• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who's to blame for the slow recovery?

Why is recovery taking so long—and who’s to blame? | Economic Policy Institute

I realize few people around here will let Economists explain the economy to them, but I keep trying. Surprise surprise! Austerity is what has caused our recovery to take as long as it has.

It's because the Republocrats don't care about the People. When the economy tanked, government spent billions upon billions in tax payer bailouts to the banks and Wall Street, the very people who helped cause the collapse. Once the banks and Wall Street were taken care of, the government couldn't give two ****s about anyone else. The system was left to its own to "recover", i.e. just wait long enough and perhaps things will get back to "normal".

It's just another effect of Corporate capitalism and the natural results of what happens when the government isolates itself from the People.
 
Why is recovery taking so long—and who’s to blame? | Economic Policy Institute

I realize few people around here will let Economists explain the economy to them, but I keep trying. Surprise surprise! Austerity is what has caused our recovery to take as long as it has.

Exactly. Keynes figured this out a long time ago, and the idea of public spending in recession is even more important today, as technological innovation and trade agreements cause employment to atrophy.
 
Why is recovery taking so long—and who’s to blame? | Economic Policy Institute

I realize few people around here will let Economists explain the economy to them, but I keep trying. Surprise surprise! Austerity is what has caused our recovery to take as long as it has.

We spent so much on the past bubbles running up so much debt that we didn't have the leeway this time. It will be worse in the next recession. But we know that and we had a lot of fun in the party Clinton and Greenspan threw. So, what the hell?
 
Well obviously it's the fault of the political party I don't support and my party would have made sure everything would be much better except the other party obstructed mine.

How have Democrats slowed the recovery?
 
We spent so much on the past bubbles running up so much debt that we didn't have the leeway this time. It will be worse in the next recession. But we know that and we had a lot of fun in the party Clinton and Greenspan threw. So, what the hell?

There is plenty of leeway for sovereign entities that control their own currency. Their is much less leeway for those who imagine a nation's finance is the same as household finance.
 
There is plenty of leeway for sovereign entities that control their own currency. Their is much less leeway for those who imagine a nation's finance is the same as household finance.

Over history most nations have controlled their own currencies and the path is strewn with those that learned that overspending is a very bad long term policy. And sorrily, that is probably the point we are coming to.
 
Why is recovery taking so long—and who’s to blame? | Economic Policy Institute

I realize few people around here will let Economists explain the economy to them, but I keep trying. Surprise surprise! Austerity is what has caused our recovery to take as long as it has.

Actually, compared to Euroland the US was doing okay recovery-wise. It was not till 2015 that we began to falter and are now falling behind.

Euro Area GDP Annual Growth Rate | 1995-2016 | Data | Chart | Calendar
 
OK, I'll bite. Since it's all Bush's fault during the meltdown, and everything he did was wrong, and he made things worse:

What should he have done?

And what should have Obama done after him?
 
Bush … What should he have done?

Not pushed for a massive tax cut giveaway to wealthy households as the way to deal with the Clinton surpluses, not handled Iraq the way he did, and worked harder to avoid the crisis that was developing in the mortgage-backed securities market.

>>what should have Obama done after him?

Been born to two white parents.
 
Over history most nations have controlled their own currencies and the path is strewn with those that learned that overspending is a very bad long term policy. And sorrily, that is probably the point we are coming to.

The bottom line is that spending should meet social goals, and be in line with available physical resources. A good deal of spending in recent years in the US has gone to mitigate the greed and waste of the private sector, through the purchase of problematic securities, and the expansion of the money supply. Debt itself is not the issue, in terms of numerical amounts, but the effect spending will have on the economy and society. Buying up dodgy mortgage funds may be an emergency measure, but not the ideal way forward to a bright future. Spending on projects that will create growth and a better society are a better strategy. The US is a rich country, that can and should spend more to counter the increasing social problems that exist.
 
Personally, I believe it is the gridlock of BOTH parties that is responsible. BOTH parties are the party of no.
 
BOTH parties are the party of no.

Democrats say no to policies that have been tried repeatedly and failed. Republicans block policies that have worked in the past.

R: "Shoot ourselves in the foot again?"
D: "No."

D: "Get to the hospital after shooting ourselves in the foot again?"
R: "No."
 
Both Parties are to blame, as is big business that has off-shored so many American jobs, as are the American People for not stepping up to the plate and saying enough is enough and demanding an end to the BS.
 
OK, I'll bite. Since it's all Bush's fault during the meltdown, and everything he did was wrong, and he made things worse:
What should he have done?
And what should have Obama done after him?

You apparently didn't even read the OP.
The point is that AFTER the crisis, the mania for austerity severely suppressed our recovery, and continues to do so. In all the previous recessions, government spending (national and local) helped bring the economy back. In this case, comparatively low levels of federal and state spending is retarding the recovery.

epi_2012_public_sector_recoveries.png
 
Democrats say no to policies that have been tried repeatedly and failed. Republicans block policies that have worked in the past.

R: "Shoot ourselves in the foot again?"
D: "No."

D: "Get to the hospital after shooting ourselves in the foot again?"
R: "No."

LOL. Liberal policies have failed over and over, they just think that when their policies haven't worked it is because they didn't do enough of it or they blame the Republicans for their failed liberal policies. Hell, liberals are still blaming Ronald Reagan for things. We just had the Seattle minimum wage thread which shows that after getting a hefty hike in the minimum wage, Seattle workers took home an average of around -$5 to +$5 more on their weekly paychecks after employers cut their hours back. Another liberal policy that did not deliver as promised. Their policies always sound better on paper than what happens in reality.
 
Both Parties are to blame, as is big business that has off-shored so many American jobs, as are the American People for not stepping up to the plate and saying enough is enough and demanding an end to the BS.

Some of that is true, but a large part is myth. Many jobs have been lost due to automation, especially in the steel and mining industries.
 
Last edited:
LOL. Liberal policies have failed over and over, they just think that when their policies haven't worked it is because they didn't do enough of it or they blame the Republicans for their failed liberal policies. Hell, liberals are still blaming Ronald Reagan for things. We just had the Seattle minimum wage thread which shows that after getting a hefty hike in the minimum wage, Seattle workers took home an average of around -$5 to +$5 more on their weekly paychecks after employers cut their hours back. Another liberal policy that did not deliver as promised. Their policies always sound better on paper than what happens in reality.

Really? So the 40-hour workweek is a failure? Child labor laws are failures? Consumer safety laws are failures? Medicare is a failure? Then by all means, tell the elderly how you're going to cut off their Medicare. See what kind of reaction you get when you promise to cut that "failed liberal policy."

And the Seattle experiment, like a number of others across the nation, are a long way from being conclusive one way or the other.
Early analysis of Seattle’s $15 wage law: Effect on prices minimal one year after implementation | UW Today

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...at-its-supposed-to-do/?utm_term=.56f958e35c30
 
Last edited:
One thing we know for certain. It's NOT Obama's fault.
 
Back
Top Bottom