Should obama our lord be banished to the private zone?
This guy is the most annoying poster ever. I say yes.
-
20Yes0%15No0%5 -
This should be discussed, imho. The guy never talks about sports, his off topic threads only belong in the private zone. I started a couple of threads about politics and they were moved to the private zone, as they should have been.Comment -
why does he annoy u so much?Comment -
You really don't see them as partisan hackery?Comment -
Just don't read the post, if annoys you.Comment -
There is a politics forum, that's where he should be posting. (I just remembered that).Originally posted by wtf
It annoys me because I'm here to have fun and win money. If I want to talk about politics and the economy I'll go to an appropriate forum. That includes the politics forum on this site!
This guy is a spammer and I'll bet you he's paid to spam by a political party/group.Comment -
Plus he has no clue what he talks about, all he does it hate hate hate hate hate, If sbr had a haters ball then he would be top 3 for sure.Comment -
Spam makes forums better, and SBR already deletes spam that has to do with cheap flights and Costa Rican real estate and stuff like that. I don't know why they let this guy stay, but I'm thankful they let us have at least his spam.
Exactly! That's exactly why they should allow all the other spam that comes on the forum to stay as well. If posts about cheap flights and Costa Rican real estate annoy you - you don't have to read them!Originally posted by tullamoreComment -
he posts a lot of threads
ive never seen one thread started ripping republicans or cons, but he starts 10 a day about obama
enough is enoughComment -
You voted in favor of obama our lord being banished to the private zone.Originally posted by The HG
Are you pulling a jjgold and taking both sides?Comment -
Voted yes but don't really care. I don't even read his posts. usually just put the yawn icon after his post.Comment -
All I'm saying is, spam makes forums better, and right now this is the only guy SBR will let spam the board. So think about that in your vote. It's not unthinkable that maybe SBR will have a change of heart and allow other types of spam to stay in the future, which would be awesome.Originally posted by fearlessComment -
Woohoo to spam!!!! Can I get a Fvck Yeah!?!?Comment -
There is a new Ho in town dont know if the guy is cracked up or what, but he is just running around with his head cut off.Comment -
If jjgold is with us then the voice of the people will be heard!
Comment -
pizza boy is so stupid, it's actually funny. He posts an obscure Australian blog as 'proof' that recession began in Jan 2001 when economists say otherwise. The dope actually believes that if something is in a blog it must be true. Just like that crazy bitch who carved her own face up with a backwards B and blamed Obama.
Comment -
2 more good spams today - give it up people, OOL ain't going nowhere!Comment -
never even heard of the guy.Comment -
No, it actually began in march 2001, but since a recession is formally defined as 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth, the economy was already in decline when Bush took Office.Originally posted by daggerkobeHe posts an obscure Australian blog as 'proof' that recession began in Jan 2001 B and blamed Obama.
In you partisan ignorance, you claimed Bush inherited a growing economy. As typical for you limp wristed, lisping lefties, you were wrong.Comment -
why is he partisan and you are not?Comment -
How to use the Ignore feature with vBulletin:
1) Click on the USER CP pull-down menu near the top-left of your screen. 'CP' stands for Control Panel.
2) Under the SETTINGS & OPTIONS section, click the link titled EDIT IGNORE LIST.
3) Under the heading "Add a Member to Your List..." note the open box. Type in the ID of the poster you wish to ignore. If you aren't sure exactly how the username might be spelled, you can type in just the first three letters and a list will appear for all users that fit that spelling.
4) Click OKAY when you have the name in the box.
To ignore a thread that has been started by a poster on your ignore list, follow these instructions:
1) Don't enter the thread.
2) When in doubt, see 1 above.Comment -
No let him stay he's cute.Comment -
I seldom open his threads so it doesn't bother me. From what I see, the main message he delivers is, Look how messed up some of these Republicans are.
I appreciate the role he played in helping the democrats win the election.Comment -
Wrong again, pizzaboy.
The recession of 2001 did not have two consecutive quarters of decline, dumbass.
Stick to delivering pizzas and making useless threads for pennies, raiders72001.Comment -
People need to get over themselves. If he posted his schtick in a sub-forum then it would be out of line. In Players Talk it's a welcome respite from all the boring sports talk and people sharing their picks like it's the holy grail. I don't agree with everything he writes, and I only open half of this threads, but I like having them as an option. Use the Ignore function if you must, but people that have to shield their eyes and mind from posts on an internet forum make me howl with laughter. You're no more dignified than an ostrich with its head in the sand.
