The Economic Outlook - Who to Believe?

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic

---

And that is the scientific principle of "Spin"

Hitler invaded Poland... A

People died... B

Hitler was NOT responsible because he was not actually there.. C

If one applies that principle to any argument, one can of course achieve any outcome desired by the individual.

Facts are simply facts....

Spin it how you wish

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis

---

Spin your own self...

This is merely a deeper application of that and related logical flaws... I'm surprised you do not understand the difference between

"B follows A therefore A must cause B"

as opposed to

"B follows A and A did cause B"

You have made an extraordinary claim, with zero evidence to back it up. Until you can provide such evidence, your claim is best viewed with skepticism.

You may be absolutely right, but where is your evidence? Your opinion, while as valid as any other opinion, is just that... an opinion. Not worth a whole lot in objective terms.

Who exactly is twirling, here?

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic

---

Uh, he did post data to back his claim up. Back on page 4. Use the back button. It's there.

And he did apply your "A follows B" logic and he exposed a serious flaw in it. You just can't accept the fact that you could possibly be wrong about something can you? You don't sound very open minded, Mr. Open_Minded.

reply to post by sos37

---

Uh, no, he posted data that showed that the big spike in fuel prices followed in time the election of Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.

Fine, no argument.

His claim is that said election of Democratic majorities caused that spike (and other indicators of economic distress).

He has posted no evidence to support that claim. If it is his opinion, I have no problem with that... his opinion is as valid, as an opinion, as mine or yours or anybody else.

And I may be mis-reading, but to me it looks like he is claiming that as a fact, not opinion.

I want to see the supporting evidence. And so far, none has been provided.

This morning, my dog sneezed and immediately the telephone rang.

I can assume that the sneeze CAUSED the telephone to ring... and that would be my opinion.

But to say that it's a fact that the sneeze CAUSED the telephone to ring... well, that requires more evidence than the fact that they simply happened in sequence.

I have never seen this much spin outside of Rush Limbaugh...

Are you two taking lessons from him?


Democrats Cause High Gas Prices


Same Source


H and C


Same Source

More? Sure...


Gateway

Now while you are developing your spin, there are those of us doing research, try some and you will be astonished at what you find.

Semper

Economic Outlook?

Here you go...


Powerline

Bottom Line?


Source

And more...


Philly Inquirer

The evidence is as they say... Out there...

Try Google, it is a great search engine for FACTS

Semper

Just because another very biased source assumes "A followed B, therefore B caused A" doesn't make it true. Sorry.

What's Behind High Gas Prices?

(hint: It's not the Democratic Congress)

Refining Capacity Causes High Gas Prices

[edit on 7-8-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by semperfortis

---

You're kidding, right?

You give me links to a bunch of people who have the same opinion you have, and expect me to accept that as evidence? No way. If somebody's opinion was sufficient, I'd take yours... I at least have some degree of trust that you are an honorable individual. I have no idea who these other people are, and I don't care. They did not present any evidence either. Just their opinions.

This is all very impressive, but useless in terms of providing real evidence to support your claim. Or, we can just call it your opinion, and be done with it.

See folks...

This thread is not about the Economic Outlook, it is about political resolve devolving into obsessive nescience.

Post after post after post of factual evidence and still the Liberal spin and still the stubborn allegiance to hyperbole and opinionated emotional ideologies.

Still as Conservatives we have to persevere.

This is a long standing Liberal tactic that has been fairly successful in the past. Use emotions and the either admitted or pretended ignorance of facts and if the Liberal continues long enough, the Conservative posting facts gives up and allows the Liberal to continue on in ignorance.

With the factual evidence you have seen posted and the only rebuttal being a weak opinionated hyperbole, the Liberals still continue to postulate a position proven false again and again in the hopes we will give up and allow the Liberal Mindset to once again control a position or thread as it pertains to this venue.

Conservatives, stick to the facts as we have been and continue to fight the good fight and maybe the truth will win out over the continued and persistent bouts of emotions.

