Things were horrible when Obama took office

I agree on the Fed policies, but disagree that it wasn't a hard proposition. The banking system basically failed. I don't think the historical comparison of recoveries is that relevant considering the circumstances.

I just don't think Republicans can have it both ways. When the stimulus passed, the criticism from the right was at a fever pitch. There was no doubt - it was going to make things worse, take the market even lower, cause more job loss and likely take us into a Depression. I don't think a Republican who was doing that kind of chicken little routine in 2009 can come back in 2016 w/ the way things are now & claim that Obama failed on the economy.

You are like Baghdad Bob rewriting history. First of all many that criticized the "stimulus" correctly pointed out that it wouldn't work. Unemployment actually did get worse despite the "stimulus" and in response we learned a new term call "saved jobs". You know because we have an affirmative action President so we can't judge him like the white boys
 
Many grasp for anything they can find but to make the claim that we should have recovered from this one faster because we recovered from the other, less severe ones faster is dubious.

Not dubious at all. In 1920 we had an actual depression that was worse and recovered QUICKLY without government intervention. Of course you blind loyalists to Keynesian economics refuse to see. Maybe you can blog about it?
 
You are like Baghdad Bob rewriting history. First of all many that criticized the "stimulus" correctly pointed out that it wouldn't work. Unemployment actually did get worse despite the "stimulus" and in response we learned a new term call "saved jobs". You know because we have an affirmative action President so we can't judge him like the white boys

I mean, seriously - do you just make stuff up, off the top of your head?

We have a wonderful organization that tracks these things and keeps detailed stats. It's called the CBO. Check it out.
 
Gotta love how saving jobs is inconsequential in ILA's worldview.

Show me any other time in HISTORY were "saving" jobs was considered a valid economic measurement?

I mean how in the fuck do you even measure it objectively? Come on get you head out of Obama's asshole and think for a change
 
Overall, I agree with that. I think the stimulus was a good measure, but as I said in the OP, I'm not sure how much credit Obama should really get for anything. After the stimulus, there really haven't been that many measures that I would point to that have helped, and I'd say that Obamacare - at least up to this point - has hurt.

Remember when Obamacare was going to throw us deeper in to recession and cause unemployment to skyrocket....
 
There is a reason most of you aren't rich
Y'all don't understand economics


we all know that you are the Grand Wizard of finance. Nobody is better than you at picking stocks. You are all the rage at the Chalmette Country Club. We get it. You are so fucking rich you wipe your ass with $50 bills. If only everyone on JPP could be as wonderful and smart as you.

blah fucking blah blah blah
 
Not dubious at all. In 1920 we had an actual depression that was worse and recovered QUICKLY without government intervention. Of course you blind loyalists to Keynesian economics refuse to see. Maybe you can blog about it?

1920? Really 1920? Almost 100 years ago, your right, the economy is exactly the same now.
 
Show me any other time in HISTORY were "saving" jobs was considered a valid economic measurement?

I mean how in the fuck do you even measure it objectively? Come on get you head out of Obama's asshole and think for a change

How is it NOT a valid measurement?

The CBO is not some partisan, pro-Obama group. Educate yourself. You just sound ignorant.
 
Regarding Porkulus, it was typically viewed as being useless and it was. It was also not spent on what they told the public it would be spent on. It went mainly to special interests.
I realize you don't wish to compare but too bad.
 
Regarding Porkulus, it was typically viewed as being useless and it was. It was also not spent on what they told the public it would be spent on. It went mainly to special interests.
I realize you don't wish to compare but too bad.

The bolded is typical partisan hackery.

I have the CBO. You have a shoot-from-the-hip judgment based solely on disliking Obama & GOP talking points.

As for it being pork - yeah. They just wanted to get people earning paychecks again. A lot of pork projects do that, dontchya know.
 
Show me any other time in HISTORY were "saving" jobs was considered a valid economic measurement?

I mean how in the fuck do you even measure it objectively? Come on get you head out of Obama's asshole and think for a change

The Porkulus money used to pay union teachers for two years simply postponed their layoff. The economy never recovered so tax receipts didn't return to save them.
That's one for instance that is measurable did fail.
 
The Porkulus money used to pay union teachers for two years simply postponed their layoff. The economy never recovered so tax receipts didn't return to save them.
That's one for instance that is measurable did fail.

It's a weak recovery, but it's just wrong to say the "economy never recovered." And postponing layoffs - at that time - was vital, as were jobs that were even temporary.
 
the recession wasn't that bad........it was the fucked up recovery that hurt us.......

First, people have to have the confidence that the job they have today is the job they'll have tomorrow. When consumer confidence is down, employment confidence goes with it, and people are less likely to buy a new home.

On top of that, people who were financially damaged in the recession are also likely to have had their credit damaged (or completely ruined). Since lending has changed, and those with less-than-stellar credit will find it difficult to obtain a purchase money mortgage, fewer people are able to purchase new homes.

And banks are still not out of the woods. The foreclosure rate has fallen as banks make their way through the mire they themselves created, but it's not over. Banks are still trying to unload houses they foreclosed on, and sometimes they're taking losses on properties, selling them for pennies on the dollar (or in a case just recently handled by one of my associate attorneys, losing money on the sale of a property just to get rid of it (the bank actually had to pay over $2K to complete the sale of the property).

Something else to consider is that no matter where interest rates have gone, spending hasn't really responded overly much. With the Federal Reserve (remember them, they'll come into play, here) keeping interest rates low, the expectation was that spending would go up. But since credit became harder to obtain in the "perfect wake," the expected rise didn't happen. And the Fed has done what it can, even when Republicans accused it of "debasing the dollar" in their efforts to stimulate recovery.

The Obama stimulus, at the beginning, really did help. It certainly helped to weaken the impact of the recovery slump, but Republicans have fought tooth and nail against recovery, reversing the gains we had at the beginning of the Obama stimulus and leaving us with federal spending that's lower than when President Obama took office.

Yes, this recovery is slower than the others; the recession was so deep, impacting every possible sector that could lead to financial chaos, and leaving behind a new kind of chaos that has dragged recovery out over years.

But nonetheless, it's still a recovery that, given how bad things were and how bad the aftermath was and still is and taking the Republican legislative obstructionism into account, it's surprising it isn't slower.
 
The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011. It concluded that "the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve’s failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels."

Just as the take over of Congress by the liberals for his last 2 years of the Bush term is undeniable...they surly share in the ensuing events.
Just as the full control of congress and the Presidency by Democrats from 2009 to 2011 is undeniable....they are certainly responsible for ensuing events...
If you and your party have complete control of the government AND a friendly and complaisant media....events are absolutely their responsibility....good or bad...
Who was in denial ?

 
I was just thinking that the thread wouldn't be complete without some good ol' fashioned Bush apologism from NOVA...

The proof is in the videos....undeniable proof....
Do you think these historical videos are not accurate ?

you're in a horrible state of denial if you can't accept the facts.....

I didn't put the words in the mouths of these speakers.....
 
I also didn't write the findings of the U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission as reported in its findings in January 2011.
 
Back
Top