sort by best latest
I know what you are saying junkseller, but even Bush started with a sinking economy helped along with 9/11 and our response to it. They you have his own bungling. Nevertheless, the answer would be 1 (a given), 2, 3, 4, 5 or all 6 slices of time.
Well, I don't want to fly with either, but even if you consider it a valid comparison, it could still be argued that Bush II's growth was simply riding the housing bubble which then burst. That's not good economics.
- See all 2 commentsHide extra comments
The fact is that socialism does not create millionaires, unless you are part of the political power structure. Second - it is NOT about money - it is about Liberty and the constitutional principles. I disdain Bush and Obama because of their policies.
My Esoteric says
Today, nothing has changed. People talk about punishing those responsible for the crash of 2008, but what's the sense in punishment if the underlying behavior has not even been corrected? Short of major reforms to the financial industry, these crises
You speak the truth, of course, but the question is very relevant because of the propaganda war the Right is winning against the President on this issue. Only facts can defeat them by pealing away from their ranks those who actually think.
Regulations and gov demands for banks to loan to unqualified borrowers via threat of criminal prosecution on discrimination charges. "Opposed regulation"? The financial services industry is the most regulated industry.
- See all 3 commentsHide extra comments
Lions Den Media says
High five to Lions Den!!
I think he said it all very well.
Yep, I am. No doubt you are right, but I bet there are more millionaires today than there were say in Oct 2009 when the Bush recession finally hit bottom. Actually, my home is, about $20,000 more after losing $200,000 under Bush.
Thanks CM. E - Instead of personal anecdotes lets stick with facts of the general market. Reality: real estate will not return for another 5 years minimum. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2012/03/u...
"Stick with the facts" from a guy talking about the "Obama Marxist socialist regime." That's a good laugh.
Junk -- what's your point? My point is economic based on the following facts: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13606990
Prove Obama isn't a socialist...Fact Obama did place 1/6th of the US economy under gov control and force you to do anything.
Exactly what parts of the economy put "under gov't control"? I am not aware of any. If you are talking about Obamacare, show me specifically what parts of it that are now under gov't control that wasn't before. As I read it, there isn't any.
Even if part of the economy is under gov't control, gov't control of the economy is not socialism, unless the control was fully exercised by the people and was for their benefit. Which it isn't.
as a Canadian all i can say is you bush loving, obama hating people are hilarious. bush almost destroyed your country in so many ways and you folks are too blind to see it.
ME; EPA regs putting coal industry out of business. Obamacare is a tax. one sixth of the economy is health care. use your head. The mind is like a parachute - it must be open to work. The "commerce Clause" controls what? Commerce = economy
What to do with Health care, solution: blow it up start all over. Does anyone believe that will work easier or quicker. We had a surplus when Clinton left Bush came, spent unconstitutionally furthermore how can we expect 8 years to be undone in 4.
So you think the founder made a mistake including the Commerce Clause in Article 1 of the Constitution? Given your opinion of EPA regs, you prefer acid rain, a dead Lake Erie, and a smog blanket over Los Angeles ... things the EPA made industry fix.
ken - there was no such surplus. Bush came into office after Clinton with a national debt of over $4 trillion. How is that a surplus...is that new math?
Surplus refers to the deficit, not the debt. Bush II started with a surplus and than proceeded to nearly double the federal budget. Bush II increased spending and deficits more than any other modern president.
Junk: your point is like claiming you have money in the bank because even though you're in debt, you have a capital surplus because you have a bunch of checks. Fact Clinton started w/$4trillion left $5.9 trillion in debt. The rest is semantics.
Sorry Lion, Junk has you on this one. He is talking apples - annual budgets, you are talking oranges - debt. In fact, if Bush had stayed Clinton's course, the actual debt would have come down because of the budget surpluses Clinton got going.
By definition a surplus is having a budget where revenue exceeds spending, which existed at the end of Clinton's term. Bush changed that to a massive deficit and Rep's force it to stay that way by refusing revenue increases or fair spending cuts.
Junk I don't disagree and refuse to defend Bush's spending as I'm one of the few conservatives consistently rip Bush. There was no surplus because the interest alone would eat that up. And plus there were other issues with the methodology used.
No, a surplus means a surplus. For the last one or two years of Clinton and the first year of Bush, the federal government took in more in revenue than it spent in outlays which included interest payments on the debt.
Arguing with irrational thought? If you have $10,000 in your pocket, but owe $100 million - do you have a cash surplus? Using that same logic-would a private company using Clinton's #s be profitable or bankrupt?
You are still talking about assets rather than budgets. An entity can have debt but still be taking in more money than they outlay. Paying on the debt is simply part of its outlays. I doubt you'll find many organizations who don't have any debt.
Lol, accounting 101 by comment, I have the same problem with my business partner. "Cash in pocket" and a debt of $100 mil are both balance sheet accounts and have nothing to do with profit and loss. If income exceeds expenses, you are profitable.
- See all 21 commentsHide extra comments
Yes he did/yes he has, but by 2010, Obama made it most of the way back, just not employment;most recessions of this type don't; Reagan certainly didn't. Nevertheless, the answer I am wanting would be 1 (a given), 2, 3, 4, 5 or all 6 slices of time.
True, true, but do you think Obama has done a better job, growth-wise in the last 10 quarters once out of possible 6 slices of time(a given), 2, 3, 4, 5 or all 6?
How can fewer jobs, lower growth, lower home prices, and a smaller job universe = a better economy? The fact is Bush's spending policies helped create the problem, just as Obama's policies have exasperated the problem.
Look at my answer to my question on the lower growth, Obama's first time jobless claims are in line with the last six presidents before him and better than Bush IIs now, home prices are not far from where they should be if it weren't for the bubble.
- See all 3 commentsHide extra comments