XPost: alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Free Lunch"  wrote in message   
   news:8hhip8ln1cq53r59l1p30vul2c2bgfdbrm@4ax.com...   
   > On Sun, 19 May 2013 17:34:48 -0400, "Scout"   
   >  wrote in alt.atheism:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>"Free Lunch"  wrote in message   
   >>news:t5eip85dbn900b793ibujt3q71080b9g74@4ax.com...   
   >>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 15:33:57 -0400, "Scout"   
   >>>  wrote in alt.atheism:   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>"Free Lunch"  wrote in message   
   >>>>news:eo4ip89egj1n05i9freal2ed4d29p0baor@4ax.com...   
   >>>>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:58:08 -0500, RD Sandman   
   >>>>>  wrote in alt.atheism:   
   >>>>> If, as W was, you are adding half a trillion a year to the debt, it is   
   >>>>> much harder to come out of a recession with added stimulus. W's   
   >>>>> deficits   
   >>>>> after 2002 were irresponsible.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>And what do you call Obama's TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICITS after 2009 when   
   >>>>the   
   >>>>recession ended?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Let me guess....it's different or some lame ass excuse for why it's   
   >>>>different.   
   >>>>   
   >>> The "end" of a recession in economic speech is the bottom of the   
   >>> downturn. It is when unemployment is growing fastest.   
   >>   
   >>IOW, you want to redefine the terms to suit yourself.   
   >   
   > I wasn't redefining anything here. I repeated the standard definition of   
   > recession.   
      
   Cite then this "standard definition" you claim matches the definition you   
   provided.   
      
   >The problem is that there are no good terms that refer to the   
   > time that the economy is still rebounding from the recession, when there   
   > is still far higher than normal unemployment.   
      
   Well, it's NOT a recession.   
      
   Which was YOUR criteria for bitching about Reagan's spending. But now   
   suddenly when it's pointed out that Obama acted the same, you're very   
   interested in making excused.   
      
   Ok, let's pass on Obama for the moment.   
      
   Let's hear your rants about the deficit spending of Clinton.   
      
   After all, you can't say he was in a recession and you can't complain we   
   were still rebounding...so let's hear how you bitch about the deficits under   
   Clinton.   
      
   Go on. Don't hold back.   
      
      
   >>   
   >>And then you wonder why people don't take you seriously.   
   >>   
   >>But, let's go with that *new* definition of yours.   
   >>   
   >>By THAT standard the recession still ended in 2009.   
   >   
   > I offered no new definition here.   
      
   Sure, but it still ended by the definition in 2009.   
      
   >>It's now May 2013.....   
   >>   
   >>So let's hear your outrage over Obama's continued massive deficit   
   >>spending.   
   >   
   > When there are massive deficits and unemployment is below 6%, I'll be   
   > concerned.   
      
   Ah, so now it's yet ANOTHER definition.   
      
   I will simply note that under Reagan unemployment didn't drop below 6% until   
   almost his last year in office.   
      
   Yet it was under 6% for virtually all of Clinton's term in office....so   
   what's with all the deficits?   
      
   More to the point....where is your outrage over Clinton's deficits?   
      
   (readers are cautioned again to prepare for yet another sudden change in   
   direction by FL)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)