Can't have it both ways; if Bush still to blame then obama is just irrelevant

[auditor0007]

the reason gas was low at the end of the bush years is the same reason it has fallen very recently NOW; the world economy is slowing


idiots and hypocrites

So our economy is now in a tailspin, we are losing 750,000 jobs per month, and the stock market is about to lose half of its value? I didn't think so.

I don't think anyone is making a case that the economy is in the same state as it was back in 2008, Auditor but it's seven YEARS later at this point and the economy is still basically treading water at 1% a year growth and millions still underemployed. The fact is...the economy sucks and you have to go no further than the Fed's decision to not raise interest rates from essentially zero because they're so concerned about what effect that would have...to know that's the case.

And part of the reason that the price of gas is low is that the US developed new oil sources which prompted the other oil producers to price their oil lower to counter that production. That new US production isn't something that Barack Obama can lay claim to as "his" however since his Administration opposed the development of fossil fuels and production of oil DROPPED on lands that the Federal Government had control of.

I think the lack of growth goes directly to the fact that middle class wages are not back to 08 levels, and in fact they've only recently seen any growth. And, while Dante overplayed his hand, I do think we overvalue any potus's ability to directly affect the economy. But, in general we should have a bipartisan effort to remove taxes that make markets turn on tax decisions rather than efficient and best investment decisions. We should also remove as many tax benefits from offshoring as possible

I'm going to have to disagree with you, Bendog...I think that the President can directly affect the economy simply by what he proposes as his agenda. If what you are proposing are things that hurt job creation...like the ACA and like Cap & Trade legislation...if you keep sending the message that you'd like to see $6 a gallon gasoline to curb our use of fossil fuels and encourage alternative energy sources...people in the Private Sector who are deciding whether or not to risk investment capital are going to take that agenda into account when they make the call to invest or not to invest. It's a lesson that Barry never seemed to grasp...how his "plans"...what he kept saying he'd like to see happen...affected the economy.

I agree with you, sort of. The CBO projects the ACA will reduce aggregate hours worked by 1.5-2% per year from 2017-24, but it makes no projections over a longer term. I'm not sure that I've seen any more or less non-partisan estimate for cap and trade, but it doesn't really matter because it's not happening. But, the CBO also found that the ACA effects would really only become apparent in 2016, as the entire law kicked in. So, the major effect of Obama's policies fall on his successor.

If the ACA improves the overall health of workers, and helps contain how much we spend on healthcare, the econ impact will be positive over the longterm. The clean air act made us put in catalytic converters, and dampened consumption initially, but the overall econ impact is hugely successful. And the same is true for the clean water act.

The US economy suffers from a lack of demand. And, there's abundant cheap capital to be had for business expansion. Or consumer consumption for that matter. The ACA and Cap and Trade (which isn't happening) have no effect on this situation. In fact, one really can blame W, who said himself, "the economy got drunk, so now it's got a hangover." We over leveraged credit, and now we're deleveraging And it's not just an American situation. There's a global slowdown in growth (with a few exceptions).

There is simply no rational way to blame a drop in middle class incomes NOW, and before these laws you point became effective.

Income Stagnation in 2014 Shows the Economy Is Not Working for Most Families

A guy didn't decide to not buy another subway franchise because he'd have to pay more for full time workers. He could have hired part time workers. He decided not to expand because he didn't think he could sell the sandwiches.

The forces at work on wages are structural and possibly irreversible.

Middle class decline looms over final years of Obama presidency

But, and I know you're going to hate this, is that Krugman (Hi dante, you poof) is not totally wrong that the middle class has a tool in the vote, and it can demand the progressive taxes be used to reduce how much the middle class pays for stuff like education. Obama's proposal to just give kids two years to goof off in Jr. College is, however, and example of liberal-elite failure to understand behavior.

The biggest argument that really is relevant is whether our economy is a top to bottom economy as espoused by conservatives and trickle down economics or whether we are a consumer economy dependent upon greater demand for products and services from the bottom up. Simply put, the economy is stagnating because those at the bottom and in the middle have not seen their incomes grow, and therefore they are not spending money and creating greater demand. Without demand, those at the top have no reason to expand or invest in new business, which is exactly what has been happening throughout this recovery. So instead of expanding the economy, those who control the money and jobs have chosen to cut costs wherever possible to maximize profits. It has worked well for the wealthy, but it won't continue for the long run. Eventually those on the lower end must start seeing improvement if the long term economy is to do well.

