How much has Obamacare saved the American people?

[Getin the ring]

You made several claims.

To wit: "record high GDP, record high incomes, near-record-low poverty, record budget surpluses, the lowest crime rates since the early 1960s, sky-high approval ratings abroad, and a situation of peace."

Can you substantiate them factually, or not?

Answer.

During his time in office, the economy has achieved feats most experts thought impossible. GDP is growing at a 3 percent-plus rate. The unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Meanwhile, the stock market has jumped amid a surge in corporate profits.

Friday brought another round of good news: Nonfarm payrolls rose by a better-than-expected 201,000 and wages, the last missing piece of the economic recovery, increased by 2.9 percent year over year to the highest level since April 2009. That made it the best gain since the recession ended in June 2009.

Peace, on earth?
when is the last time you heard, on your own private democrat backed, in the tank news network CNN any bad news on ISIS, or North Korea conducting missile tests,
Or Assad gassing civilians, Iran has been bitch slapped



what planet do you live on that you don't know those to be factual?

Answer?

 

[floridafan]

You made several claims.

To wit: "record high GDP, record high incomes, near-record-low poverty, record budget surpluses, the lowest crime rates since the early 1960s, sky-high approval ratings abroad, and a situation of peace."

Can you substantiate them factually, or not?

Answer.

Since when did you ever give a shit about facts

 

[montgomery]

I have no idea what the APP section is.

Really? I wish I had known taht before now. It's the 'Above Plain Politics' section of the forum and it's taken off as a refuge for anyone who wants to have a decent and respectable conversation on issues that are important to them. And if you read the rules you will understand how that's possible. However, I can't guarantee the rules as stated are going to survive for long. Guille is already pushing the envelope by telling me to 'shut up'.

Come on over and have a decent conversation in which you won't have to suffer the schlunks of this little forum world!

 

[Oneuli]

So you say, impelled by what I perceive as an unscientific prejudice.

Not proven. You are dismissed.

I can understand why you'd want to dismiss this challenge, since you haven't been able to find anything intelligent to say. But I'd urge you to keep thinking about it. Specifically, think about the reality of making policy decisions. Such decisions can almost never be made on the basis of something as definitive as scientific proof. Say, for example, you're trying to decide whether to build a new federal building in Town X or Town Y. You can study it, to try to understand the costs, traffic impacts, environmental implications, etc. But, at the end of the day, there's going to be some uncertainty. And you'll need to make a call. At that point, it's a question of whether you make the call that is supported by the most rational inferences and most informed guess-work, or whether you reject the facts and just go with your gut. It's no different with something like healthcare. You need to decide whether Obamacare is an improvement or not, relative to the pre-Obamacare alternative. It can't be proven definitively either way. But one conclusion is much more in harmony with the evidence than the other.

 

[Superfreak]

Obviously, the fact the recession started before 9/11 doesn't mean the recession might not have been avoided if not for 9/11. I suspect what we have here is a misunderstanding, on your part, about how recessions work. Recessions aren't just periods of economic contraction. If that were the case, the economy would go into recession pretty much every night, as production largely shut down in the wee hours. Rather, for it to be a "recession," the economic contraction must be sufficiently lengthy. The National Bureau of Economic Research doesn't "call" a recession until many months after what they later name as the start date, because until that point it's still possible for the contraction to be too short (or mild) to get the label "recession." But, once they decide it has crossed that threshold, they back-date it to the first sign of economic shrinkage, rather than to the date when the shrinkage was significant enough to constitute a recession (by which time, the recession may actually be just about over).

You can see what I mean if you read the actual announcement for that recession, here:

https://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001/

As you can see, they didn't call the start of the recession until November 2001 (which was actually the LAST month of the recession). When they made the call, they back-dated it to March. However, they expressly said that it might have been avoidable if not for the 9/11 attacks:

Q: The NBER has dated the beginning of the recession in March 2001. Does this mean that the attacks of September 11 did not have a role in causing the recession?

A. No. Before the attacks, it is possible that the decline in the economy would have been too mild to qualify as a recession. The attacks clearly deepened the contraction and may have been an important factor in turning the episode into a recession.

Now you know. You're welcome.

As for Y2K, the spending associated with preparing for Y2K had started 30 years before 2000 (when software calculating 30-year mortgages needed to be able to handle those digits). By the end of 1999, most of the Y2K work was done (though some continued right up through 2017, oddly enough). So, the idea that somehow that accounts for the growth cycle that continued into 2001 doesn't make much sense.

Besides, if it was that easy to create prosperity, why not just pass a law requiring all programs to be Y10K compliant? That would put all sorts of coders to work, right? But the point is you're taking them away from other, more potentially productive work, which is why nobody would argue in favor of such a law. Well, in the same way, all those computer programmers doing Y2K work were talent not available to do more productive work. What would the Clinton boom have looked like if he hadn't inherited that neglected issue from Reagan and Bush?

