Obama Has Lowest Average 1stQ GDP Growth of

[Yamato]

You've thrown out a whole lot of generalizations, Yam, and opinions, without ever once referring to even one of the substantial reasons why people voted for Obama and not the other guy. It has to do with things like national healthcare, women's reproductive issues, getting us out of the Middle East, among other things. You should know this as well as I do. Were all campaign promises realized? No, but they never are. Why the need, though, to denigrate people because of their politics? When we begin to dehumanize people we put ourselves on what can only be a downhill slope that can have no positive outcome, and can cause only harm, most importantly to one's self.

Because at the end of the day, this wouldn't happen if people and their politics didn't vote for these politicians and their politics. It's funny when I blame the politicians, you say we should all look in the mirror. Why then is it okay when you denigrate the voters and not when I do?

Yes D's voted for Obama because he was supposed to be the peace President who would get us out of the Middle East and close down Gitmo yada yada. He failed, among other things he failed at. And where is the criticism for Obama's failure? It's so virulent from the R's and so non-existent from the D's. That may have mattered in 2007, when the R was at the switch, it quickly didn't matter anymore about a month after the D guy got in, and it certainly doesn't matter anymore now. And that's worth criticizing because it's destroying the liberty and security of our people.

I don't need to defend my politics, and if someone wants to make assumptions about me or my motives or my thinking, and operate as if those assumptions were true, so be it.

If you don't question it and won't question it, I'll assume you won't question it. But you can't have it both ways. You can't tell me you ask a lot of questions like everyone else and then not have any when you're asked for them.

National healthcare is the only meaningful difference between Ds and Rs today. Obama is Bush + Obamacare. If that alone redeems him then these Ds loved Bush a lot more than they once let on.

[Beany]

I guess whether I answered or not would depend on who's asking, and on whether I thought there would be a frank exchange of views & information or end up being the whipping girl for someone's political agenda.

[Yamato]

It's not just about you not asking questions after you claim you do Beany, it's the D's in general. I'm using generalizations again because sometimes using them is the greater truth.

Not sure why I would ever whip on you for asking questions. Or diverge into an un-frank exchange for it. I think it would increase the value of the discussion if you did. Asking questions is always the best first step. I ask other people questions and that's why they don't like me. People don't like being questioned.

I said it once before I'll say it again. I rather like you. You're intelligent and I'm sapiosexual. Admittedly, the affair would end in a train wreck, but I'd much rather make my points with Rs than Ds at this stage in the game. Ds promise that they'll spend money and then they do. R's talk their R-rhetoric about conservative and libertarian and constitutional values, and then defile them at their first opportunity to do so. D's don't care, and don't act like they care, which is just as dangerous, violent and self-fulfilling, but it is a bit more honest when the rhetoric matches the actions.

[Beany]

Yam, right now I'm asking myself why all these public figures who were prominent during the Bush administration and active in the Iraq offensive are showing up in the media lately, like Paul Bremer or Gen. McCrystal (sp). I ask myself what kind of hidden agenda is being played out here by so far, anonymous people. I ask myself whether the neo-cons are involved. I ask myself whether there are still some idiots who think putting more of our military back into the Middle East is a really good idea, despite the historical lessons that show us otherwise. I ask myself why the US/Obama is blamed for the creation of ISIS/ISIL. I ask myself whether the hawks might be in ascendancy, and if so, where I can put my efforts to insure that none of these people become an elected president. These are some of my questions, Yam. Real, current day events and politics that will affect our future. You probably have a whole different set of questions, these are some of mine, and it has very little to do with Dems vs Republicans. I'm trying to stay sharp around this and not be distracted by useless rhetoric that does nothing but allow me to vent and is direct conflict with my critical thinking skills.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Beany

[Yamato]

Yam, right now I'm asking myself why all these public figures who were prominent during the Bush administration and active in the Iraq offensive are showing up in the media lately, like Paul Bremer or Gen. McCrystal (sp). I ask myself what kind of hidden agenda is being played out here by so far, anonymous people. I ask myself whether the neo-cons are involved. I ask myself whether there are still some idiots who think putting more of our military back into the Middle East is a really good idea, despite the historical lessons that show us otherwise. I ask myself why the US/Obama is blamed for the creation of ISIS/ISIL. I ask myself whether the hawks might be in ascendancy, and if so, where I can put my efforts to insure that none of these people become an elected president. These are some of my questions, Yam. Real, current day events and politics that will affect our future. You probably have a whole different set of questions, these are some of mine, and it has very little to do with Dems vs Republicans. I'm trying to stay sharp around this and not be distracted by useless rhetoric that does nothing but allow me to vent and is direct conflict with my critical thinking skills.

