

I refuted your flawed logic last time we got into this discussion and it didn't take. It's silly for me to try again, but here goes.

The standard of good vs. bad in an economy isn't how it compares to past years. For example, your flawed logic would suggest because unemployment was higher in the mid 80's than it was in the mid 90's, that the economy in the 80's was bad. By your definition we have never had a good economy in the history of this country until 7 years ago.

An unemployment rate of 4.5% as compared to 4% doesn't mean the economy is bad. The Dow is higher now than it was 7 years ago, so by your logic the economy of 7 years ago was worse than it is now.

To make a judgement on the health of the economy, as I've pointed out to you on more than one occassion, requires you to look at it in its totality, not just one or two indicators.

then that is not a logical well-reasoned rebuttal. Your comparison of good vs. bad economy is a straw man at best and a bad analogy at worst.

And in our previous discussion, I pointed out that many indicators show that the economy is bad, and getting worse.

Is many crazy talk for one? Because I see only one thing you have posted. One NY Times article and accompanying graph.

The evidence is underwhelming.

I am done with you until you answer the question of what a good economy is....