Jump to content

Outrider

Senior Members
  • Posts

    299
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Outrider

  1. On 12/9/2017 at 7:04 PM, iNow said:

    Are semicolons allowed?

    Of course not! Oddly enough however ignoring questions is.

    8 hours ago, Evgenia said:

    I would like to use such a proper test i believe in to measure my progress in keeping my "brain fit" as i do regularly check my body condition. 

    Sounds more like aptitude tests to me. IQ tests are notoriously unreliable. But aptitude tests are considered good tools for assessing level of education. They can be very specific. For example electricians take them to make sure they are keeping up with changes in their code. Or they can be very general. Employers often use these to screen candidates for a job.

    But you can use them to help keep your "brain fit." Here is a link to some free ones. Good luck!

    https://www.wikijob.co.uk/content/aptitude-tests/test-types/aptitude-tests

  2. On 12/9/2017 at 7:22 PM, iNow said:

    No, but she was clearly a better choice IMO, more capable, more qualified, more sensible, and more likely to make the world overall better than Trump. She didn’t get my vote in the primary, but once she won the primary it was a no-brainer to me.

    Thank you for your honesty. I think that even in the primary she wasn't many democrats first choice but they thought she was more electable than Bernie Sanders. Plus the novelty of electing the first female POTUS.

    Your comments are very representative of what I hear from others.

    On 12/9/2017 at 7:22 PM, iNow said:

    I grew up in NY and Trump was a known quantity, an obvious flim-flam man and con artist I’d seen operating scandalously and blowing smoke up peoples asses for decades. 

    I didn't vote for him but I really had no idea how dangerous he would be. I also underestimated the stupidity of the GOP. I didn't think they would work with him like they have. I did watch an episode of the apprentice once so I knew he was a buffon but thats about it.

    On 12/9/2017 at 8:09 PM, rangerx said:

    Remember the moral majority thing? There are moral conservatives, several quite outspoken. Some not so much. Too many not at all. (To speak out against Trump)

    Yes I agree wholeheartedly. If you know much at all about new testament Christianity its kind of obvious that many on the religious right are hypocrites. But wow have they doubled down with Trump. 

    On 12/9/2017 at 8:09 PM, rangerx said:

    Truth is, NOTHING rises above the hot water Trump and his cronies are in, at THIS TIME.

     

    I hope you are right but I have thought the same thing about the Clintons many many times.

    23 hours ago, MigL said:

    There were a lot of accusations levelled against her during the campaign, some as late as two weeks before the election, and people say 'where there is smoke, there is fire', but sometimes the smoke is just steam being let off during the heat of the campaign.

    These things go all the way back to the late 1970's at least. Many Clinton associates have been convicted over the years. If you are interested look up whitewater (15 convictions). Jim and Susan McDougal actually did time. Jim died of a heart attack in Fort Worth Penitentiary. Also look up Clinton cattle futures. Robert Bone was suspended three years and Refco was issued the largest fine to that date by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

     

    14 hours ago, Ten oz said:

    She was investigated and cleared. So it is a statement of fact that the legal professionals empowered  to enforce the law believed she was innocent of any claims she had committed a crime. You may not like it but it is a fact all the same.

    You are correct l do not like it. Do you believe O.J. Simpson is innocent of murder? I don't. 

    13 hours ago, swansont said:

    And to claim there is no evidence against Moore is laughable. There are multiple eyewitnesses: the ones who have come forward.

    Ok I should have said physical evidence. 

     

    13 hours ago, swansont said:

    In this context it's a false dichotomy.

    I meant innocent of what has been alleged. 

     

  3. So in three days time I have a decision to make. Roy Moore (R) or Doug Jones (D) for Alabama Senate seat. Due to the allegations against RM it is an easy decision (for me) to make. DJ will get my vote. Although there is no evidence against him and these 8 or 9 ladies have been sitting on this for a long time. I will in no way risk casting my vote for a predator. Is this fair to RM? Well if he is innocent (probably never know for sure) it isn't fair at all and that bothers me not in the least. Due to his aspirations he should expect this treatment and accept it gracefully. He should have stepped down.

