Obama begins to outline a new economic plan

[Necromancer]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/07/obama.transition/index.html

(Watch the video)

Two things really caught my eye:

1. Just how comprehensive the plan was. For 8 years, solutions to economic problems have focused primarily on giving breaks to big business- defining the state of the economy by the state of these corporate entities. Obama definitely recognized the importance of maintaining healthy business, but he also really focused on the individual workers in ways the Bush administration would never have allowed (extending unemployment benefits, for example).

2. How forward thinking it was. I think we've all been really afraid that the economic crisis would prohibit Obama from working on the other issues he promised- education and health care, for example. But he took a really enlightened view and reminded the nation that the long-term stability of a country's economy is directly tied to its health and education. Interestingly enough, the success of the so-called "Asian Miracles" during the Asian stock market crashes (short-lived though that success often was), was often directly attributed to their strong investments in infrastructure- namely education and health care.

We'll see how this ends up looking on the ground, but I maintain cautious optimism. Let's just pray that republicans don't try to play partisanship for the express purpose of sabotaging Obama's presidency. I don't think the individual legislators are going to, but the RNC itself may try to push members into it.

[Parkbandit]

We'll see how this ends up looking on the ground, but I maintain cautious optimism. Let's just pray that republicans don't try to play partisanship for the express purpose of sabotaging Obama's presidency. I don't think the individual legislators are going to, but the RNC itself may try to push members into it.

Weird.. that sounds EXACTLY what the Democrats did to Bush... and what the Republicans did to Clinton... and what the Democrats did to Reagan...

It's inevitable.

[Necromancer]

Yeah, Bush REALLY needed the dems to make him look bad and to make his administration inept.

[crb]

More rhetoric from "The office of the president-elect"

Someone should tell Obama the campaign is over, he won, and that working on 2012 already is crass.

PS Jesse, the Bush tax cuts of 2003 removed millions of lower income people from the income tax rolls, and cut taxes across the board. How is that only for business again? Oh right... they didn't mention that in the talking points you parroted.

[Stanley Burrell]

More rhetoric from "The office of the president-elect"

Someone should tell Obama the campaign is over, he won, and that working on 2012 already is crass.

PS Jesse, the Bush tax cuts of 2003 removed millions of lower income people from the income tax rolls, and cut taxes across the board. How is that only for business again? Oh right... they didn't mention that in the talking points you parroted.

I hope Obama announces his Muslim religion just to piss you and ParkBandit off. Not that you don't already know this as stone cold fact. Goddamn, you're a step ahead.

asdfhjkl

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, Bush REALLY needed the dems to make him look bad and to make his administration inept.

And I'm sure Obama REALLY will need the Republicans to make him look bad and to make his administration inept. The good news is: You will have the media telling you how fantastic he is doing every day.

[Daniel]

More rhetoric from "The office of the president-elect"

.

This is his first press conference after being elected.

Do you even think before you post your partisan bullshit?

[Necromancer]

You've got to be fucking kidding me. The poverty rate increases in Bush's two terms were 12% and 12.6%. 5.4 MILLION people ended up sinking into poverty between 2000-2005, according to the US Census Bureau.

God you really have no fucking clue, do you?

Republicans = higher rates of unemployment and poverty. Trickle down economics was disproven in the 1960s- which is why the US is one of the few countries in the world that actively attempts to use it for economic policy. Even the IMF finally agreed that it wasn't accurate.

[875000]

You've got to be fucking kidding me. The poverty rate increases in Bush's two terms were 12% and 12.6%. 5.4 MILLION people ended up sinking into poverty between 2000-2005, according to the US Census Bureau.

God you really have no fucking clue, do you?

Republicans = higher rates of unemployment and poverty. Trickle down economics was disproven in the 1960s- which is why the US is one of the few countries in the world that actively attempts to use it for economic policy. Even the IMF finally agreed that it wasn't accurate.

You left out a few salient facts with those poverty statistics ...

The official poverty rate in 2007 was 12.5 percent, not statistically different from 2006.

The poverty rate in 2007 was lower than in 1959, the first year for which poverty estimates are available, while statistically higher than the most recent trough in 2000 (11.3 percent).

So basically you are saying an economic system first implemented roughly 20 years after it was supposedly was disproven somehow has led to the same or lower levels of poverty than before. And that this is bad.