LOL, the growth cycle did not continue. The NASDAQ peaked in March of 2000 at just over 5000. It was under 2500 by the end of 2000 as the tech sector collapsed. The economy was on downward trajectory going into 2001 and GDP growth officially contracted in the early part of 2001. It took almost 15 years for the Nasdaq to get back to 5000.

As for Y2k spending, you say the spending started 30 years before 2000, yet later state the issue was neglected by Reagan and Bush?

You rambling about what constitutes a recession is funny. No one thinks a recession is ANY period of time of slowdown. The 'it shuts down every night' nonsense you put forth is absurd. The definition of a recession is at least two quarters of negative GDP growth.

 

[Legion]

what planet do you live on that you don't know those to be factual?

Answer?

Her claim is that Blowjob Bill achieved "record high GDP, record high incomes, near-record-low poverty, record budget surpluses, the lowest crime rates since the early 1960s, sky-high approval ratings abroad, and a situation of peace."

Here's the context:

Clinton left Bush with a terrible mess too.

If by "mess" you mean record high GDP, record high incomes, near-record-low poverty, record budget surpluses, the lowest crime rates since the early 1960s, sky-high approval ratings abroad, and a situation of peace, then yes, it was quite a mess.

 

[Legion]

Specifically, think about the reality of making policy decisions. Such decisions can almost never be made on the basis of something as definitive as scientific proof.

Is that a fact?

 

[Getin the ring]

You made several claims.

To wit: "record high GDP, record high incomes, near-record-low poverty, record budget surpluses, the lowest crime rates since the early 1960s, sky-high approval ratings abroad, and a situation of peace."

Can you substantiate them factually, or not?

Answer.

During his time in office, the economy has achieved feats most experts thought impossible. GDP is growing at a 3 percent-plus rate. The unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Meanwhile, the stock market has jumped amid a surge in corporate profits.

Friday brought another round of good news: Nonfarm payrolls rose by a better-than-expected 201,000 and wages, the last missing piece of the economic recovery, increased by 2.9 percent year over year to the highest level since April 2009. That made it the best gain since the recession ended in June 2009.

Peace, on earth?
when is the last time you heard, on your own private democrat backed, in the tank news network CNN any bad news on ISIS, or North Korea conducting missile tests,
Or Assad gassing civilians, Iran has been bitch slapped



what planet do you live on that you don't know those to be factual?

Answer?

 

[Getin the ring]

Her claim is that Blowjob Bill achieved "record high GDP, record high incomes, near-record-low poverty, record budget surpluses, the lowest crime rates since the early 1960s, sky-high approval ratings abroad, and a situation of peace."

Here's the context:

her claim is a false flag in context, bill Clinton was president when the internet took off, PERIOD

mr. Bill Dot.com Clinton had nothing to do with that, of course his VP created the internet

 

[Legion]

During his time in office, the economy has achieved feats most experts thought impossible. GDP is growing at a 3 percent-plus rate. The unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Meanwhile, the stock market has jumped amid a surge in corporate profits.

Friday brought another round of good news: Nonfarm payrolls rose by a better-than-expected 201,000 and wages, the last missing piece of the economic recovery, increased by 2.9 percent year over year to the highest level since April 2009. That made it the best gain since the recession ended in June 2009.

Peace, on earth?
when is the last time you heard, on your own private democrat backed, in the tank news network CNN any bad news on ISIS, or North Korea conducting missile tests,
Or Assad gassing civilians, Iran has been bitch slapped



what planet do you live on that you don't know those to be factual?

Answer?

You are mistaken if you think the Fleein' Korean was attempting to give Trump credit. She was lauding Blowjob Bill Clinton.

 

[Oneuli]

The Y2K work was a false prosperity, that's the point.

It cost $100 billion between 1995 and 2001, according to the Commerce Department. So, a bit under $17 billion in spending per year. That's significant, but in the context of an economy worth about $10,000 billion, at the time, we're talking about less than one fifth of one percent. It's about equivalent to the stimulus of building a single aircraft carrier. And it's not like that was putting to work unemployable people. It was putting to work people who'd have had jobs doing more productive coding if they hadn't been fixing old oversights.

You are claiming it was on solid economic footing, no it wasn't.

If the economic footing wasn't solid, how do you explain how resilient that economy was? Remember, even when the first of Bush's recessions arrived, it was unusually short and unusually shallow, and even the additional knock of 9/11 didn't extend it much.

The dot com bubble and Y2K created a bubble. That is an economic fact.