    So my question for those who voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton is why didn't you feel the same way? Do you really believe she is innocent of all charges? I don't. Even if you think she is innocent on all counts how could you not take into account the large portion of U.S. citizens who think she is a crook and run another candidate?

    Please do not let this devolve into a debate over HRC's guilt or innocence. If you want to do that one of us can open a thread.

    Please just answer honestly and if enough people genuinely think she is innocent I will probably open that thread.

    This harks back to the title (well half of it anyway) of the thread. Why doesn't truth matter? See when I talk to people in real life most of the time they agree that Trump or Clinton was a horrible choice. Then they justify their choice. 

    I would like us to get where we just don't tolerate certain actions from our candidates. Cross this line and you are done. We can perhaps debate where the line should be but we need to have one.

    If we do this I think we will see the middle ground is not so hard to find after all.

  4. 21 minutes ago, rangerx said:

    Reagan funded a secret war in Central America by illegally selling guns to Iran.

    Funny how most conservatives seem to overlook that fact. (Definitely not directing this at you)

    True. Its hard (but not impossible) to find a POTUS without scandal in recent memory. Obama seems to stand alone.

    24 minutes ago, rangerx said:

    You did, to your credit. + 1 for objectivity.

    Thank you. Seems we found some middle ground after all . It only took 13 pages, not bad.

    Looking back at Iran-Contra years after the events took place is part of what made me realize what a partisan hack I had become and how I was letting my emotions make my decisions. 

    It is my opinion that we need to hold our elected officials to the highest standards and when they cross a line, integrity wise, just dont vote for them ever again. I am ok with our lines being in different places but not ok with people not having any line at all.

    Also not directed at you. 

  5. 1 hour ago, Chriss said:

    You said a study was done on intelligence.

    Who said? Not me although I am sure there have been many studies.

    Ignored my question? I seem to get a lot of that for some reason. Maybe its me.

    Tell you what Chriss I will watch at least some of your video if you will descibe to me how you "evaluate each intelligence on how it really is" in five sentences or less.

  6. 19 hours ago, rangerx said:

    The fact that he takes responsibility for his actions, while others who are accused (namely republicans) don't.

    Never heard of Trent Franks?

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-happens-now-that-trent-franks-has-resigned/

    Quote

     

    Rep. Trent Franks, a conservative pro-life Republican, has resigned after revealing that he discussed surrogacy with two female staffers. One former aide told The Associated Press that the Arizona congressman pressured her to carry his child and once offered her $5 million to be a surrogate mother.

    The eight-term lawmaker initially said he would leave office on Jan. 31. But after getting an ultimatum from House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., he announced Friday he would step aside immediately, starting a clock for elections to replace him.

     

     

  7. 19 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

    Per your expert opinion?

     

    Per my example.

    Here is a little more. While Reagan's plan did lower taxes on the rich overall it also expanded the personal exemption and the earned income tax credit. This was a big help to the middle class. Reagan also eliminated corporate tax breaks and raised the tax on capital gains.

    Do you see any of this in Trump's proposal?

    I don't. 

    I see Trump lowering the the top tax bracket so thats similar to Reagan but it ends there.

    I see a repeal on the estate tax and I see a new loophole created by reducing the rate on pass-through entities, allowing law firms and hedge fund managers to avoid higher tax rates. I also see that the Tax Policy Center estimates that the top 1% will enjoy 80% of the benefits from Trump’s plan and that a third of all middle-class taxpayers will be paying more in taxes by 2027.

    35 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

    Recovered for 2 of Clinton's eight years. Who followed Clinton? I already listened many people In the Bush admin that had been in Reagan's admin. The number of people in the Senate and House who had helped shape and vote on Reagan's cuts did the same for Bush 43's cut. 

    Why compare one past administration to another past administration? Why not compare to the current one?

    37 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

    You are totally ignoring the advocated positions of the 2 major parties here. 

    No I am pointing out that they are different than they were in 1980.

    Reagan had plans to tear down a wall. Trump has plans to build one.

    Reagan presided over the end of a cold war. Trump seems dead set on starting a hot one.

    43 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

    You claimed Reagan was successful, to levels greater than anyone since, and have yet to substantiate the claim.