Ok.

Carry on ...

[Moist Happenings]

More rhetoric from "The office of the president-elect"

Someone should tell Obama the campaign is over, he won, and that working on 2012 already is crass.

PS Jesse, the Bush tax cuts of 2003 removed millions of lower income people from the income tax rolls, and cut taxes across the board. How is that only for business again? Oh right... they didn't mention that in the talking points you parroted.

God forbid the president-elect give the people that elected him an idea of what he's planning for the future.

[AnticorRifling]

If it fails is he allowed to blame white people?

[875000]

If it fails is he allowed to blame white people?

Only if they are Republican.

[Parkbandit]

You've got to be fucking kidding me. The poverty rate increases in Bush's two terms were 12% and 12.6%. 5.4 MILLION people ended up sinking into poverty between 2000-2005, according to the US Census Bureau.

God you really have no fucking clue, do you?

Republicans = higher rates of unemployment and poverty. Trickle down economics was disproven in the 1960s- which is why the US is one of the few countries in the world that actively attempts to use it for economic policy. Even the IMF finally agreed that it wasn't accurate.

Yea.. if a trickle down economy doesn't work perfectly, let's try the whole thing in reverse, because that HAS to work!

I can just see it now.. in a year or two, we'll have bums on the street holding up signs "Now Hiring, please apply in person"

[Moist Happenings]

I can just see it now.. in a year or two, we'll have bums on the street holding up signs "Now Hiring, please apply in person"

This is an acceptable practice in the new People's Republic of America.

All hail Chairman Obama!

:grin:

[Necromancer]

Yea.. if a trickle down economy doesn't work perfectly, let's try the whole thing in reverse, because that HAS to work!

I can just see it now.. in a year or two, we'll have bums on the street holding up signs "Now Hiring, please apply in person"

Yes, because that's EXACTLY what Obama is suggesting. You obviously didn't actually take a moment to review his outline for an economic plan (or to read my post it would seem). Shock me, shock me.

No, trickle down economics doesn't work period. It increases social stratification, and it does little to combat poverty. What DOES work is bolstering infrastructure- the education levels of a country, the health, the employment rate (directly bolstering it- not giving CEOs more money and assuming they'll make jobs instead of buying new homes for themselves), and overall social welfare of the ENTIRE population.

[Necromancer]

You left out a few salient facts with those poverty statistics ...

The official poverty rate in 2007 was 12.5 percent, not statistically different from 2006.

The poverty rate in 2007 was lower than in 1959, the first year for which poverty estimates are available, while statistically higher than the most recent trough in 2000 (11.3 percent).

So basically you are saying an economic system first implemented roughly 20 years after it was supposedly was disproven somehow has led to the same or lower levels of poverty than before. And that this is bad.

Ok.

Carry on ...

The official poverty rate in 2007 may not have been very different from 2006, but this is hardly shocking. Bush's policies were already in effect and had done their damage. The important point is the jump of 5.4 million people from immediately before Bush's first term to a few years into it- after he implemented a rigorous set of reforms. A .6% growth in poverty within a few years of his economic policies is VERY telling. Just because it didn't get much worse from 2006-2007 doesn't mean it's not bad. It just means he was maintaining his economic policies and continuing the damage done.

It's also worth noting that the number of children living in poverty increased by 6.5% during the Bush administration- something he was heavily criticized for during his terms.

[875000]

The official poverty rate in 2007 may not have been very different from 2006, but this is hardly shocking. Bush's policies were already in effect and had done their damage. The important point is the jump of 5.4 million people from immediately before Bush's first term to a few years into it- after he implemented a rigorous set of reforms. A .6% growth in poverty within a few years of his economic policies is VERY telling. Just because it didn't get much worse from 2006-2007 doesn't mean it's not bad. It just means he was maintaining his economic policies and continuing the damage done.

You asserted that trickle-down economics was disproved in the 1960's. You also asserted that since its implementation proverty rates increased. You were addressing the theory, which goes well beyond this sitting president.

I pointed out that since 1980 -- the period of time when "trickle down economics" was supposedly first fully embraced -- the poverty rates remained on agregate the same or less than the period of time before it was used. Which, from the perspective of seeing an improvement in poverty rates, would be a good thing.

Moreover, you are alternatively using 1 and 8 years' of data to draw a conclusion. I'm using 5 decades'. Larger sample sizes tend to yeild more statistically valid conclusions.