I'm sorry you continue to denigrate the discussion but the reason it has little to do with Ds and Rs (Liberals and Conservatives) is because they're not asking those questions nor answering them.

Are the neocons involved? Of course they're involved. Obama is a neocon. You don't have to be an R to be a Neocon. Obama is a hawk. How many tens or hundreds of thousands more people does Obama have to kill before he's a hawk? Why do D's only care about war when it's ground troops and flatly ignore it when it's airstrikes?

Yes there are plenty of "idiots" who (still) think that putting more military in the Middle East is a good idea. It follows from that why Obama is blamed for creating ISIS.

[Beany]

I fail to see how I'm denigrating the discussion, Yam. I have my own set of issues and priorities that are different than yours, so our conversations would not be the same. This makes neither you nor I wrong, you know, nor contemptible. How can I possibly respond to a general accusation like the one you made about Democrats and war, except to ask you to provide evidence of the truth of that statement, along with your thinking that led to the conclusion that Obama is a neo-con. It's at this point that I am tempted to abandon my critical thinking skills and instead resort to an emotional response, but I'm not going to do that. Instead, I'm simply asking for some evidence that justifies your broad generalizations.

[Yamato]

I fail to see how I'm denigrating the discussion, Yam. I have my own set of issues and priorities that are different than yours, so our conversations would not be the same. This makes neither you nor I wrong, you know, nor contemptible. How can I possibly respond to a general accusation like the one you made about Democrats and war, except to ask you to provide evidence of the truth of that statement, along with your thinking that led to the conclusion that Obama is a neo-con. It's at this point that I am tempted to abandon my critical thinking skills and instead resort to an emotional response, but I'm not going to do that.

By saying things like "I guess whether I answered or not would depend on who's asking, and on whether I thought there would be a frank exchange of views & information or end up being the whipping girl for someone's political agenda." in the midst of not asking your questions when I asked for some.

Instead, I'm simply asking for some evidence that justifies your broad generalizations.

Evidence that the anti-war movement has shriveled since Obama's become President? We can count heads easily enough and provide the substantial evidence you're looking for. Over ten million marched in Feb 2003 to protest Bush's war for Shiites and Kurds and whoever the hell in Iraq against Hussein. How many marched against Obama's war for Al Qaeda in Libya against Gaddafi? For ISIS in Syria against Assad? For the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia against Houthis in Yemen? For whatever Shiite puppet in Iraq we're so in support of this time? The D response to any and all of these has been an ignorant "Derple Derrr!" So generalizations aren't plagued with a lack of substance in general just because they're generalizations, and you shouldn't repeat that I'm making generalizations without substance again if you read this reply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest

So just what else am I supposed to conclude here Beany? That they've lost their ability to speak? To march? That Saddam Hussein was a nice guy? No. That they're partisans who don't really care about war, they just hated Bush and now everything's mmmkay.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Yamato

[Harte]

For those of you who are interested in the topic of economic growth and its causes, this is from the World Bank.

http://www.worldbank...nomic-prospects

And here's a link to an international GDP table.

http://www.tradingec...ual-growth-rate

And how about the rascals that got us into this situation in the first place? I'd sure like to see the causes addressed, lest history repeats itself yet again.

Forcing banks to loan money they'd rather not created an entire new market for the derivatives these loans spawned - the loans folded together, chopped up, and sold as securities.

Playing around with those was the major cause.

Who forced banks to make these high-risk loans?

Regarding the "recovery," it wouldn't surprise me at all if we are still in contraction. Almost every GDP announcement has been followed with a "correction" lowering the previous GDP estimate.

This is THE weakest recovery we've ever seen - including the Great Depression:

How many times have we heard that this was the worst recession since the Great Depression? That may be true—although the double-dip recession of the early 1980s was about comparable. Less publicized is that our current recovery pales in comparison with most other recoveries, including the one following the Great Depression.

The Great Depression started with major economic contractions in 1930, '31, '32 and '33. In the three following years, the economy rebounded strongly with growth rates of 11%, 9% and 13%, respectively.

The current recovery began in the second half of 2009, but economic growth has been weak. Growth in 2010 was 3% and in 2011 it was 1.7%. Who knows what 2012 will bring, but the current growth rate looks to be about 2%, according to the consensus of economists recently polled by Blue Chip Economic Indicators. Sadly, we have never really recovered from the recession. The economy has not even returned to its long-term growth rate and is certainly not making up for lost ground. No doubt, there are favorable economic numbers to be found, but overall we continue to struggle.

WSJ (2012)

Harte