    No I have never claimed that. I did claim it would be impossible to defend such an absurd position.

    46 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

    Rather you just keep referencing the misery index without explaining why that should be the standard we use.

    Thats not true either. I have already told you why I referenced it and it had nothing to do with claiming  "Reagan was successful, to levels greater than anyone since"

  8. On 12/8/2017 at 10:45 AM, CharonY said:

    In my experience it is not quite that straightforward, except maybe at the extremes. Rather, it is very easy to gauge ones understanding in dealing with a specific topic or problem.  But they may fail rather badly in other aspects (and of course there is a huge middle ground in between). 

    Very true. Also its demeaning to assign aptitude based on a cursory examination of a persons actions. This is one of the worst traits a teacher can have and will lead to some children missing opportunities. It is hard for a teacher to remain objective at all times but those that do are an invaluable asset to our society. 

     

    4 hours ago, Chriss said:

    I evaluate each intelligence how it really is.

    Can you tell me how you do this? Please.

    And please make it brief. 

  9. 1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

    I'm not sure what the objective is for a whole subforum of it, but if it attracts those who can't be bothered to read details, it sounds like it will mostly be good for dragging our reputation down as a serious science discussion site.

    I agree with this. Plus it would be a nightmare to enforce.

    3 hours ago, geordief said:

    I would also like to insist on proper grammar and spelling.

    So what is the punishment if I put my comma in the wrong place?

    Maybe find us a dunce avatar and make the offending party wear it for a week.:)

  10. On 12/4/2017 at 9:41 AM, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

     I haven't clicked on any links

    Then why did you ask for "papers and journal articles"?

     

    On 12/4/2017 at 9:41 AM, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

    I was hoping that the rest of you have had decades of time to peruse all of this stuff 

    Oh I have had decades but I chose to persue other things.

    On 12/4/2017 at 9:41 AM, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

    If you ask a Calculus expert what a derivative is, they can explain in 5 minutes, instead of giving you 500 textbooks to peruse, right?

    The difference between that and the question you asked is vast.

    On 12/4/2017 at 9:41 AM, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

    So I conclude nobody has investigated properly.  

    Yes they have the wiki page has an outstanding overview of those investigations and lots of references to scholarly articles some of which are peer reviewed. 

    On 12/4/2017 at 9:41 AM, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

     I haven't clicked on any links

    Then why did you ask for "papers and journal articles"?

     

    On 12/4/2017 at 9:41 AM, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

    I was hoping that the rest of you have had decades of time to peruse all of this stuff 

    Oh I have had decades but I chose to persue other things.

    On 12/4/2017 at 9:41 AM, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

    If you ask a Calculus expert what a derivative is, they can explain in 5 minutes, instead of giving you 500 textbooks to peruse, right?

    The difference between that and the question you asked is vast.

    On 12/4/2017 at 9:41 AM, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

    So I conclude nobody has investigated properly.  

    Yes they have the wiki page has an outstanding overview of those investigations and lots of references to scholarly articles some of which are peer reviewed.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

    Go read and come back and tell us what you think. Please.

    No one is going to do it for you.

  11. 16 hours ago, iNow said:

    Does it do more harm than good to force his resignation? 

    No his and our and the DNC's actions speak louder than the words. Its never a bad time to do the right thing.

    16 hours ago, iNow said:

    Did Dems miss the forest for the trees on this one, or will they instead reap the rewards and benefit from taking the moral high ground and having the courage of their convictions?

    Well I hope so it resonates highly with me and I doubt I am alone in this. However me and many others see the DNC as corrupt and it will take a lot more than this to change that perception. Also the DNC did drag their feet early on and it does look as if their decisions were guided more by public opinion and less by internal virtue.

    Forcing these resignations is a good first step. But it will take many of these steps for me to see them as reformed. 

    BTW the GOP needs to do the same thing.

  12. On 12/4/2017 at 12:37 AM, John Cuthber said:

    If  you ever agree on a metric, (And, I'm not holding my breath) then you need to decide how to play the game.

    I said earlier I wouldn't and provided some reasons as to why I wouldn't. I haven't changed my mind.

