- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Bush presided over the greatest decrease in net wealth this country has witnessed since the Great Depression. In constant dollar terms (factoring for inflation), households still have not recovered. Any idea how much this damages confidence?
That's simply not true. Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, Nouriel Roubini, Daniel O’Connor, Robert Parks; among the those who predicted we could have slipped into a depression.Wait, you're serious ?
Your'e after 4 years blaming Bush on Obama's continued incompetence ? First off no economist was prediciting a depression after the " Democrat Mandated Sub-Prime Bubble "
While Clinton gets the blame for signing a key piece of legislation which led to the collapse, the sponsors of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act were Conservative Republicans. Even worse, Republicans had years while they controlled the Congress to pass oversight of the GSEs and they failed miserably to do so. The lion's share of the blame falls on their shoulders.Second if it's the Sub-Prime bubble that was the "DEPRESSION !!!" Obama inherited you should know it was actually the collapsing of a sub-prime bubble mandated by Democrat policies and funded by the GSE's who happened to be staffed with Clinton's corrupt appointees.
Not according to your fellow rightie yahoo, who claims that the president is responsible for everything on his watch. Take it up with him.Next, since you mentioned 9/11, one of the corrupt appointees was a women by the name of Jamie Gorelick. I would, if I were you, look into the infamous " Gorelick Wall" for a better understanding of the events that led up to 9/11.
Most people still believe that, according to polls. You may think you're better informed than most people, but I have yet to see evidence of that.But then again, you actually think 4 years into Obama's mistake...I mean his Presidency that his current failures are Bush's fault so I wouldn't expect you to be informed of ...well really anything.
All paper losses, perpetuated by greed from individuals including many in Congress. To blame the loss on Bush is typical but let's say it is all Bush's fault, where is the blame on Obama for the poor recovery and economic policies that have done nothing but add to the debt?
How did the recession of 07-09 affect you and your family? You survived it, I survived it so are we that much smarter than anyone else? The fact is the low interest rates, low inflation saved a lot of people who didn't have that luxury in the 81-82 recession that affected everyone.
The fact is that your Govenor Perry received $6 billion from ARRA.
PolitiFact Texas | President Obama says Gov. Perry used stimulus fund to help balance budget, then started 'blaming' federal lawmakers who voted for legislation
How is rebutting your claim that Obama was the primary cause of low participation "ducking" that "central" issue?
Go ahead and repeat what you already said again and claim I am ducking it if you wish, but this consistently weird debate style is making you look really bad.
WOW!Whatta argument.WE SURVIVED!!:lamo
The intent of that statistic is to hide the fact that Bush inherited a very low unemployment rate, benefited from the housing bubble, and ultimately trashed the economy as he doubled unemployment as he slithered out of DC after achieving the lowest JAR on record.
I don't know why you even bother to mention Clinton's name since you admit it was Bush's fault that not enough was done to prevent it.?
You better rethink that because you're wrong. If we didn't lose the 700k the UE Rate would be lower.
Feel free to jump in and answer the question, how did the recession of 07-09 affect you or your family?
But your wrong, the public sector grew under President Bush. Decreasing income tax revenue resulting from the recession caused loss of public sector jobs. That's about 700K worth which is probably worth a decrease percentage point in the UE rate.
We’re not discussing my personal finances. This thread is titled “U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6% “.We should keep close to that by at least a degree or two.:2wave:
Then let's stick to the topic, 500,000 people dropped out of the labor force last month, 100,000 the month before. There are 143 million employed Americans today out of a labor force of 155 million that has increased only 1.1 million in four years. That says a lot about the incentive Obama has created not to work or even seek employment.
Then let's stick to the topic, 500,000 people dropped out of the labor force last month, 100,000 the month before. There are 143 million employed Americans today out of a labor force of 155 million that has increased only 1.1 million in four years. That says a lot about the incentive Obama has created not to work or even seek employment.
As I stated before - this is important.
People are being swayed into thinking the unemployment situation is improving because the U-3 rate is dropping.
But it is incredibly deceptive as the ONLY reason it is dropping is because people are leaving the work force because they have either given up, prematurely retired or no longer count in U-3 statistics.
All the gov't./Fed have done is force people to leave the work force.
What media do I watch that gave me that opinion?Your opinion noted as you continue to buy what the media tells you.
