It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
how many of these economists drive bmw's ?
how many are on food stamps ?
migfht as well say trump likes the plan, lol
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
and how many economists are out there ? every school in the country must churn out a few hundred every year
so 400 is actually a paltry number
Originally posted by beezzer
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
and how many economists are out there ? every school in the country must churn out a few hundred every year
so 400 is actually a paltry number
M'kay.
Where's the thousands that support Obama's plan?
Originally posted by beezzer
Where's the thousands that support Obama's plan?
Originally posted by Nite_wing
Originally posted by beezzer
Where's the thousands that support Obama's plan?
What plan? I haven't heard about it.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Happy1
I've added a link to my thread with the stats on the Presidents to my signature which helps in this specific case because I really disagree on Clinton. At worst, he did no harm...and things improved only a little over 8 years. In the better categories, he did quite well and GDP is certainly one example.
As much as it would make me happy to say Clinton was a crappy President, it just isn't true in economics or in the standards I learned they use to set the 'ratings' on such things. He was vane, personally corrupt and morally repugnant...but then, show me someone who reached the level of President in the last several decades who wasn't, outside Eisenhower. The war hero status of a 5 Star General got him that one. lol
Originally posted by RELDDIR
You're all missing the point guys, housing prices in the basket of goods for the CPI (Consumer Price Index) was replaced by owners' equivalent of rent in 1983. In essence, when house prices rose up in the late 1990s and early 2000s, it did not inflate the CPI. If you calculated Clinton's Economy in pre-1983 terms, what you get is really high prices, relative to home ownership (American Dream). Add Global Trade to this and you get an artificially "vibrant economy."
From Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org...
The hidden change in prices of housingIn January 1983 housing prices were replaced with owners' equivalent of rent because rents are more stable. [3] Because house prices rose and fell more than rents during the housing bubble and crash, housing's effects on inflation and deflation are not reflected in the CPI.
Originally posted by RELDDIR
I wonder how they currently calculate "Unemployment Data?" Anybody?
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Bilk22
The numbers are what they are..... Clinton absolutely did run to surpluses and I was among those right in the front of the pack calling 'liar!! Untrue!' to those who said that very thing...until recently.
In making the thread on the Presidents and working on a couple more right now, I've become familiar with the numbers at a level I never was when saying people who described Clinton's budgets as surplus were wrong.
Did Clinton reduce the National Debt? Absolutely not..... He ultimate added to it during his first years. By the last years though, he had run ANNUAL budgets into surplus numbers.
It'd be funny if it weren't serious in terms of debating factual numbers.... Funny because until I went at the latest projects with an open mind...I've been among Clinton's most vocal critics for his whole 8 years.... Now by pure fact of math and numbers, I must admit that just isn't accurate if I'm going to be intellectually honest on things.
....It's only misleading if people assume it's talking about National Debt not Budget Deficit.
Originally posted by RELDDIR
Guys, I won't do all the homework all the time, but could anyone here calculate today's Current "Unemployment Rate" in pre-recession terms? My bet is that it is not that low.