Longest stretch of high unemployment since Great Depression

Slight improvement?

The stock market was down around 7,000. It is now close to 13,000. We were losing 400,000 jobs a month on average. We're now gaining about 200,000 on average. GM was failing - it is now experiencing record growth.

Who is rewriting history? Sound like the Bush apologist is to me...

A most annoying partisan poster on this and another board constantly asked when the numbers were 'bad', "Why do the republicans want the economy to fail?"

With regards to this 'good news', why are the liberals applauding the demise of the middle class?

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/02/19/the-great-american-impasse/

February 19, 2012
The Great American Impasse
Walter Russell Mead

Not all the Democrats are celebrating the January unemployment numbers as morning in Obama’s America. Robert Reich, Clinton’s labor secretary and one of Via Meadia’s favorite liberals, notes dourly that most of the hiring is happening in lower-wage sectors.

With more Americans impoverished than at any other point over the past fifty years, Reich finds candidate Romney’s proposals to, as Reich would have it, eviscerate safety nets and benefits for the poor especially wrongheaded. Romney believes the rise in benefits is a sign of mounting dependency; Reich believes it is a sign of growing poverty:

Romney and other Republicans point to government data showing that direct payments to individuals have shot up by almost $600 billion since 2009, a 32 percent increase. And 49 percent of Americans now live in homes where at least one person is collecting a federal benefit such as food stamps or unemployment insurance, up from 44 percent in 2008. But Romney and other Republicans have cause and effect backward. The reason for the rise in benefits is that Americans got clobbered in 2008, and many are still sinking. They and their families need whatever help they can get.​

Like Reich, we don’t think that shredding safety nets while preserving carried interest loopholes for hedge fund fatcats is a magic path to recovery, but Reich’s approach, however humanitarian, seems likely to flop as well. America’s deep economic problems won’t be cured by Dr. New Deal remedies any more than by opening orphanages and workhouses for the poor...
 
A most annoying partisan poster on this and another board constantly asked when the numbers were 'bad', "Why do the republicans want the economy to fail?"

With regards to this 'good news', why are the liberals applauding the demise of the middle class?

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/02/19/the-great-american-impasse/

I would never applaud the demise of the middle class, or make an argument that the economy is "great" or even "good" right now.

Is it improved over where it was? Yes, it is.
 
What's the difference? She has praised him often. Are we supposed to somehow infer that, along the line of "He was a great, great President...well, except for that little spending thing."

Your double-standard is epic.

/shrugs.....when she praised him, what was she praising him for doing?......it would seem that the problem is your LACK of standards rather than my "double" standard......
 
Didn't you praise Bush for "taking care of" the dot-com busts w/ his tax cuts?

By PMP's gauge, Bush was an utter failure, because the national debt increased during his tenure. Do you disagree w/ that?

Duh.

Nowadays I look back fondly on his insane level of deficit (400 Billion). Triple it and you still don't have Obama's projected deficit in his proposed "budget" (1.3 Trillion) with a projection of Trillion dollar deficits for 20 years to come. Whatever Bush sucked at Obama, at the very least, doubled down.
 
Your powers of observation blow.

First, he said Obama "made things worse." Then (because the market is up and people are hiring), he amended to, "well, he made the DEBT worse." Then, when it was pointed out that every President has, he tried to make some sort of argument at least hacks like ID didn't "praise" him specifically for his spending.

Frankly, it was embarassing. But I'm sure it plays well to apologists like you.

Actually one must ask, 'why are the markets up the way they are?' Has demand risen for anything? Is inflation regarding the most important costs, food and gas, not up and rising quickly? Are new businesses opening or existing expanding?

Part-time and underemployment are not going to help, in fact one could nearly surmise it's an uptick before the real fall.
 
Actually one must ask, 'why are the markets up the way they are?' Has demand risen for anything? Is inflation regarding the most important costs, food and gas, not up and rising quickly? Are new businesses opening or existing expanding?

Part-time and underemployment are not going to help, in fact one could nearly surmise it's an uptick before the real fall.


Actually, yes...despite the incessant doom and gloom prophecies from Republicans attempting to spin this into a never-ending recession, there are signs of economic improvement everywhere.
 
Duh.

Nowadays I look back fondly on his insane level of deficit (400 Billion). Triple it and you still don't have Obama's projected deficit in his proposed "budget" (1.3 Trillion) with a projection of Trillion dollar deficits for 20 years to come. Whatever Bush sucked at Obama, at the very least, doubled down.

There have been different titles assigned to some of our Presidents; ie: The Teflon President.

WELL: according to the left, Clinton will be the INVISIBLE PRESIDENT; because he's not responsible for anything.
 
I would never applaud the demise of the middle class, or make an argument that the economy is "great" or even "good" right now.

Is it improved over where it was? Yes, it is.

See that , we agree on this....the economy is better now that the previous lows it dropped to under Obama......and it will continue to improve if he just disappears and no one takes his place.....but his meddling with the energy and oil issue WILL, WITHOUT DOUBT set us back some........
 
Actually one must ask, 'why are the markets up the way they are?' Has demand risen for anything? Is inflation regarding the most important costs, food and gas, not up and rising quickly? Are new businesses opening or existing expanding?

Part-time and underemployment are not going to help, in fact one could nearly surmise it's an uptick before the real fall.


Corporations will continue to make money despite Obama.......business operates worldwide, profit and the stock increases.....if has nothing to do with Obama.....
Obama has absolutely no control over the stock market except to enact laws or taxation to fuck it up.....so far he has followed in the footsteps of Bush in those matters.....
His only interference has been in the oil industry.....thus you see the gas prices HE bears some responsibility for....
 
Actually, yes...despite the incessant doom and gloom prophecies from Republicans attempting to spin this into a never-ending recession, there are signs of economic improvement everywhere.

Even the chosen one does not control the world economy.
 
See that , we agree on this....the economy is better now that the previous lows it dropped to under Obama......and it will continue to improve if he just disappears and no one takes his place.....but his meddling with the energy and oil issue WILL, WITHOUT DOUBT set us back some........

So, just to recap bravo's worldview: anything good that happened economically under Bush was due to Bush and the GOP. Except the big crash, which somehow came about in little over a year because of the policies of the Democratic Congress (which bravo can't name, and which Bush still signed, whatever they were). The continued downward slide in the 1st half of 2009 was no longer Bush's fault, but all Obama. And any economic upturn since then has nothing to do w/ Obama, and has come in fact in spite of his policies.

Any future success will be nothing more than a cyclic part of the economy (unless a Republican gets elected). And any future downturn will be Obama's fault (even if a Republican gets elected).
 
On whose watch did the economy experience the worst crash in decades?

There's the guy who blew it up, and the guy who is taking longer than we thought to fix what the other guy blew up. Yeah - I still blame the guy who blew it up much more.

Democrats controlled both the Senate and the House and they are responsible for LEGISLATION.
 
No. The guy who crashed the economy bears responsibility for crashing the economy.

You & that reading thing. And the Bush-love thing.

so tell us, what is it precisely that Bush did to crash the economy?

Don't get me wrong, he was a horrid President fiscally, but do tell us what he did that crashed it the banking sector?
 
Back
Top