 

[browsing deer]

leftis always argue that the conservative argument is always trickle down. No conservative makes that argument. Conservatives therefore get mad because liberals are being deliberately dishonest and/or celebrating victories over straw

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So the blame for the slow recovery has to do with Obamacare? If the recovery was tackled first things would have gone much better? Hmm...events all over the world would appear to call this logic into question

But WHAT exactly was the first thing Obama did when entering office, even before entering office?

Hmm...

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.​

The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion. The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion. By October 11, 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that total disbursements would be $431 billion and estimated the total cost, including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, would be $24 billion.[1] This is significantly less than the government's cost of the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s but does not include the cost of other "bailout" programs (such as the Federal Reserve's Maiden Lane Transactions and the Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). The cost of the former crisis amounted to 3.2 percent of GDP during the Reagan/Bush era, while the GDP percentage of the latter crisis' cost is estimated at less than 1 percent.[2] While it was once feared the government would be holding companies like GM, AIG and Citigroup for several years, it was reported in April 2010 that those companies are preparing to buy back the Treasury's stake and emerge from TARP within a year.[2] On December 19, 2014 the U.S. Treasury sold its remaining holdings of Ally Financial, essentially ending the program. TARP revenue has totaled $441.7 billion on $426.4 billion invested.[3]

Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

You appear to have fallen into the Rush-Alternative-World-View meme, where on Feb/Mar 2009, Rush gave a speech declaring 'we need to take our country back' -- all before President Obama changed a single thing

It's okay, recent brain studies can account for how you came to your faulty conclusions and stick with them

With all due respect, Dante...Barry continued W's TARP program because that was working! If your biggest success story of the Obama Administration on the economy is that they kept doing what Bush started...that's not much of an endorsement...know what I'm saying?

Who were President Obama's economic advisers when he entered office and what did they suggest and why? I bet they were not all that different in thinking and actions then Bush's were at that time. They were all Wall Street people.

trying to split Bush and Obama apart on the early interventions on the economic recovery is an ideological masturbation game

When Obama entered office it was Larry Summers and Kristina Romer that were heading up his team. They both ran back to tenured positions at Harvard and Berkeley as soon as the Obama Stimulus failed to create jobs. Since then there really hasn't been anyone driving plans to stimulate the economy. We had calls for a "redo" of the Obama Stimulus that even Democrats didn't want to vote for...and vague calls for "infrastructure spending". That's it. And as the years went by talk about the economy became less and less of a focus for this Administration.

boring ideological arguments like yours do not even register well

What's your deal, Dante? I ask you to answer a couple simple questions and you start insulting me?

What I posted that you call an "ideological argument" wasn't an argument at all...it was a brief summary of what the Obama Administration has done in regards to trying to stimulate the economy and create jobs. If you disagree with my assessment then by all means point out where it is that I'm wrong. You ask me a question and I answer it. I ask you a question and you call me names.

Really? Is that how you see things?

and your 'brief summary' was a tired old styled ideological argument masked as an assessment


but...

I'll humor us both ... I'll return to this

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

leftis always argue that the conservative argument is always trickle down. No conservative makes that argument. Conservatives therefore get mad because liberals are being deliberately dishonest and/or celebrating victories over straw

So when conservatives repackage and market 'trickle down' under a new brand name...

it is considered by you to deliberately dishonest on the part of leftists to point it out?

Now why would you use the terms leftists and conservatives? Why are conservatives always so deliberately dishonest when calling everyone who disagrees with them a leftist?

 

[Oldstyle]

leftis always argue that the conservative argument is always trickle down. No conservative makes that argument. Conservatives therefore get mad because liberals are being deliberately dishonest and/or celebrating victories over straw

So when conservatives repackage and market 'trickle down' under a new brand name...

it is considered by you to deliberately dishonest on the part of leftists to point it out?

Now why would you use the terms leftists and conservatives? Why are conservatives always so deliberately dishonest when calling everyone who disagrees with them a leftist?

What is "trickle down economics" Dante? The truth is that it doesn't exist other than as a false narrative pushed by liberals with little knowledge about how businesses operate in an attempt to denigrate Supply Side Economics. Profits trickle UP...they always have...they always will. When someone starts a business they don't take their profit off the top...it's what remains after labor has been paid...it's what remains after sundry expenses have been paid...it's what remains after taxes and other government fees have been paid. If I'm a business owner I can't pay myself a huge profit while I stiff the Government, my purveyors and my staff! I HAVE to pay all of those things FIRST! If I don't then chances are...I'm going to do jail time.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What is "trickle down economics" Dante?

...

.

VooDoo Economics by another name?

Reagan's VP called it what it was and later lied about doing so: GHW Bush

 

[Oldstyle]

What is "trickle down economics" Dante?

