The Dow Jones Industrial Average

B

Bonestorm

Thrillhouse
a few ticks away from 13,000 today. i remember when it was obamas fault when it tanked but nothing but silence from fox and the right when it goes up.

is there a reason why obama gets the blame for bad news but no credit for good news?
 
Bravo explained it to me yesterday. Whenever the economy does poorly, it's the fault of either Obama or Democrats in Congress. If the economy does well, it's one of 2 options:

- If there is a Republican President, he or she would get credit
- If there is a Democrat in office, it's only improving because of the cyclic nature of the economy, and in fact, is improving in spite of said Democrat's policies

I hope that helps.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
a few ticks away from 13,000 today. i remember when it was obamas fault when it tanked but nothing but silence from fox and the right when it goes up.

is there a reason why obama gets the blame for bad news but no credit for good news?
Click to expand...

that would be the very same exact reason why bush got all the blame and none of the credit. blind hacktastic hateful partisanship.
 
Bush had extremely low unemployment in all but of few months of his 8 years. He brought us back from 911. We had damn good GDP until the housing bust. Only one with zero economics acumen would attempt to lay that even mostly on bush.
 
The Dude said:
Bush had extremely low unemployment in all but of few months of his 8 years. He brought us back from 911. We had damn good GDP until the housing bust. Only one with zero economics acumen would attempt to lay that even mostly on bush.
Click to expand...


It was all a total sham propped up by the housing bubble.
 
The Dude said:
And bush directed it?
Click to expand...

He didn't do anything to regulate the subprime mortgage or consumer credit industry generally, and his SEC allowed the investment banks to carry insane leverage ratios.


The Dude said:
Both parties wanted loose lending, especially democrats in regards to minorities.
Click to expand...

I assume this is a reference to the CRA. Well, CRA lending institutions hardly accounted for any subprime lending whatsoever and the extremely limited subprime lending conducted by CRA regulated institutions dramatically outperformed the subprime lending by non-CRA institutions.



Edit: And my original point was that there isn't anything really to give Bush credit for. Whether he is responsible for the housing bubble in the first instance is a separate question as to whether he should be credited for an economy built on a foundation of shit.
 
Are you saying democrats didn't have a large hand in the buble? Fanny & Freddie and congress pushing for more minority lending?
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
He didn't do anything to regulate the subprime mortgage or consumer credit industry generally, and his SEC allowed the investment banks to carry insane leverage ratios.
Click to expand...

Neither did the Dems... and it was Clinton's repeal of Glass Steagall that allowed the banks to carry insane leverage ratios as well. See how easy it is to blame just one party? As Top stated, BOTH parties wanted the loose lending. Both parties wanted to appease their wall street donors.


I assume this is a reference to the CRA. Well, CRA lending institutions hardly accounted for any subprime lending whatsoever and the extremely limited subprime lending conducted by CRA regulated institutions dramatically outperformed the subprime lending by non-CRA institutions.

Edit: And my original point was that there isn't anything really to give Bush credit for. Whether he is responsible for the housing bubble in the first instance is a separate question as to whether he should be credited for an economy built on a foundation of shit.
Click to expand...

So the irrational exuberance (as Greenspan put it) that caused the tech/internet/telecom bubble and subsequent burst... you will of course now state that Clinton shouldn't get credit for the revenue that created that allowed him to come close to reducing the national debt? Because that too was based on a LOT of smoke and mirrors.
 
Superfreak said:
Neither did the Dems... and it was Clinton's repeal of Glass Steagall that allowed the banks to carry insane leverage ratios as well. See how easy it is to blame just one party? As Top stated, BOTH parties wanted the loose lending. Both parties wanted to appease their wall street donors.
Click to expand...

But one party in particular was in control of the entire government at the time that the subprime mortgage industry was exploding from 2003-2006 and while the SEC was rewriting rules to allow investment banks to carry insane leverage ratios. Now, it may be that it was a quirk of timing and that if the Democrats controlled the House, Senate and Presidency, nothing would have been different, but that's not what actually happened.

And please cite to the particular law or rule change with respect to leverage ratios that allowed the investment banks to have insane leverage ratios. In your response, please explain why the SEC modified leverage rules in 2004 if the repeal of Glass Steagal already allowed investment banks to do it.