    I am going to try to answer to some of Ten oz's points and then try to head back to the original topic of this thread. 

    Sorry bout the late reply.

    On 12/4/2017 at 7:06 AM, Ten oz said:

    Mitch McConnell who is currently the Senate Majority leader and who was previous the Senate Minority leader and who has also been the Whip and sat on numerous chairs won his seat in the Senate during the Reagan revolution in 1984; McConnell is a Reagan Republican. Cochran, Hatch, Grassley, McCain, and other prominent Republican senators have also been around since Reagan.

    Ok but they are not acting like Reagan in any way with the exception of McCain perhaps. For example the republican tax plan of today looks nothing like the one passed in 1986.

    Reagan introduced the idea in 1984 and  worked closely with House Speaker Tip O’Neill, a Democrat, to iron out specific legislation that both sides could support. Ten months later, the Treasury Department unveiled its recommendations in a 262-page document. Over the course of the next two years there were extensive hearings and debate on the House and Senate floor. The republicans of today have instead crafted their bill in private and obviously plan to pass it with no bipartisan support at all.

    On 12/4/2017 at 7:06 AM, Ten oz said:

    Anyway, I am not pinning this on all on Reagan.  I called Reagan a turning point; didn't say it is all his fault. I think the numbers support saying it was a turning point. Both debt and interest rates made huge shifts starting with Reagan and neither has recovered.

    According to your first chart debt as a percentage of GDP did recover under Clinton.  So what? Reagan put us on this path and Clinton took us off and then Reagan put us back on? The chart plainly shows the most recent upswing starting under Bush II and continuing under Obama. I really don't understand the need to make it any more complicated than that.

    On 12/4/2017 at 7:06 AM, Ten oz said:

    In my opinion interest rates are a major issue because cheap money has over inflated other markets to a point where a normalizing of rates would collapse the system. For example look at the charts below and explain how it makes sense that starting during Reagan's admin home values skyrocketed despite no increase in salary's (adjusted for inflation). It is not sustainable.

    Both charts show those trends starting in 1973. That would be Nixon not Reagan.

    I really don't see a lot of value in continuing down this road. Here in a while (I hope) I will post a question more revelant to your OP.

  13. 5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

    This is not Reagan vs Obama for me.

    Thats my fault.

     

    6 hours ago, swansont said:

    The original claim under discussion is that if you want to improve the economy, you should vote for republicans. (and then a Reagan v Obama comparison was offered.) This is more of "name your metric, and then back up why that's a valid metric"

    I took this to mean Ten oz has offered up the R vs O comparison. 

    My original comment about Reagan was when he was accused of high unemployment. The statement wasn't factually false  but it did leave out some important detail.

    That was my only purpose.

    14 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

    It is you who has  asserted that Reagan inherited a terrible situation

    It was pretty bad I can still remember the gas lines. 

    17 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

    . You list a chart showing total debt added by President and I added context. Reagan basically doubled the amount of deficit spending by year during his tenure while Obama cut it in half. Yet you hold the "stimulus against him and Bush II"? I don't understand what you metric truly is. You seem to be implying deficit spending is bad and using the total number to grade Obama down despite that fact he reduced deficits yet are giving Reagan a pass for doubling deficits

    I posted the chart to show that Obama's  debt wasn't Reagan's fault. In fact a lot of it was Bush ll. I thought that was obvious from the chart.

    I also agreed with you Obama was better than Reagan on debt that was the you win part.

    The only place we really disagree is where you try to pin problems on nearly 30 year old policy. For me it is almost as ridiculous as blaming the democrats for civil war era policy. The republican party is very different from what it was 10 years ago even more so 30.

    You don't think Reagan inherited a mess?

    BTW the two quotes about Reagan and Clinton doing better were blanket quotes about the economy.

    51 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

    Thailand, Austria, China, South Korea, Germany and many others are ahead of the U.S. There is a list of the very link you provided:

    I was more interested in why that is.

    This is all I found.

    https://www.cato.org/blog/worlds-most-least-miserable-countries-2016

    Quote

    Also of note on this list is the United States. In President Obama’s final year in office, the United States ranked lower than Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, China, and even Vietnam. 