Originally posted by StraitShooterComment -
Plus Bread is right. He is cute as the dickens and I just want to pinch his chubby cheek.Comment -
Yes it did, dumbass.Originally posted by daggerkobe
The recession of 2001 did not have two consecutive quarters of decline, dumbass.
The standard way of defining a recession looks at the value of economic output adjusted for inflation. This measure is known as Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Two consecutive quarters of decline in Real GDP is generally considered to be a recession. By this definition, the U.S. had a recession in the first three quarters of 2001 (see Figure 1).
And who was President at the start of the first quarter in 2001?
And for all this talk about Bush ruining the economy, it was a very mild recession. The tax cuts worked:
In earlier recessions, the decline from the peak was more severe than in the 2001 recession.... But the most recent decline (2001) barely shows up as a recession at all...Comment -
obama our lord speaks the truth. obama the president has no clue what he's doing. obama gets a failing grade what a shocker. Obama EconomyComment -
Wrong again, pizzaboy.
First of all, your claim that there had been 2 quarters of declining GNP prior to March is wrong as your own chart shows. Had there been, recession would have officially began in 2000 not 2001
Secondly, according to the NBER, recession is 3 consecutive quarters of declining real GNP which did not start until March 2001 when economic growth stopped after a record 37 qts of economic growth.
Who was the president in March 2001 again?
Comment -
How to ban someone who spams SBR:Originally posted by Willie Bee
1) log into SBR with an account with admin privileges
2) open target poster's account
3) click on "ban"
4) click on "block ip address"
please no one do this to OOL though, because spam makes SBR a better placeComment -
Originally posted by The HG
Comment -
I claimed Clinton was President when the recession started and he was. In March 2001, no Bush economic policy had been implemented. How was Bush supposed to be the cause of any downturns?Originally posted by daggerkobeWrong again, pizzaboy.
First of all, your claim that there had been 2 quarters of declining GNP prior to March is wrong as your own chart shows. Had there been, recession would have officially began in 2000 not 2001
Secondly, according to the NBER, recession is 3 consecutive quarters of declining real GNP which did not start until March 2001 when economic growth stopped after a record 37 qts of economic growth.
Who was the president in March 2001 again?
It's 2 quarters generally, and the recession was said to start in March because this was the start of the second quarter of decline.
But there is PLENTY of evidence that the downturn was starting in 2000, even though measured drops in real GDP had not started yet.
Bush inherited Clinton's recession
John Kerry declared, "Bush inherited the strongest economy in the world - and brought it to its knees." There is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, the evidence now suggests that President Bush inherited a recession.
Did the recession begin in the last quarter of 2000 or during the first months of the Bush presidency.
Granted, even if the truth is that the recession began in the days after George W. Bush's inauguration, most reasonable people would conclude that a president cannot on a dime turn a $10 trillion economy one way or the other.
However, data and supporting analyses from economists indicate that the recession began well before Bush took office, making political criticism of the president on the jobs issue even more inappropriate.
According the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the unofficial arbiter of business cycles, the recession began in March 2001 and ended in November 2001. NBER analyzes four data series from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Federal Reserve Board, and other government sources. While previously NBER indicated the recession started in March 2001 (it has not formally revised that date), official revisions of the data indicate that the recession started earlier than that.
For example, under revised calculations, real disposable income peaked in October 2000, rather than steadily rising in 2000 and early 2001 as indicated in the original data. Industrial production/manufacturing and trade sales both peaked in June of 2000, instead of September and August, respectively. Non-farm payroll employment peaked in February 2001, not March 2001. And monthly gross domestic product, which the NBER recently announced will be included in dating recessions, also peaked in 2000.
According to the Council of Economic Advisers, the median date of these five data series is October 2000 - at least three months before George W. Bush took office. We also know that the stock market started to decline in March of 2000, business investment began to fall in the third quarter of 2000, and initial jobless claims began to rise at the end of 2000 - more evidence that the U.S. economy in late 2000 was in fact "on the front end of a recession," as Vice President-elect Dick Cheney observed on Meet the Press on December 3, 2000.
Senator John Kerry and other Democratic party leaders ignore or gloss over these facts. However, even professor Joseph Stiglitz, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton, admits that "the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier."
To be sure, the Federal Reserve's twelve-month tightening cycle that began in mid-1999 contributed to the economic slowdown. It is also true that cyclical forces in the economy led to the type of business retrenchment that we have seen in the past and that will likely always be seen to some extent in a market economy.
But a significant contributing factor in the slowdown was the policy direction of the Clinton administration, which included an aggressive use of antitrust regulation in the high-tech marketplace, a lack of a national energy policy which resulted in energy-price spikes, and a high and rising federal tax burden.
