Forget Econ Stats, Do Americans Feel Economic Exhuberance or Malaise?

[Dad2three]

I am posting in this failed thread in order to remind you that it is a failed thread. It's fun.

And.....you are not paying attention. Nutters tend to be a bit self absorbed like that.

No one pays attention to your dumbass, illogical, incongruent, small-minded, petty posts. But you ARE like the class clown that makes people laugh. You sure make me laugh. You remind me of an idiot savant, except your savant is in online shopping, not critical thinking.

Stop projecting Bubbete

 

[Plasmaball]

Post whatever you want. You're not someone people take seriously. But it's a free country....I encourage you to do or post whatever makes you happy. Just don't be shocked if you're ignored.

Ignore the facts ... what's shocking when a RW'r does that ?

( and this is from 2013)

Had Bush left office one year earlier, in January 2008, his performance would have looked quite good, with 5.6 million jobs created during his tenure. But the economy tanked in 2008, hemorrhaging 4.5 million jobs during Bush's last year in office. That left total job growth during his eight years of just 1.1 million jobs—a figure the Obama ought to eclipse by this summer, if the economy keeps growing.

If the economy adds an average of 150,000 jobs per month during Obama's entire second term, which is plausible, then it will have created about 7.7 million jobs by the time Obama leaves office. Many presidents have done better, but not the one Obama replaced
.


Questions LiarChick

No questions for someone so lacking in math. The financial crash was caused by policies enacted by both parties. Anyone who is objective knows that. Moreso, anyone who is objective knows more of that came from the party with the usual handout mentality, government intervention mentality, government-fixes-all mentality.

Just because the crash happened on Bush's watch doesn't mean it was caused 100% by him. Crashes are always a result of policies that span multiple presidencies. Everyone knows that. Everyone.

And here's some other things the uninformed fail to mention:

Bush inherited the Clinton economy as it was moving into what's called the trough of the business cycle. Clinton didn't hand him the upside of the cycle, it was the downside Bush had to fix.

In 2011 we were hit by terrorists who did a lot of damage to the economy. Here's an area where you'll see liberals show what consummate know-nothings they are. Bush had to enact a number of things to bring us back from that hit, much like the way we had to recover after Pearl Harbor was hit.

Do you ever see a liberal account for that? Noooooooo. No. And No. But then a liberal's response to attack on the homeland would be just turn the other cheek anyway being the pacifists that they are.

Please one of you liberals tell me how much it costs the economy when you shut down the entire airline industry and all the secondary business connected to that. I've yet to see one do it.

Bush does take blame for adding the cost of Medicare D and the Rep Party does have it's part to blame for the financial meltdown, but for anyone trying to claim the meltdown was all Bush, they're as corrupt and brainless as they come.

you said a lot here, and you did mention medicare part d. Yeah righties tend to go to that as an example.

For the most part you just want to really blame liberals. Been there done that, and so far you havent brought anything new to the table. Our debt problems span decades. Our bubble crisis span decades, Or deregulation of the industries span decades.

 

[Dad2three]

In the last century 65 years there have been two sustained economic booms.

ECONOMIC BOOM 1
The Postwar Years. This was defined by a compromise between capital and labor. Put simply, the American workers were the highest paid in history, and their cost of living was kept affordable. The historically singular wealth of the "99%" translated into unprecedented consumer demand. This is why the period from 1945 to 1973 was our greatest economic growth.

But then came the oil shocks of the 70s, followed by inflation and then stagflation (high prices and high unemployment). This gave the Right an opening.

ECONOMIC BOOM 2
Reaganomics. The second boom of the past 65 years happened from 1980 to 2000. (FYI: yes, within each boom there were short lived recessions). The Reagan Boom was based on the unwinding of the postwar Keynesianism that worked so effectively from 1945-73. It was based on massive tax cuts, deregulation of business and cheaper labor costs (by breaking unions, cutting benefits and shipping jobs to China so our capitalists could cut their cost of production). Reagan said that by lowering the cost of capital investment (i.e., lowering taxes, labor costs and costly regulations) we would see more investment, hence economic growth. And yes, we did see economic growth, but Reaganomics played a terrible trick on the American People. As high paying jobs were shipped to cheaper labor markets in places like China, Reaganomics replaced high wages/benefits with an aggressive expansion of credit. That is to say, the impressive economic growth of the 80s and 90s was largely fueled by the expansion of DEBT. (And now we are paying the price: consumer demand is dead)

You get this right? You understand why Reaganomics and Clintonomics expanded credit to American families as jobs were shipped to China? Remember the 80's when, all of the sudden, Americans started receiving several credit card offers a week? Historians now recognize this period as a transition from wage-based consumption to debt-based consumption.