     

  14. 11 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

    I call it what I called it.

    Did you somehow miss this bit?

    I have no problem with how you stated it I might even agree depending on how you define "the right." I hope its not liars.

     

    11 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

    That seems particularly ironic in a post where you berate someone else thus

    Well it was a gentle berating. 

    7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

    @ Outrider, lets agree on a couple things upfront. President doesn't start with a clean slate. They don't walk in to office and everything resets to zero. Federal agencies already have their own budgets which include multi year contracts to build equipment, facilities, provided entitlements to their employees, and etc in place as law through Congress. Looking at the state of affairs when a Presidents starts vs ends paints a clearer picture that just charts showing bulk numbers.

     

    I agree and I think its well nigh impossible to paint a very clear picture at all. If this is about Obama vs Reagan I can cite you any number of articles. Just let me know which side to support. 

    7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

    When Reagan came into Office Carters final Budget had the annual national debt at 79 billion a year. That is where Reagan started. Reagan's final budget had the annual national debt at 153 billion. Reagan basically double the the annual national deficit. Bush 41's budget deficits soared up to 255 billion for his final budget. That is where Clinton started. Clinton ended with a 126 billion dollar surplus. Bush 43 started with that surplus and ended with a final budget deficit of 1.4 trillion. It is also important to note that Bush 43's annual deficits are actually worse that they appear because he didn't add the cost of the wars to them but instead had Congress pass separate spending resolutions. Obama included the war costs to his budgets. That 1.4 trillion is where Obama began and he ended at 585 billion per year or 666 billion per year depending on the way you view the continued budget resolutions. So while Reagan double the annual deficit Obama cut it in half and Clinton eliminated it completely

    I didn't choose a metric so you chose one for me. Ok you win.

    7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

    You insist Reagan inherited a mess but have yet to quantify what that mess was.

    I said before high inflation and high unemployment (more on the misery index soon) is that not a big enough mess? What if we throw in an oil crisis and a cold war?

    7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

    Reagan inherited 79 billion dollar annual deficit. Obama inherited a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit.  When Obama came into office this was happening: "A sobering U.S. Labor Department jobs report Friday showed the economy lost 524,000 jobs in December and 1.9 million in the year's final four months, after the credit crisis began in September. The steep annual drop in jobs marked the highest yearly job-loss total since 1945, the year in which World War II ended." It was worse than what Reagan experienced.

    I have not said that Obama had it worse than Reagan. Here is you a nice middle of the road article that agrees with you on that one point. But it also makes my point as well. There is not much to be gained comparing Obama and Reagan. They both inherited messes and they both did their part to work them out.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/09/18/the-obama-economy-vs-the-reagan-economy-its-literally-no-contest/

    Quote

     

    As a result, there seems little value—beyond the usual ideological rhetoric that is so popular in our society today—in attempting to compare the economic situation of the recession and the resulting rebound that took place during the Reagan term and the recession that Obama walked into when he took the keys to the White House.

    While there is no question that Reagan’s economy rebounded with a greater fury and in a far shorter time frame than what Obama has been able to accomplish, the circumstances of Reagan’s recession were such that such a rebound was possible  while all signs would indicate that such a result was not truly available to the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Thus, to seek to draw conclusions as to which president had the better idea is a failed enterprise given the extreme differences in their relative circumstances.

     

     

    I still haven't looked into your claim that Vietnam has a lower misery index than the U.S. but I will. I did find some evidence that it is a usefull number.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics)
     

    Quote

     

    The misery index is an economic indicator, created by economist Arthur Okun. The index helps determine how the average citizen is doing economically and it is calculated by adding the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate to the annual inflation rate. It is assumed that both a higher rate of unemployment and a worsening of inflationcreate economic and social costs for a country.[1]

    Some economists posit that the components of the Misery Index drive the crime rate to a degree. Using data from 1960 to 2005, they have found that the Misery Index and the crime rate correlate strongly and that the Misery Index seems to lead the crime rate by a year or so.[9] In fact, the correlation is so strong that the two can be said to be cointegrated, and stronger than correlation with either the unemployment rate or inflation rate alone.[citation needed]

     

     

    The page had a criticism as well.

