Democrats said this:




Was such a problem that all incumbent Republicans needed to be removed from office? How much is gas today?

Vote out the Republican House!

thats from back when presidents could 'control' the price of gas.

nowadays, its nothing anybody can do anything about.

unless a gop becomes president again.

then it'll be the president's responsbility again

(04-16-2012 08:40 AM)Cardiff Wrote:  thats from back when presidents could 'control' the price of gas.

nowadays, its nothing anybody can do anything about.

unless a gop becomes president again.

then it'll be the president's responsbility again

No, now it's speculators' fault.

Presidents can't do much to lower gas prices, but starting wars in the Middle East will sure as hell raise them.

Now that tensions with Iran are subsiding, many analysts are saying the gas price spike appears to have reached its peak.

(04-16-2012 08:59 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Presidents can't do much to lower gas prices, but starting wars in the Middle East will sure as hell raise them.

Now that tensions with Iran are subsiding, many analysts are saying the gas price spike appears to have reached its peak.

(04-16-2012 09:12 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 08:59 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Presidents can't do much to lower gas prices, but starting wars in the Middle East will sure as hell raise them.

Now that tensions with Iran are subsiding, many analysts are saying the gas price spike appears to have reached its peak.

My that's impressive. Where'd you learn to do that?

(04-16-2012 09:26 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

Wait, you're trying to prove whatever point you're making with an image showing oil prices have skyrocketed? Oh, gee, thanks Kyle, I didn't know that.


BTW, you might want to find one that goes to 2012. His ass is gone in November.

My point is that starting Middle East wars spike oil prices. The chart supports that. It even points you to the first and second Gulf Wars for easy reference.

(04-16-2012 08:23 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Democrats said this:




Was such a problem that all incumbent Republicans needed to be removed from office? How much is gas today?

Was that before or After Obama called the addition of trillions in debt "unpatriotic"

Adding trillions of debt to fight unnecessary wars and give the rich tax breaks =/= adding trillions of debt to inject demand into a devastated economy caused by adding trillions of debt to fight unnecessary wars and give the rich tax breaks

(04-16-2012 10:50 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Adding trillions of debt to fight unnecessary wars and give the rich tax breaks =/= adding trillions of debt to inject demand into a devastated economy caused by adding trillions of debt to fight unnecessary wars and give the rich tax breaks

Generation warfare is always wrong weather its for wars or for Obama to buy votes...

(04-16-2012 10:50 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Adding trillions of debt to fight unnecessary wars and give the rich tax breaks =/= adding trillions of debt to inject demand into a devastated economy caused by adding trillions of debt to fight unnecessary wars and give the rich tax breaks

Really? What was was started in '07? '08? As for tax breaks, they wouldn't TOUCH our national debt if repealed. You could confiscate ALL of their wealth and still not touch it.

Put the money supply chart over the oil price chart. Oil price directly follows the money supply chart. Oil is expensive because the fed is destroying the dollar. In stable dollars it has stayed the same.

(04-16-2012 10:54 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 10:50 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Adding trillions of debt to fight unnecessary wars and give the rich tax breaks =/= adding trillions of debt to inject demand into a devastated economy caused by adding trillions of debt to fight unnecessary wars and give the rich tax breaks

Generation warfare is always wrong weather its for wars or for Obama to buy votes...

Generational warfare would have been to cut taxes on the rich and government spending and watch us spiral even further down into a depression in 2009, with increased deficits caused by a dumpster fire economy producing less and less tax revenue, until we finally hit rock bottom potentially years later like we did in the early 1930s, and take a decade or more to get back to pre-depression levels.

(04-16-2012 10:55 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 10:50 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Adding trillions of debt to fight unnecessary wars and give the rich tax breaks =/= adding trillions of debt to inject demand into a devastated economy caused by adding trillions of debt to fight unnecessary wars and give the rich tax breaks

Really? What was was started in '07? '08? As for tax breaks, they wouldn't TOUCH our national debt if repealed. You could confiscate ALL of their wealth and still not touch it.

That's crap. The Bush tax cuts have cost $3 trillion over the last decade. That "touches" the debt. Throw in the increased defense spending for the wars for another $2 trillion (though to be fair even without the wars defense spending would have gone up) and that's $5 trillion.

(04-16-2012 11:16 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Put the money supply chart over the oil price chart. Oil price directly follows the money supply chart. Oil is expensive because the fed is destroying the dollar. In stable dollars it has stayed the same.

Maybe I misunderstand you, but no I don't see it.

Oil price chart--



Monetary supply chart--

Preparing any chart like that requires a substantial number of interpretations and assumptions. The one Max has presented (many times) was prepared with those assumptions essentially all in favor of making the deficit look as much like Bush's fault and as little like Obama's as possible. Another presentation would simply look at $5 trillion in 8 years under Bush and $5 trillion in 4 years under Obama and suggest a very different conclusion. Another way would be to look at Bush with democrats in control of congress, Bush with republicans in control of congress, Bush with a split congress, Obama with democrats in control of congress, and Obama with a split congress; that would suggest a somewhat different conclusion.

The numbers can pretty much be spun different ways to portray a number of different viewpoints. Given where Max is coming from, it's no surprise that he posts the graphic that most closely reflects his political views.

Rather than get into duelling graphics, I'd rather just say that all of the deficits in any chart are too much, and that both Bush and Obama--along with their respective congresses, republican or democrat or split--are all responsible. There are not heroes anywhere in this.

If you have a different chart feel free to post. It's the most concise chart I've seen. I do think it deflects blame from Obama for continuation of Bush's policies. I don't think the two midterm changes in Congress made that much of a difference, because the policy initiatives of the presidents were in place by that time and they largely resulted in a stalemate. The one exception might be that Obama would have tried a second stimulus if he had a Dem congress this past year.