It is abundantly clear that not only is the current economic problems the direct result of Liberals and their failed policies, it is also clear they have no argument.

Just look at the posts and compare the two sides.

One side has abundant sources, the other speaks of Dogs Sneezing.

One side posts facts the other SAYS no facts were posted as if they are blind or did not read the thread.

You decide.

Keep speaking out

Let the truth be known

Semper

Oh, yes, Semper, please tell us what it's all about and how to think. Please, oh, please impart your wisdom, for we are too ignorant to figure it out on our own... /s

This thread WAS, in fact, about the economic outlook, until it got dragged off topic by those with a political agenda. I won't be further baited into making this about Conservative vs Liberal ideologies. That's for children.







Yeah, I don't think people will have any problems deciding.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

---

Really?

Then would you consider this childish? as it is directly in line with everything I have posted.

I would guess that following your statement, you would, yet those are YOUR very words.

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis

---

Dude, you crack me up!

All I've done here is point out your logical fallacy and ask for actual evidence to back up the strong claims you are making that two years of Democratic majority in Congress, doing largely nothing, is enough to take an economy the size of the United States from what you claim to have been perfectly healthy before the 06 election, to not healthy now.

You consistently fail to provide such evidence, but instead source other people spouting off their opinions, as you have been doing, and you further descend into My Team - Their Team gibberish, complete with enough wildly wrong assumptions about me to absolutely make my day! I had a really good laugh, and I thank you for it!

reply to post by semperfortis

---

What semper keeps refusing to acknowledge is the things i've outlined in This post numerous times.

I'll give you the gist of it:

The national average was $2.90 in april of 2006


If it was $1.20 in 2001, one year after Bush, and $2.90 in April of 2006 (more than 6 months before democrats controlled the hill)

then you can do the figuring

That is a 141.6% increase before democrats took over, already on a steep incline.

So lets see.
Democrats took office in Jan of 2007

In may of 2007 the national average was $3.11

So from $2.90 to $3.11 you have a 7.25% increase and from $3.11 to today which was $4.11 you have a 32% increase in the cost of gasoline



.......and gas prices are the democrats fault? I really am confused how you can come up with that bizarre generalization?

Gas prices sucked before democrats ever controlled congress beginning in Jan of 2007.

They've had a year and 1/2 and gas prices are FINALLY starting to fall back down.

Bush has had 7 years of steady and sharp inclines in gasoline price before we ever saw any drops.

To me - the picture seems clear. I could be missing something.....if i am - by all means paint that picture for me....please.

reply to post by semperfortis

---

wait wait wait wait wait wait wait....

You post a chart.......to back up your claim that gas prices are democrats fault?


I post ... actual...data...from nonbiased sources....citing gas prices in a chronological fashion...and you say ... im ignoring facts?

Allow me to simplify the process i've laid out repeatedly for you and others, and its been ignored. (silence IS the best form of admitting your wrong)

If you rule the world today and a block costs 1 dollar today.
And in 5 years costs 2 dollars.
That block has increased in price by 100% over the span of 5 years.
If i take over rule of the planet, and a block becomes $2.50 - that block has risen 50%, BUT, was already on the rise. Since you took power - it had risen 150%.

It rose less in my tenior than yours. Yet, your loyalists would blame me for high block prices......


You are the guy, so far, who hasnt posted anything to back up your claims asides from what other conservatives have said.... You posted a picture of a graph. In that graph, it shows exactly what i've been saying. Gas prices were sharply increased before Jan 2007. They continued well after 2007.

Are you seriously telling me that you expected democrats in congress to immediately make changes after they took office, and that the very next day - gas prices would be back to pre-bush administration prices?

I conceded: Congress hasnt done damn-diddly.

But you're placing the blame on the wrong people for the cause of the problem.

You're an intelligent guy - so why ignore the facts?

The facts are:

When democrats were campaigning for congress - their platform was what?