    Quote

    A 2001 paper looking at large-scale surveys in Europe and the United States concluded that unemployment more heavily influences unhappiness than inflation. This implies that the basic misery index underweights the unhappiness attributable to the unemployment rate: "the estimates suggest that people would trade off a 1-percentage-point increase in the unemployment rate for a 1.7-percentage-point increase in the inflation rate."[8]

    My criticism of the criticism is surveys are not really reliable. 

    5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

    I think we're seeing the effects of extremist capitalism. By that metric, those with money can determine the value of virtually everything. Work is valuable when it's a extremist doing it, but not so much if it's Middle Class Joe, or Poor Mary. An extremist's land and health and property is very valuable, but yours is probably not. Hard goods they make are valuable after we've made them with cheap materials and our cheap labor. Our laws are even cheap now, and we often have no idea what's being subsidized by tax dollars to make it more attractive to extremist capitalists. 

    I wholeheartedly agree and now for the hard part. How do we change it?

    I have seen you say that, politically most of us are not very far apart. I think I am a moderate conservative (don't call me Republican) and I think you are a moderate liberal. But when you post on the political forum I almost always agree. So how to get where we all agree on the common sense things and argue about policy. I wish I knew but here is one suggestion.

    Conservatives quit parading RR around like he invented the dollar bill and liberals quit blaming him for everything from the debt to the common cold. The man is dead it is time to let him rest. Its all very counterproductive. 

     

  15. 1 hour ago, Dalo said:

    The picture of the sun through a filter is used as an analogy for the laser lamps that are visible even though their beams are blocked. 

    That doesn't answer my question. 

    So you can see the sun with all the suns rays absorbed? Yes or no? 

  16. 11 hours ago, Ten oz said:

    How are you quantifying prosperity: GDP, unemployment, inflation, average wage, or what?

    I wasn't quantifying prosperity. I would think those are all important metrics plus many more. Also context is always important. 

    In the future if you have any questions for me, please, ask me. I am not Waitforufo and I have no association with him other than being fellow mb members. 

    11 hours ago, Ten oz said:

    Okay, which agencies official numbers shall we use?

    Well I'm not going to engage to the level you wish but for my small participation lets use U.S. News.

    11 hours ago, Ten oz said:

    Above are questions I previously asked waitforufo. If were are going to discuss how good or bad the economy was under different Presidents we need to identify the goal posts. A lot of different numbers get used to make a lot of different arguments. 

    These arguments rarely win over any hearts so no I'm not going to pick the best economy ever. I don't have the knowledge to do so and when I turn to the experts they are often divided. 

    11 hours ago, Ten oz said:

    You say Reagan inherited the "biggest mess". What specifically made it the "biggest"? 

    The misery index. I did post a chart.

    11 hours ago, Ten oz said:

    When you say Reagan had the "biggest positive change" I assume you are referencing the misery index?

    Yep thats why I posted the chart.

    I will look into  your claim "doesn't speak to quality of life" I really thought that was the whole point. 

    11 hours ago, Ten oz said:

    I personally feel the Reagan set this country on the wrong track. National debt as a percentage of GDP had fallen during every administration FDR - Carter but has grown during every administration Reagan - Trump. Reagan was a turning point I don't feel has been for the best as it relies of unsustainable rates of growth. The tax cut pass by the senate yesterday is a percent example.

    I personally feel that Reagan did a good job with what he had as did Clinton. Obama didn't do a bad job but I will always hold the stimulus against him and Bush II.

    From your first link I see where debt as a percentage of GDP did go down during Clinton's administration despite your claim to the contrary. The country was in bad shape when Reagan took over and decisions had to be made. He did implement policy that allowed Clinton to have success reducing the debt. They both deserve credit for their accomplishments. 

    It should be fairly obvious from the chart  below

    who started the explosion of dept. It certainly was not Ronald Reagan.