By the way, I also checked the trends on child poverty over the same 5 decade period. The same pattern also generally held true; improvement since the 1980's. As for the isolated period of time (2006-2007) you seem intent on focusing upon, I can only point out - OF COURSE THE CHILD POVERTY RATE INCREASED!

The most severe economic impact of downturns (defined as less activity than the period before) in economic activity invariably falls on children, with the only glaring exception being either 2000 or 2001 (I get pinpoint the exact yar if you would like). If there is an economic slowdown, children are more likely to get hit harder because socioeconomic demographics leave that segment of the population more vulnerable.

This is not unique to the last 2-3 decades; this statsitical correlation has always held true, regardless of the broad economic policies being used and particularly in recessions (usually, an increase in child poverty during recessions has been twice as large as the increase in general population's poverty). In other words, that growth in child poverty you cite is not really telling -- it is telling us what we should already know.


The important point is the jump of 5.4 million people from immediately before Bush's first term to a few years into it- after he implemented a rigorous set of reforms.

I am really trying to avoid getting into the ins and outs of Bush's policies. Supply side economics tends to go well beyond him. And honestly there are a number of things he did that are not exectly kosher with most supply siders. However, since you are beginning to throw good statistical methodologies and facts to the wind, I think we need to ground this discussion for a moment.

You appear to be implying Bush's policies were classic "trickle down" economics while Clinton's weren't, and because of this everything got screwed up with more people landing in poverty.

Let's consider some basic facts, then.

Average povery rate under Clinton:13.8%
Average povery rate under Bush:12.2%

Granted, the calculation for Bush lacks 1 year of data that could throw things off. But honestly, who are we kidding? It won't jack the average up another 1.5%. Poverty rates declined. So, even if one accepts the premises of your argument, a review of the facts lead to a different conclusion than the one you intended.

Now, here is the part where I lay all of my cards on the table. I don't really accept the premises of your argument, here.

From a directional sense (meaning very general), I think the economies under both Clinton and Bush, Jr. (and really, going all the way back to Reagan) were both operating under supply side economics. (I have no clue whether Clinton really wanted this to happen, but with limited changes to the tax code from 1992-1994 and a Republican Congress, he could only do so much if he wanted to change course).

I won't deny there are variances between the two, particularly in the way each tried to shave the edges or externalities off of this approach. However, both are a continuation of the trend that you are keen to rail against.

So, don't read my citing of Clinton's poverty rates as an indictment on his performance. Rather, look upon it as a reminder to look at and understand your numbers before trying to build a case around them. Some people pay attention, Jesse.

[Necromancer]

I'm not sure where you're getting that Trickle Down economics was first embraced in the 80s- just because Reagen made it a big part of his economic platform doesn't mean it was the first time we saw it. So your entire first point is moot.

The poverty rate during Clinton's administration was largely due to the 1996 Welfare Reform Act- it threw many people under the bus as soon as it was passed. And although he signed it, it was NOT his idea. It was touted by the Republicans as fiscally responsible and a step in the right direction despite serious objections from liberals. Though, in the end, the New Democrats of Congress ended up putting their support behind it.

There's a huge difference between a series of economic plans that are drafted by the President's administration and pushed through Congress and pieces of primarily Republican legislation that were passed during a given administration.

Yes, some of us DO pay attention.

The difference between t

[875000]

I'm not sure where you're getting that Trickle Down economics was first embraced in the 80s- just because Reagen made it a big part of his economic platform doesn't mean it was the first time we saw it. So your entire first point is moot.

The poverty rate during Clinton's administration was largely due to the 1996 Welfare Reform Act- it threw many people under the bus as soon as it was passed. And although he signed it, it was NOT his idea. It was touted by the Republicans as fiscally responsible and a step in the right direction despite serious objections from liberals. Though, in the end, the New Democrats of Congress ended up putting their support behind it.

There's a huge difference between a series of economic plans that are drafted by the President's administration and pushed through Congress and pieces of primarily Republican legislation that were passed during a given administration.

Yes, some of us DO pay attention.

The difference between t

The entirety of your post (per PC comment "Last edited by Necromancer : 11-08-2008 at 09:18 PM.") . Saved so others can savor the irony. Really great attention to detail, there.

Anyway, let's address a few of your points.


