Economy after W vs. Obama

Thing1 said:
Bush was an extremely poor economic steward.
Click to expand...

true......he permitted deficits of nearly $5T, twice as much as every president before him combined....and I vowed never to vote for him again after 2006......by the way, how do you feel about the only president who was twice as bad with deficits of $10T?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
true......he permitted deficits of nearly $5T, twice as much as every president before him combined....and I vowed never to vote for him again after 2006......by the way, how do you feel about the only president who was twice as bad with deficits of $10T?......
Click to expand...

LOL - what a courageous vow on your part, to never vote for Bush again after 2006.

Well, I didn't vote for Obama in 2012. But I think he was a good economic steward for the most part. The stimulus was necessary.
 
!. Bill Clinton's repeal of Glass Steagal and passing of the 2000 CFM act right before he left office led to the financial collapse.

2. Obama ran the economy so poorly, the FED had to prop it up with near zero interest rates for years and years.
 
Bigdog said:
!. Bill Clinton's repeal of Glass Steagal and passing of the 2000 CFM act right before he left office led to the financial collapse.

2. Obama ran the economy so poorly, the FED had to prop it up with near zero interest rates for years and years.
Click to expand...

There's much disagreement that Glass-Steagal was the cause. Many conservative commentators disagree with that.
 
Bigdog said:
And what is your opinion?
Click to expand...

I don't believe Glass-Steagal was the cause. It may have allowed banks to get bigger but that wasn't the cause. The genesis of the crash was the gov't pushing home ownership, the Fed and it's easy money policies and a wreckless wall st that took on excessive risk knowing it would be bailed out.
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
I have heard Republicans (Damocles) complaining about how the economic policies of Obama left the economy in such terrible shape.


Really? Has everyone forgotten where we were after 8 years of W's economic policies?

Which was better for the American economy the Republican ideology brought by W, or the Democratic ideology brought to you by Obama?
Click to expand...

You can't rewrite history......Democrats caused the melt down....

The Bush administration pushed for significantly increased regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003, but after two years, the regulations passed the House but died in the Senate.

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

Barney Frank in 2005: What Housing Bubble?
 
cawacko said:
Bush was fiscally irresponsible, there's no letting him off the hook for that.

And Frank looks pretty foolish now with all the video of him arguing Freddie and Fannie's soundness.

Jarod is arguing ideology here. Keynesians love spending. I'm talking bigger than Onceler here, keysenians arguing too much spending played a major role is a complete reversal of their stated beliefs. They may argue the money should have been spent differently but not against spending
Click to expand...
J M Keynes argued that the budget should be balanced over an economic cycle. It seems that modern politicians only understand and implement the deficit spending aspect not the paying back when the economic cycle is on an upwards trajectory.

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
 
Thing1 said:
It did.
Click to expand...

It was a payoff to unions. But the government can't stimulate the economy. It is economically impossible. All it can do is create winners and losers by redistributing wealth.

You have to understand this basic concept and that is that the government has no money of its own. It can confiscate it through taxation. It can borrow it. And it can print it.

Failure to understand that basic concept leads you to make false assumptions which in turn leads you to improper conclusions
 
I Love America said:
It was a payoff to unions. But the government can't stimulate the economy. It is economically impossible. All it can do is create winners and losers by redistributing wealth.

You have to understand this basic concept and that is that the government has no money of its own. It can confiscate it through taxation. It can borrow it. And it can print it.

Failure to understand that basic concept leads you to make false assumptions which in turn leads you to improper conclusions
Click to expand...

It was supposed to create jobs & get the economy turned around.

Check, and check.
 
Thing1 said:
It was supposed to create jobs & get the economy turned around.

Check, and check.
Click to expand...

No and no. The unemployment rate kept increasing even after the porkulus. That is how we ended up with the new made up statistic of "saved jobs" in an effort to help the affirmative action president save face
 
I Love America said:
No and no. The unemployment rate kept increasing even after the porkulus. That is how we ended up with the new made up statistic of "saved jobs" in an effort to help the affirmative action president save face
Click to expand...

That was always a metric for the CBO.

And the unemployment rate - you mean the one that recently showed essentially full employment?

I'd love to see what you were posting about the stimulus at the time. I doubt it was that the stock market would triple and that we'd have years of positive job growth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top