Ummm, exectly what part of, "few presidents have ****ed this nation as royally as he did," do you not understand?I am waiting for exactly what President Bush did to hurt you or your family?
Wait a second, Con -- hold up!!You seem to believe that Bush had all that power to get us into this mess but Obama doesn't have the power to get us out of that mess.
So you equate the responsibility between one Senator of the minorty party with the president whose party conrolled both chambers of the Congress, huh? Sure says a lot about your worldview.Obama was in the Senate that helped create the mess.
And things have noticably improved from when Obama took over. Gone are the months where unemployment swelled by 700,000 or more. Gone are the days of negative 3½ percent or more GDP. Gone is Bush's Great Recession.Obama said he had the solutions to the problems but like so many you ignore the Obama results and still blame them on Bush
Nice argument. It reveals you don't even realize that consumer confidence is higher today than it was when Bush left office.You think Bush is destroying the consumer confidence today?
Yet another bull**** argument since small business are no longer being "destroyed."you think Bush is destroying the incentive of small business today?
Apparently, you're unaware that we were under Bush's tax code until just a few months ago.You think Bush proposed penalizing wealth creation?
Are you new to this country? The wealthy have always been the ones to contribute the most in taxes. This is nothing new (except to you, apparently).You think the way to prosperity is to tax the producers in this country?
You owe me a new irony meter.It is obvious to me that you never managed anything in your life and have no concept of leadership. Your constant whining about Bush says a lot about you just like your ignoring the Obama results does the same thing.
All paper losses, perpetuated by greed from individuals including many in Congress.
To blame the loss on Bush is typical but let's say it is all Bush's fault, where is the blame on Obama for the poor recovery and economic policies that have done nothing but add to the debt?
How did the recession of 07-09 affect you and your family? You survived it, I survived it so are we that much smarter than anyone else? The fact is the low interest rates, low inflation saved a lot of people who didn't have that luxury in the 81-82 recession that affected everyone.
If either had been able to match GWB's average unemployment rate of 5.3% both would have better reputations.
Yes, the public sector grew under GWB. There was enough growth and employment to support it. Under BHO that has not been the case.
Yes, the labor force is in constant flux. Every couple of months it shifts from gains to loses; and then back again. Is it your intention to highlight this everytime it's negative while ignoring it when it's positive?Then let's stick to the topic, 500,000 people dropped out of the labor force last month, 100,000 the month before. There are 143 million employed Americans today out of a labor force of 155 million that has increased only 1.1 million in four years. That says a lot about the incentive Obama has created not to work or even seek employment.
Then let's stick to the topic, 500,000 people dropped out of the labor force last month, 100,000 the month before. There are 143 million employed Americans today out of a labor force of 155 million that has increased only 1.1 million in four years. That says a lot about the incentive Obama has created not to work or even seek employment.
Where is the proof for the bolded? How do you know it's not attributed boom retiring or the increase of the prominence of college-both of which are true
That's a rather bogus argument as it assumes that 100% of those who fell out of the workforce were driven out of it and that argument is completely ridiculous.As I stated before - this is important.
People are being swayed into thinking the unemployment situation is improving because the U-3 rate is dropping.
But it is incredibly deceptive as the ONLY reason it is dropping is because people are leaving the work force because they have either given up, prematurely retired or no longer count in U-3 statistics.
All the gov't./Fed have done is force people to leave the work force.
Take the participation rate from the day Obama took over and the U-3 rate is over 10%.
Whatever the government/Fed are doing is just making the situation worse and they are masking it with skewed statistics (like the skewed CPI numbers).
Where is the proof for the bolded? How do you know it's not attributed boom retiring or the increase of the prominence of college-both of which are true
No, total loss, as in values of homes, retirement accounts, etc....
In one hand you want to blame Obama for employment numbers. On the other hand, you wish to absolve Bush II for the great loss of net wealth since the Great Depression. I am not blaming Bush for anything, i was simply stating a fact.
If i bought a home with an interest rate of 8.6% 30 years fixed in 1977, the fact that interest rates went to 17.6% in 1982 would not have impacted me. However, the fact that my net worth decreased by 30% in a matter of months did!!! Notice how net wealth did not decline at all during the Reagan recession.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?