I'm not sure where you're getting that Trickle Down economics was first embraced in the 80s- just because Reagen made it a big part of his economic platform doesn't mean it was the first time we saw it. So your entire first point is moot.

1. Other than the 1890's, "trickle-down" economics was not really used in the United States as an overriding policy, which is the scale you are referring to. Some have tried to argued that the US flirted with it in the 1920's and briefly under Kennedy, but that is widely disputed by most credible economists, including critics of the theory like John Kenneth Galbraith.
2. As to the reason why I chose the 1980's, because most economists, political scientists tend to point to that period of time as when the policy was used in force in the US since poverty statistics were used on the US population. Hence, the basis of my argument and the reason why it is directly relevant to this discussion.

[875000]

The poverty rate during Clinton's administration was largely due to the 1996 Welfare Reform Act- it threw many people under the bus as soon as it was passed. And although he signed it, it was NOT his idea. It was touted by the Republicans as fiscally responsible and a step in the right direction despite serious objections from liberals. Though, in the end, the New Democrats of Congress ended up putting their support behind it.

Let's take a look at the US general population's poverty rates during the Clinton Administration:

1992: 14.8
1993: 15.1
1994: 14.5
1995: 13.8
1996: 13.7
1997: 13.3
1998: 12.7
1999: 11.9

Boys, girls ... what does the trend show?

Let's look at it another way. Let's throw 1996 out, as a period of time in transition.

The average rate from 1992-1995 is 14.6%. The average rate 1997-1999 is 12.6%. Which period of time has a higher rate?

Bonus points: Using the information above, try to adopt Jesse's position that "The poverty rate during Clinton's administration was largely due to the 1996 Welfare Reform Act- it threw many people under the bus as soon as it was passed" and argue with a straight face that 1996's rate < 1997's rate < 1998's rate.

These numbers should not come as a surprise to you. We are getting them from the same source as far as I can tell. The only difference I am seeing is that I am being more thorough.

Or ... are you Chillmonster, Backlash, or whatever other names he uses these days?

[Daniel]

You asserted that trickle-down economics was disproved in the 1960's. You also asserted that since its implementation proverty rates increased. You were addressing the theory, which goes well beyond this sitting president.

I pointed out that since 1980 -- the period of time when "trickle down economics" was supposedly first fully embraced -- the poverty rates remained on agregate the same or less than the period of time before it was used. Which, from the perspective of seeing an improvement in poverty rates, would be a good thing.

Moreover, you are alternatively using 1 and 8 years' of data to draw a conclusion. I'm using 5 decades'. Larger sample sizes tend to yeild more statistically valid conclusions.

By the way, I also checked the trends on child poverty over the same 5 decade period. The same pattern also generally held true; improvement since the 1980's. As for the isolated period of time (2006-2007) you seem intent on focusing upon, I can only point out - OF COURSE THE CHILD POVERTY RATE INCREASED!

The most severe economic impact of downturns (defined as less activity than the period before) in economic activity invariably falls on children, with the only glaring exception being either 2000 or 2001 (I get pinpoint the exact yar if you would like). If there is an economic slowdown, children are more likely to get hit harder because socioeconomic demographics leave that segment of the population more vulnerable.

This is not unique to the last 2-3 decades; this statsitical correlation has always held true, regardless of the broad economic policies being used and particularly in recessions (usually, an increase in child poverty during recessions has been twice as large as the increase in general population's poverty). In other words, that growth in child poverty you cite is not really telling -- it is telling us what we should already know.



I am really trying to avoid getting into the ins and outs of Bush's policies. Supply side economics tends to go well beyond him. And honestly there are a number of things he did that are not exectly kosher with most supply siders. However, since you are beginning to throw good statistical methodologies and facts to the wind, I think we need to ground this discussion for a moment.

You appear to be implying Bush's policies were classic "trickle down" economics while Clinton's weren't, and because of this everything got screwed up with more people landing in poverty.

Let's consider some basic facts, then.

Average povery rate under Clinton:13.8%
Average povery rate under Bush:12.2%

Granted, the calculation for Bush lacks 1 year of data that could throw things off. But honestly, who are we kidding? It won't jack the average up another 1.5%. Poverty rates declined. So, even if one accepts the premises of your argument, a review of the facts lead to a different conclusion than the one you intended.