...

.

VooDoo Economics by another name?

Reagan's VP called it what it was and later lied about doing so: GHW Bush

If it exists...show me a business model where profits trickle down.

 

[Oldstyle]

Show me a business model where labor, suppliers, and the tax man only get paid after the business owner does.

 

[Oldstyle]

Because I'll tell you right now...if there IS such a model then I'm scrapping what I do now and switching to that! I wish it was the case!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What is "trickle down economics" Dante? The truth is that it doesn't exist other than as a false narrative pushed by liberals with little knowledge about how businesses operate in an attempt to denigrate Supply Side Economics. Profits trickle UP...they always have...they always will. When someone starts a business they don't take their profit off the top...it's what remains after labor has been paid...it's what remains after sundry expenses have been paid...it's what remains after taxes and other government fees have been paid. If I'm a business owner I can't pay myself a huge profit while I stiff the Government, my purveyors and my staff! I HAVE to pay all of those things FIRST! If I don't then chances are...I'm going to do jail time.

Reality check in aisle 3!!!

quotes:

The term trickle down economics was first coined by comedian Will Rogers, in reference to Hoover administrations handing out money to the wealthy, hoping it would get to the poor during the great depression. Rogers said, "Money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."

---

In more recent history, the phrase is most closely identified with critics of the economic policies known as "Reaganomics" or laissez-faire. David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, but then became critical of them, told journalist William Greider that the "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea: "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."[6][7] Political opponents of the Reagan administration soon seized on this language in an effort to brand the administration as caring only about the wealthy.​

Trickle-down economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Supply side economics - RationalWiki

and I'll side with Reagan's very own Budget Director over ideologue Sowell

and I bet you would deny it was Stockman and LAxalt who sold Reagan on supply-side/trickle down. Reagan was no economist

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Show me a business model where labor, suppliers, and the tax man only get paid after the business owner does.

How many straw men does it take to put out a fire at a Tea Party?

Too many to count

 

[Oldstyle]

Ah, to be able to call up my suppliers and say "Hey, sorry guys...after I took out my profit there just wasn't enough left over to pay my bills! Hope you're cool with that!"

And those pay envelopes the employees get every two weeks..."Well, it's been a little slow, so sorry folks...no pay for you this month!"

And the IRS..."Nah, sorry...I'm not paying FICA this month...gonna take a little cruise with the missus."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Because I'll tell you right now...if there IS such a model then I'm scrapping what I do now and switching to that! I wish it was the case!

How many straw men does it take to put out a fire at a Tea Party?

see post above

 

[jon_berzerk]

What a silly presumption. Bush left this country with a calamity, you just haven't come to grips with just how bad it was.

Just to refresh your memory, Barack Obama came into office saying that he had a plan to fix the economy and would hit the ground running.

Then he proceeded to put the economy and jobs on a back burner while he pursued ObamaCare.

As a result...he's led the worst recovery from a recession since FDR and the Great Depression.

Come to grips with that...

I firmly believe you are entitled to your own view of things, it's just unfortunate that historians have already ranked Obama at #18 on presidential rankings and he is presumed to overtake Reagan just as soon as the impacts of gay marriage, immigration, Iranian nuclear deal and climate change are weighed.

"already ranked obama................................."

once again a left-winger is too stupid to see he's making the point for the other side!

lol

--LOL

true

 

[Oldstyle]

Show me a business model where labor, suppliers, and the tax man only get paid after the business owner does.

How many straw men does it take to put out a fire at a Tea Party?

Too many to count

Simple question, Dante...show me a business model where trickle down economics is used?

 

[Oldstyle]

David Stockman isn't even an economist to the best of my knowledge...Thomas Sowell on the other hand is a brilliant one. I had a class with him at Amherst College and learned an incredible amount.

 

[Oldstyle]

I mean do you even know Stockman's history? Before you use him as your "authority" on business and economics you might be well served to research his background because it's spotty at best.

 

[Oldstyle]

Dante doesn't seem to want to play anymore...either that or he's frantically researching a business model that uses trickle down economic theory! Good luck on that...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Show me a business model where labor, suppliers, and the tax man only get paid after the business owner does.

How many straw men does it take to put out a fire at a Tea Party?

Too many to count

Simple question, Dante...show me a business model where trickle down economics is used?

I bet you consider weather reporters climate change scientists

you confuse national economic policies and economic models and theories with business plans?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I mean do you even know Stockman's history? Before you use him as your "authority" on business and economics you might be well served to research his background because it's spotty at best.

I remember him when he served in Congress.

how's that?