"we'll lower gas prices"

Because high gas prices was a concern back then, just like it is today.

So how could a democratic congress be responsible for creating a problem which predates their existance?

Thats like telling me that i'm personally responsible for the fall of Rome?
Is it now my fault that Caesar was slain?


Mock it all you want. Its true. You can argue much in this world, but the constants stay true:

Timelines. They follow a very well known constant called time:
How you can try and avoid the ideal of time, in order to fit your agenda, is beyond me.

It truly is.

[edit on 8/8/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

And i just can't keep away


I'd like to know:

If republicans controlled the presidency for 7 years, and the congress for....12 years prior to 2007...exactly how did the democrats interfere?

If you have (for lack of a better term) a monopoly on the government for 7 entire years, and you get NOTHING accomplished but MORE war? How is that the "other guys" fault? I seriously need to know this

You can blame it on all the democratic policies you want, the FACT is you can have 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 policies, and not a single damn one of them means ANYTHING unless you have the power to enact them.

Gas prices were low during the Clinton years....i can't stand Bill, but you see my point?

When Gas prices get blamed on republicans, the typical republican response is to say "well democrats caused big oil prices by limited our progress at home"

When gas prices get blamed on big oil, the typical republican response is to say "well gas prices are actually the fault of speculators, hurricane katrina, lack of refineries, and a small termite hill in the congo"

No.

Gas prices are the direct result of greed. Plain and simple.

The clinton years experienced "war" (ok...so conflict)

The clinton years experienced hurricanes
THey experienced "lack of refineries" they experienced the same damn termite hill in the Congo. Only there were more termites back then.

And gas prices were nothing compared to today.

But all of that aside, i've decided to take a much closer look at the graph you've provided us.

And by much closer - i mean "closer" i actually had to whip out photoshop for enlarging purposes

The Graph

The numbers across the x-axis (horizontal) represent dates on the timeline.

They start with 1979 and Progress to 2008.


The numbers across the y-axis (vertical) represent various gas price integers

they start with 0.00 and proceed in 20 cent incriments up to $4.40

But the really funny part is at the very top of the graph:

"Texas Super-Unleaded Gasoline Price History"


This is for Texas. Not the United States. BUT
It does give us a shakey "US Average" Line with which we can somewhat compare.

It still leaves out the fact that this is super unleaded, which is always higher than regular unleaded

Which is completely off-kilt with the #'s i provided, because we're comparing 2 completely different things.

BUT

We can still use your graph for visual representation to support my argument.


Part 1: The Republican Era (2000-2007) Dubbed the Bush Spike:


From this we can see that - roughly - the cost of SUPER PREMIUM gasoline went from (roughly) $1.65 to $3.38. A difference of $1.73. A % increase of 104.84 % in the cost of SUPER PREMIUM gasoline.




The next segment: The Democratic Spike. This is the period of time from wence the democrats took control of congress. (2007 to 2008)



We See SUPER PREMIUM gasoline prices go from $3.38 to $4.25 which is a difference of $0.87 or a 25.73% increase in price.


So from 2000-2007 - we had to deal with constantly rising gas prices. Ever increasing in the news, further driving speculators to pump up the price, for fear for retaliation from the american consumers.

Come to 2007 and we've reached a climax. Or have we?

We have a subprime meltdown. We have an economy on the downtrod because of gloomy american attitudes towards their government, the future of energy, and the global economy in shods because the american dollar is now the peso compared to the Euro.

Insert 2007. The democrats come into record high gas prices, which by your chart alone, are at $3.38.

They are expected to lower prices immediately to pre-bush era prices. Not possible. There's already been (at that time) 6 years of destruction.


So explain to me how a 25% increase in price under the democratic congress is responsible for the price problems of today?


Explain to me why its not the republican congress combined with the republican presidency for 7 whole years (2000-2007) that increased gas prices by almost 105%.

I believe the evidence is clear.