The malaise we feel is only logical because several generations of Americans are now living the consequences of 3 decades of chronic borrowing.

Reaganomics/Clintonomics - by supporting the flight of capital (jobs) to the 3rd world - dug our grave. We don't make anything save financial gimmicks so that Americans can pull out their credit cards and go to shopping malls in order to buy "made in China" products.

One day Americans are going to realize that "Morning in America" was brought to you by American Express, MasterCard and Visa.

In order to give our capitalists cheaper labor and higher profits, we cannibalized middle class jobs. And we tried to fix the loss of jobs with credit (debt). And it worked really well for a couple decades. Debt based economic growth is awesome . . . until it's not.

Yeah, Reagan had a top rate of 50% for 6 years, 10% lower than Obama weird right?

LOVE it when conservatives claim Clinton stopping Reagan's runaway debt (US debt quadrupled under Reagan/Poppy Bush) somehow was a continuation of Ronnie's cut taxes and spend, spend, spend



NO SERIOUS ECONOMISTS CREDITS REAGAN WITH CLINTON'S GREAT ECONOMY. None

David Stockman bombshell: How my Republican Party destroyed the American economy.

The “debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.”

Cue the FoxNews denunciations.

David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan


David Stockman bombshell: How my Republican Party destroyed the American economy. | ThinkProgress




SURE, REAGANOMICS (AKA FINALIZATION OF US) played a HUGE part in Dubya's crash


The American mortgage market In 2000, stood at $1 trillion a year. The real surge in the mortgage market began in 2001 (the year of the stock market crash). From 2000 -2004, residential originations the U.S. climbed from about $1trillion to almost $4 trillion.

About 70% of this rise was accounted for by people refinancing their conventional mortgages at lower interest rates

http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf


IN DUBYA'S FIRST 7 YEARS US HOUSEHOLD DEBT DOUBLED!!!


Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


Too bad conservatives get their economic education from Rush and Fox who parrot Heritage Foundation talking points.

Your knowledge of the Reagan years comes from David Stockman????????? Stockman is a flippin idiot. Reagan gave him a real big boot in the ass from his Administration once he figured that out.

By all means keep showing your incredible ignorance.

Oh when he said 'trickle down' was a failure? Sure.. lol

Reaganomics went to to destroy the middle class, but hey, we created a few new billionaires!

 

[EconChick]

In the last century 65 years there have been two sustained economic booms.

ECONOMIC BOOM 1
The Postwar Years. This was defined by a compromise between capital and labor. Put simply, the American workers were the highest paid in history, and their cost of living was kept affordable. The historically singular wealth of the "99%" translated into unprecedented consumer demand. This is why the period from 1945 to 1973 was our greatest economic growth.

But then came the oil shocks of the 70s, followed by inflation and then stagflation (high prices and high unemployment). This gave the Right an opening.

ECONOMIC BOOM 2
Reaganomics. The second boom of the past 65 years happened from 1980 to 2000. (FYI: yes, within each boom there were short lived recessions). The Reagan Boom was based on the unwinding of the postwar Keynesianism that worked so effectively from 1945-73. It was based on massive tax cuts, deregulation of business and cheaper labor costs (by breaking unions, cutting benefits and shipping jobs to China so our capitalists could cut their cost of production). Reagan said that by lowering the cost of capital investment (i.e., lowering taxes, labor costs and costly regulations) we would see more investment, hence economic growth. And yes, we did see economic growth, but Reaganomics played a terrible trick on the American People. As high paying jobs were shipped to cheaper labor markets in places like China, Reaganomics replaced high wages/benefits with an aggressive expansion of credit. That is to say, the impressive economic growth of the 80s and 90s was largely fueled by the expansion of DEBT. (And now we are paying the price)

You get this right? You understand why Reaganomics and Clintonomics expanded credit to American families as jobs were shipped to China? Remember the 80's when all of the sudden Americans started receiving several credit card offers a week?