Now, here is the part where I lay all of my cards on the table. I don't really accept the premises of your argument, here.

From a directional sense (meaning very general), I think the economies under both Clinton and Bush, Jr. (and really, going all the way back to Reagan) were both operating under supply side economics. (I have no clue whether Clinton really wanted this to happen, but with limited changes to the tax code from 1992-1994 and a Republican Congress, he could only do so much if he wanted to change course).

I won't deny there are variances between the two, particularly in the way each tried to shave the edges or externalities off of this approach. However, both are a continuation of the trend that you are keen to rail against.

So, don't read my citing of Clinton's poverty rates as an indictment on his performance. Rather, look upon it as a reminder to look at and understand your numbers before trying to build a case around them. Some people pay attention, Jesse.


Not that I'm jumping on Necro's band wagon, but what data sets are you using?

I don't have a lot of time (It's saturday night time to get fuxxored up!!!), but if you look at census data you see a general trend of lower poverty rates during democratic presidents vs a general trend of increasing poverty rates under Democrat ones going back to Carter.

I say this to point out that using aggregate averages per president is not exactly a sound methodology because A) There is a lag between policy implementation and impact and B) The number will be skewed depending upon the state of economy when someone takes office.

For instance, using Census data you see that Clinton came into office with a 14.8 rate of poverty and left office with a 11.3. Whereas, Bush started with an 11.3 and it's looking like he'll leave with something around 13+.

If this discussion hasn't entirely degenerated by the time I sober up tomorrow I'd love to discuss it more.

[Necromancer]

Clinton's administration was very much criticized for an increase in poverty rates among women and children after the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. At the same time, however, the economy was moving in a positive direction. You say you're being more thorough, but on the contrary- you're not accounting for any push/pull effects at all.

And the trend there shows the reality: the last decline in poverty rates occurred in 2000 under the Clinton administration. When Bush took over, the only drop we saw was 12.7% to 12.6%- which was statistically insignificant.

And now let's take a look at the bigger pictures:

In 1989 Bush Senior inherited the lowest poverty rate in the history of the US. Despite this, with republican economic plans in the works, poverty rates rose steadily to their 1993 levels. Then Clinton's administration took over, and it began to decline steadily to NEW record-breaking lows- constant decline until 2000 when Bush took over. After that, it began to rise again.

Now, even though Clinton's overall poverty rates declined, he DID put more children and women into poverty in 1996 when he signed the Welfare Reform Act (notice between 1996 and 1997 you had the one year where there was no significant decline? It's because a whole host of people suddenly were no longer eligible for aid and were dumped from Welfare- which mitigated the other work he was doing).

So what exactly are you trying to prove here? The numbers don't lie: Under three terms of Bush administrations we saw poverty rise steadily. And under the two Clinton terms we saw poverty decline steadily.

Conservative bullshit economics do NOT work. They force people into poverty. So ironic for the party who, before Bush Jr, prided themselves on sound economic policy (for their corporate donors).

[875000]

Clinton's administration was very much criticized for an increase in poverty rates among women and children after the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. At the same time, however, the economy was moving in a positive direction. You say you're being more thorough, but on the contrary- you're not accounting for any push/pull effects at all.

And the trend there shows the reality: the last decline in poverty rates occurred in 2000 under the Clinton administration. When Bush took over, the only drop we saw was 12.7% to 12.6%- which was statistically insignificant.

And now let's take a look at the bigger pictures:

In 1989 Bush Senior inherited the lowest poverty rate in the history of the US. Despite this, with republican economic plans in the works, poverty rates rose steadily to their 1993 levels. Then Clinton's administration took over, and it began to decline steadily to NEW record-breaking lows- constant decline until 2000 when Bush took over. After that, it began to rise again.

Now, even though Clinton's overall poverty rates declined, he DID put more children and women into poverty in 1996 when he signed the Welfare Reform Act (notice between 1996 and 1997 you had the one year where there was no significant decline? It's because a whole host of people suddenly were no longer eligible for aid and were dumped from Welfare- which mitigated the other work he was doing).

So what exactly are you trying to prove here? The numbers don't lie: Under three terms of Bush administrations we saw poverty rise steadily. And under the two Clinton terms we saw poverty decline steadily.

Conservative bullshit economics do NOT work. They force people into poverty. So ironic for the party who, before Bush Jr, prided themselves on sound economic policy (for their corporate donors).