    Please persue the article Ten oz it has all the metrics you asked for and more.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/10/28/which-presidents-have-been-best-for-the-economy

     

    Quote

     

    Shapiro notes that the levels of public investment in "education, infrastructure and basic non-military research" under the Clinton and Reagan administrations are head and shoulders above such investments made by Bush II and Obama. Such investments can help bolster labor force skills and worker productivity and ultimately help drive both economic growth and wage gains.

     

     


    ?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.beam.usnews.com%

    Andrew Soergel for USN≀ Source: Government Printing Office

     


    Quote

    "Another difference is Reagan stabilized the deficit and Clinton eliminated it, and then it exploded under Bush [II] and has remained relatively high under Obama. Obama has a better record there than Bush, but that's a distinction between this presidency and those ones."

    I have tried to answer all your questions. I know it wasn't a stellar effort but will you please answer the one I asked you.

    Oh I missed the rhetorical one.

    12 hours ago, Ten oz said:

    Debt is at 110% of GDP currently and the Senate is cutting taxes?

    Yes?

     

    14 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

    It's not a matter of "claiming them"; that's silly.

    Yep it is silly but what else do you call it when someone throws out a list of republicans  and says they are democrats by todays standard?

    14 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

    It's a matter of pointing out that politics in the US (and elsewhere) has been drifting to the Right since (at a guess) WWII.

    Depends on how you define right I guess. And calling Obama communist is silly as well.

  17. 1 minute ago, swansont said:

    Clinton and Bush I look to have lower overall (not instantaneous) misery index scores. 

    Overall yes but Reagan's administration had the biggest positive change. He inherited the biggest mess but stiil managed to get it almost as low as the two you mentioned. 

  18. 2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

    Kushner was a billionaire when he married Ivanka. He doesn't need Donald Trump's money.

    Ah people like him always seem to want more.

    2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

    Besides, what is Trump actually worth????

    Now that theres a durn good point and a durn good question. 

     

    I guess if travel bans had been handed out we would have heard? Might be a good time to start.

  19. On 11/28/2017 at 12:00 PM, John Cuthber said:

    You do realise that, Under Reagan, unemployment peaked to a level that wasn't seen again until the S*** hit the fan under Bush's administration (leaving Obama to sort it out), don't you?

    John you are a smart man and I have a lot of respect for you but unemployment peaked the year Reagan took office and was back down to 5.1 when he left. In fact if you add unemployment to inflation you get what is called the misery index. Using that metric Reagan out performed all recent presidents. Inasmuch as we can give him credit for these things. 

    20160220_woc506_2.png

    https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/02/daily-chart-13

     

    On 11/30/2017 at 2:21 PM, Ten oz said:

    By today's strandards Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and Bush 41 were all Democrats:

    Take a look at the chart above. Do you still want to claim them as democrats? I have told you once before why this is a bad idea. It just causes confusion and upsets some people causing them to dig in their heels. It is counterproductive and flat out false.

     

    https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/02/daily-chart-13

    Quote

    Indeed, if presidents were ranked purely in terms of unemployment reduction, a stark political divide emerges; Democrats take five of the top six places, and Republicans the bottom five. On inflation reduction, by contrast, Republicans have the top four places. The gap indicates the different priorities of the two parties.

    This highlights one of the traditional big riffs between the parties and also highlights why we don't change sides for them after they are gone.

    I'll say it one more time. Many of the things you listed are not traditionally partisan issues and it only leads to more confusion when you treat them as such.

  20. 10 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

    In my opinion Donald Trump is senile and his children selfish vacuous individuals who will not take the fall for him. If Mueller has anything on Kushner or Jr. that will equal prison time either would flip on Trump to spare themselves. 

    And get cut out of the will? I'm not so sure about that but I do feel the prosecution will need something recorded to nail down Trump. That is if he was smart at all about it. Not necessary a given.

    Im thinking with Jared and Jr it will come down to whats promised and wether they trust the promiser.

    Hmm a thought just struck. I wonder if anybody runs?

  21. 30 minutes ago, generalrelativity said:

    Just as electromagnetic waves are time dependent vacuum solutions to Maxwell's equations, gravitational waves are time dependent vacuum solutions to the field equations

    Thanks for providing the link but your quote does not say gravitational waves are electromagnetic.  "Just as" was your first hint.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.