A key area in which presidents can have an impact on the economy is tax policy.
President Clinton raised tax rates right after taking office in 1993, and presided over a massive "stealth tax hike" which ultimately hurt the economy.
Because income taxes were not indexed, the increase in real incomes during the 1990s pushed people into higher and higher tax brackets. According to Brian Wesbury of GKST Economics in Chicago, from 1993 to 2000, the number of people who paid taxes in one of the top three income-tax brackets almost doubled from 3.4 million to 6.4 million filers. Further, total income taxes paid by these filers increased from $84.6 billion in 1993 to $245.8 billion, an increase of 190.5 percent. President Clinton's policies increased the federal tax burden as a share of our national economy from 17.5 percent in 1992 to 20.9 percent in 2000.
President Bush, however, took the opposite approach of his predecessor.
Upon taking office, George W. Bush took immediate action to lift the tax burden and strengthen the economy. The first Bush tax cut put $40 billion immediately back into the economy in mid-2001 and helped cushion the economic fallout from the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In March 2002, the president signed a second tax cut that allowed partial expensing, which began the recovery in business-investment spending. In May 2003, Bush signed the third tax cut of his administration, boosting after-tax economic incentives by slashing tax rates on income, capital gains, and dividends.
Largely as a result of the president's tax-rate cuts, the recovery has moved into higher gear. The economy grew 6.1 percent in the second half of 2003, and 4.3 percent over the four quarters of 2003 - well above potential GDP growth. Business fixed investment in the fourth quarter of 2003 was revised upward to a 9.6 percent annual rate from 6.9 percent. The stock market has now returned to the level it was at when President Bush took office, which means that all the losses that occurred since March 2000 happened under President Clinton. In January, the economy generated 112,000 new jobs - the largest monthly increase since December 2000 - and 366,000 jobs have been added over the last 5 months. The unemployment rate has declined from 6.3 percent in June 2003 to 5.6 percent in January of this year, the fastest seven-month decline in nearly a decade.
And its not just supply-siders lauding the Bush tax cuts. Goldman Sachs economist Edward McKelvey, an early skeptic of Bush tax policy, now concludes, "they definitely had a stronger impact on spending than we anticipated." The Wachovia Economics Group reports that the "economic data provide support for the case that the midyear tax cut did take the economy up a notch. There is no need to resort to esoteric data or the torture of innocent economic statistics. The data are clear in their verdict" [emphasis added]. And International Monetary Fund economist Magda Kandil says the president's plan "is directly targeting consumer spending and investment incentives ... The end of double taxation of dividends and increasing incentives for small businesses should help sustain momentum in favor of job creation and long-term growth."
While armchair quarterbacking is fun for politicians, voters increasingly want to know what John Kerry would do to "create jobs." His solution, it appears, is to raise income-tax rates on job-creating small-business owners, roll back the tax cuts on investor capital gains and dividends, and cancel the scheduled elimination of the death tax. In the first presidential debate a reporter should ask John Kerry: "How will increasing taxes on those most likely to save, to invest, and to employ people create jobs in America?" His answer will tell Americans much about his own vision of America's economic future.Comment -
You're welcome to reach my bosses and convince them that what OOL posts is spam and for me to ban them accordingly. If you'd like some contact info for those people, I will be glad to provide it to you.Originally posted by The HG
But if it's just a case of you not agreeing with his point of view, then that is not spam and I refer you back to my post on how to put someone on ignore.Comment -
How was March the 2nd quarter of decline?
Quarters:
I: 1-3
II: 4-6
III: 7-9
IV: 10-12
So there were no decline in the previous quarter (2000 IV) as u claim. The downturn in the economy began in March 2001 which was still quarter I of 2001. Who was the president again?
I am not blaming Bush for the start of the 2001 recession as you morons are blaming Obama for the current crisis even though hes been on the job less than Bush had been when recession started.
NBER has not amended or changed their date of March 2001 as the beginning of the recession after almost 8 years.
Comment -
The 2001 recession was over in 8 months and we had solid economic growth for 6 years after that. It's hard to make the argument that Bush "screwed up the economy."Originally posted by daggerkobeHow was March the 2nd quarter of decline?
Quarters:
I: 1-3
II: 4-6
III: 7-9
IV: 10-12
So there were no decline in the previous quarter (2000 IV) as u claim. The downturn in the economy began in March 2001 which was still quarter I of 2001. Who was the president again?
I am not blaming Bush for the start of the 2001 recession as you morons are blaming Obama for the current crisis even though hes been on the job less than Bush had been when recession started.
NBER has not amended or changed their date of March 2001 as the beginning of the recession after almost 8 years.Comment