I am going to call bullshit on a number of fronts.


Conservative bullshit economics do NOT work. They force people into poverty. So ironic for the party who, before Bush Jr, prided themselves on sound economic policy (for their corporate donors).

Your original claim was that supply side economics does not work and increased poverty rates. When presented with a comparison of poverty rates over 5 decades -- splitting the period of time where supply side economics wasn't used versus when it dominated -- and presented with evidence that the overall rates were lower than when when supply side wasn't used, you tried to shift the scope to a narrow segment of time when rates increased.

News flash. Poverty rates increase when there is a decrease with economic activity. The overall point is that the poverty rates were lower when supply side economics was used then when it wasn't. As I pointed out before, this theory is not specific to one president. For the most part we have been operating under supply side economics since Reagan -- which I also pointed out.

You can't claim you are looking at the bigger picture, and then just focus on a small portion of it. Which, incidentally is what you are doing by just trying to focus on a few years under Bush.

Onto the next point ...


Clinton's administration was very much criticized for an increase in poverty rates among women and children after the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. At the same time, however, the economy was moving in a positive direction. You say you're being more thorough, but on the contrary- you're not accounting for any push/pull effects at all.

Except the overall poverty rates did not increase during his administration after he implemented the Welfare Reform Act in 1996. The Census Bureau data I cited clearly shows that. Sure, welfare advocates pissed and moaned that they would, but by and large the crisis that they all saw coming never materialized.

And, if you dice the Census Bureau data, and just focus on the segment of the population defined as "Families with female householder, no husband present" (i.e., women and children) overal poverty rates declined to levels lower than before Welfare Reform was enacted.

As for me not accounting for "push/pull" go back and read -- thoroughly -- what I wrote (funny how that you only brought that up after I was able to produce numbers showing that poverty rates did not swell after 1996 -- but I digress). I have pointed out that poverty rates increase as economic activity decreases. And I also pointed out that your claims that the Welfare Reform Act pushed more people into poverty is bogus.

That was my main point in that post -- that your criticism of the Welfare Reform Act pushing people into poverty was completely bereft of facts. I even seperated that post from everything else in an attempt to call out it was a different point. The numbers substantiate my position.

Honestly, you don't even have to look at the numbers I cited to realize this. Do you want to know why?

Because people on welfare are already in a state of poverty. People with jobs can be in a state of poverty according to the US Government classification. I should know; in 1996 I had a job and even with that income I was still technically below the poverty line. Moving people on or off welfare roles cannot, by defintion, increase the number of people sinking into poverty because they are already below the poverty line if they are elgible to receive welfare.

Reducing poverty rates is largely a function of economic activity. Which, again, is why I keep going back to the point that to the degree that supply side economics powers the engine of economic growth, it has helped reduce poverty.

Seriously, I am convinced at this point you do not even know what poverty is, and are merely parroting talking points.



And the trend there shows the reality: the last decline in poverty rates occurred in 2000 under the Clinton administration. When Bush took over, the only drop we saw was 12.7% to 12.6%- which was statistically insignificant.

Clinton was also operating under Supply Side economics. Neither he nor Bush Sr were able to fundamentally alter where Reagan took the tax code, and after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 they cut tax rates further (with many deriding their actions as more "trickle down" economics).

Unless you are going to take the silly position that the economic policies of Clinton's first two years somehow set the course for his remaining six, you are out of luck.

I ran the numbers a moment ago and even if I cut out the Clinton years and aggregate them into same the bucket of "non-supply side" (which, again is wrong, wrong, wrong) and compare that bucket to one with the poverty rates aggregated for the 3 remaining presidents (emphasis again -- wrong, wrong, wrong), the average poverty rate is still lower for the Supply Side bucket. I will state right now, so there is no ambiguity on this, that I think this is a lousy way to segment data as it relies on bad assumptions. But since you want to go in this direction, there you go.

The only way you can even get the numbers to line up in your favor is by somehow arguing that Clinton's economic policies were so unique, they cannot be classified as any other way. No economist with any shred of credibility would try to argue that, so don't even try to go there.

Bottom line, Jesse. You made a poorly reasoned argument with dubious or nonexistant facts and got nailed for it. Don't try citing numbers that you do not know about or understand. And do not try to refocus the conversation when other people catch one.