That's not so much a fact as a tautology. You just said a bubble created a bubble. Do you mean the dotcom bubble and Y2K created a larger bubble in the economy? If so, that's not a fact, it's an assertion. If you have support for the assertion, I'd be happy to listen to it. But, keep in mind there are ALWAYS bubbles happening, of one sort or another: gold, real estate, bank stocks, bitcoins, beanie babies, etc. When an economic boom happens that doesn't fit with right-wing economic religion (e.g., the Clinton boom, following the upper-class tax hikes), there's a strong urge to explain it away with reference to bubbles, etc. But the mere existence of a bubble doesn't create wider economic prosperity, or we'd always have prosperity, just as we always have isolated bubbles. Putting a few thousand old Cobol coders to work isn't enough.

And you're claiming Greenspan purposefully created a recession.

He raised interest rates to fairly high levels at a time of low inflation. It was either political meddling or incompetence. Either way, it brought about a recession.

 

[Oneuli]

You made several claims.

To wit: "record high GDP, record high incomes, near-record-low poverty, record budget surpluses, the lowest crime rates since the early 1960s, sky-high approval ratings abroad, and a situation of peace."

Can you substantiate them factually, or not?

Yes. Which of them would you like a link to?

 

[Oneuli]

It does?

Yes.

Doesn't that interpretation of the data require an unscientific bias?

No, it doesn't. Don't you only suggest that because of your unscientific bias?

 

[Legion]

Yes. Which of them would you like a link to?

All of them. Thanks.

 

[Oneuli]

Really? I wish I had known taht before now. It's the 'Above Plain Politics' section of the forum and it's taken off as a refuge for anyone who wants to have a decent and respectable conversation on issues that are important to them. And if you read the rules you will understand how that's possible. However, I can't guarantee the rules as stated are going to survive for long. Guille is already pushing the envelope by telling me to 'shut up'.

Come on over and have a decent conversation in which you won't have to suffer the schlunks of this little forum world!

I appreciate the invitation, but what I like about this forum is the lack of censorship, so I'll just stay in the free-wheeling sections.

 

[Legion]

Yes.

Doesn't that depend upon your own confirmation bias? Unless I'm mistaken, it appears that you decided that Obamacare saved the American people money and then looked for statistics that might support that contention if interpreted with that foregon conclusion in mind.

No, it doesn't.

So you say.

Don't you only suggest that because of your unscientific bias?

If it was a fact that Obamacare saved the American people money you could prove it. You can't. My admitted bias has nothing to do with the lack of rigor in your methods.


Perhaps.

 

[Oneuli]

LOL, the growth cycle did not continue.

It did, indeed. You seem to be confusing tech stocks for the economy as a whole. Not only was the economy still growing after Clinton left office, but it didn't hit its peak until March 2001, which is a full year after the dotcom bubble burst.

As for Y2k spending, you say the spending started 30 years before 2000, yet later state the issue was neglected by Reagan and Bush?

Yes, and yes. The nation kicked the can down the road in those days -- dealing only with the parts of the problem that had to be dealt with immediately, while leaving the rest of it for the following decade.

You rambling about what constitutes a recession is funny

My lesson for you was entirely consistent with Economics 101. If you choose to reject it, that's your call.

No one thinks a recession is ANY period of time of slowdown.

That's my point, dumb dumb. Reread.

The definition of a recession is at least two quarters of negative GDP growth.

That's the old-fashioned definition, but not the one most knowledgeable people in the US use today. If that were the definition used, there wasn't a recession in 2001:

https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=2#reqid=19&step=2&isuri=1&1921=survey

Q1-1.1
Q2 2.4
Q3 -1.7
Q4 1.1

As you can see, there was no two-quarter period of negative GDP growth. The NBER uses a more sophisticated analysis, though and saw enough of a slowdown, between the March 2001 peak and the November 2001 trough, to deem it a recession.

 

[Oneuli]

Is that a fact?

Yes.

 

[Legion]

Yes.

If it was a fact, you could prove it.

 

[Oneuli]

her claim is a false flag in context, bill Clinton was president when the internet took off, PERIOD

mr. Bill Dot.com Clinton had nothing to do with that, of course his VP created the internet

That's the right-wing method: since the economy almost always does better under Democrats than Republicans, there must always be an excuse for why it doesn't count. Wilson doesn't count because of WWI. FDR and Truman don't count because of WWII and Korea. Kennedy and Johnson don't count because of Vietnam. The titanic job creation rate under Carter doesn't count because it was just women entering the workforce. Clinton's economy doesn't count because of the dotcom bubble (and before that bubble was obvious, it didn't count because of the "peace dividend.") The across-the-board improvement on Obama's watch doesn't count because he inherited an economy at such a low point that improvement was inevitable. Etc. When the next Democratic president gets elected and we again get nearly across-the-board improvement, I assure you, that won't count either. We don't know yet what spin the Republican apparatchiks will hand to their minions to explain away the success, but they'll come up with something.