Superfreak said:
So the irrational exuberance (as Greenspan put it) that caused the tech/internet/telecom bubble and subsequent burst... you will of course now state that Clinton shouldn't get credit for the revenue that created that allowed him to come close to reducing the national debt? Because that too was based on a LOT of smoke and mirrors.
Click to expand...

This is lame even for you, SF. The correction following the tech bubble was only a smidgen less severe that the most recent correction. So its OK to blame Clinton for the bubble that created on his watch, but to pretend that the impact of the bubble is the same as the impact of the housing bubble (which, by the way, is what you're doing with this comparison despite your future protestations to the contrary) is nonsense.
 
Last edited:
The Dude said:
Bush had extremely low unemployment in all but of few months of his 8 years. He brought us back from 911. We had damn good GDP until the housing bust. Only one with zero economics acumen would attempt to lay that even mostly on bush.
Click to expand...
That's not true. Employment had been consistantly dropping under Bush since 2004. They just tanked in 2008.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
But one party in particular was in control of the entire government at the time that the subprime mortgage industry was exploding from 2003-2006 and while the SEC was rewriting rules to allow investment banks to carry insane leverage ratios. Now, it may be that it was a quirk of timing and that if the Democrats controlled the House, Senate and Presidency, nothing would have been different, but that's not what actually happened.

And please cite to the particular law or rule change with respect to leverage ratios that allowed the investment banks to have insane leverage ratios. In your response, please explain why the SEC modified leverage rules in 2004 if the repeal of Glass Steagal already allowed investment banks to do it.




This is lame even for you, SF. The correction following the tech bubble was only a smidgen less severe that the most recent correction. So its OK to blame Clinton for the bubble that created on his watch, but to pretend that the impact of the bubble is the same as the impact of the housing bubble (which, by the way, is what you're doing with this comparison despite your future protestations to the contrary).
Click to expand...

No moron, that is YOU creating yet another Straw man, pre-emptive this time.

The CONCEPT is the same. They should not get credit for the economies due to the bubbles. That doesn't mean the extent of the bubbles are identical you fucking moron. Why do I even bother having conversations with you. I should just light a match and burn your straw men down.

Side note... that 'smidgen of a correction' from the tech bubble... the Nasdaq never came close to recovering from that bubble. It just regained 2007 levels... which are about 40% BELOW the peak in March of 2000.
 
Superfreak said:
No moron, that is YOU creating yet another Straw man, pre-emptive this time.

The CONCEPT is the same. They should not get credit for the economies due to the bubbles. That doesn't mean the extent of the bubbles are identical you fucking moron. Why do I even bother having conversations with you. I should just light a match and burn your straw men down.
Click to expand...

Yes, the CONCEPT is the same. But there was actual real growth under Clinton and the correction when the tech bubble burst was mild. So Clinton gets credit for the growth during his tenure less the correction which still equals tremendous growth. For Bush, once you factor in the correction, the result is a lost 8 years of little to no growth whatsoever.

Superfreak said:
Side note... that 'smidgen of a correction' from the tech bubble... the Nasdaq never came close to recovering from that bubble. It just regained 2007 levels... which are about 40% BELOW the peak in March of 2000.
Click to expand...

Sider note . . . the Nasdaq is not the economy, nor is it a reasonable proxy thereof.
 
And, SF, I'm still quite interested in your explanation as to why the SEC made the rule change in 2004 with respect to leverage ratios at the big investment banks if Gramm Leach Bliley already allowed them to carry such high leverage ratios.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Yes, the CONCEPT is the same. But there was actual real growth under Clinton and the correction when the tech bubble burst was mild. So Clinton gets credit for the growth during his tenure less the correction which still equals tremendous growth. For Bush, once you factor in the correction, the result is a lost 8 years of little to no growth whatsoever.



Sider note . . . the Nasdaq is not the economy, nor is it a reasonable proxy thereof.
Click to expand...
Let me guess, you are not wealthy?.
 
the absolute irony of this thread and some posts are truly hilarious. onceler talking about how others are hackish when it comes to blaming a president....this from the guy that blames bush for nearly everything that went wrong. and dung....lmao. there is not much obama can do wrong, but bush....he did everything wrong. you can't even give him credit and yet you start this thread.

truly epic hackery.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's not true. Employment had been consistantly dropping under Bush since 2004. They just tanked in 2008.
Click to expand...

If I recall, there was some talk about credit crunch which had more to do with the banks, once again, the masters of our leaders.

When will you you join those of us in the center who can see both wings of the corporate cleptocracy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top