The malaise we feel is only logical after several generations of American families are now living the consequences of 3 decades of debt-based spending.

Reaganomics/Clintonomics - by supporting the flight of capital (jobs) to the 3rd world - dug our grave.

One day Americans are going to realize that "Morning in America" was brought to you by American Express, MasterCard and Visa.

In order to give our capitalists cheaper labor and higher profits, we cannibalized middle class jobs. And we tried to fix the loss of jobs with credit (debt). And it worked really well for a couple decades. Debt based economic growth is awesome . . . until it's not.

Londoner, you make some good points (esp about credit) but you also make some statements that undermine you somewhat. When you say "postwar Keynesianism that worked so effectively from 1945-73," it didn't work so effectively at all. The 70s were the most stagnant in decades....because of Keynsian policies.

Yeah, NOTHING to do with Nixon/Ford wage and price controls or that OPEC thing *shaking head*

Holy crap, I finally found something I agree with you about (somewhat.) Price controls from the Nixon camp were stupid. But it was mostly due to decades of Keynsian BIG SPENDING. I

 

[Dad2three]

Londoner, you make some good points (esp about credit) but you also make some statements that undermine you somewhat. When you say "postwar Keynesianism that worked so effectively from 1945-73," it didn't work so effectively at all. The 70s were the most stagnant in decades....because of Keynsian policies.

Yeah, NOTHING to do with Nixon/Ford wage and price controls or that OPEC thing *shaking head*

Holy crap, I finally found something I agree with you about (somewhat.) Price controls from the Nixon camp were stupid. But it was mostly due to decades of Keynsian BIG SPENDING. I

What was the debt to GDP in 1968? 1970? 1972? lol

NOW WHAT WAS IT POST WW2?




FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES, THE ONLY THING RIGHT WINGERS EVER HAVE!

 

[EconChick]

Yeah, Reagan had a top rate of 50% for 6 years, 10% lower than Obama weird right?

LOVE it when conservatives claim Clinton stopping Reagan's runaway debt (US debt quadrupled under Reagan/Poppy Bush) somehow was a continuation of Ronnie's cut taxes and spend, spend, spend



NO SERIOUS ECONOMISTS CREDITS REAGAN WITH CLINTON'S GREAT ECONOMY. None

David Stockman bombshell: How my Republican Party destroyed the American economy.

The “debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.”

Cue the FoxNews denunciations.

David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan


David Stockman bombshell: How my Republican Party destroyed the American economy. | ThinkProgress




SURE, REAGANOMICS (AKA FINALIZATION OF US) played a HUGE part in Dubya's crash


The American mortgage market In 2000, stood at $1 trillion a year. The real surge in the mortgage market began in 2001 (the year of the stock market crash). From 2000 -2004, residential originations the U.S. climbed from about $1trillion to almost $4 trillion.

About 70% of this rise was accounted for by people refinancing their conventional mortgages at lower interest rates

http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf


IN DUBYA'S FIRST 7 YEARS US HOUSEHOLD DEBT DOUBLED!!!


Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


Too bad conservatives get their economic education from Rush and Fox who parrot Heritage Foundation talking points.

Your knowledge of the Reagan years comes from David Stockman????????? Stockman is a flippin idiot. Reagan gave him a real big boot in the ass from his Administration once he figured that out.

By all means keep showing your incredible ignorance.

Oh when he said 'trickle down' was a failure? Sure.. lol

Reaganomics went to to destroy the middle class, but hey, we created a few new billionaires!

When a president gets growth roaring to levels almost unmatched....and when that president gets unemployment to almost "full employment" it takes a real dullard to not realize those policies help the middle class more than any other policy impacts.

The very def of low enough unemployment to be called "full employment" means you've created conditions that allows almost everyone who wants to work to work. How can you possibly think that only billionaires benefit from that.

You must be regurgitating some dumbass class out at Berkley. No wonder so many stats are at your fingertips.

 

[EconChick]

Ignore the facts ... what's shocking when a RW'r does that ?

( and this is from 2013)

Had Bush left office one year earlier, in January 2008, his performance would have looked quite good, with 5.6 million jobs created during his tenure. But the economy tanked in 2008, hemorrhaging 4.5 million jobs during Bush's last year in office. That left total job growth during his eight years of just 1.1 million jobs—a figure the Obama ought to eclipse by this summer, if the economy keeps growing.

If the economy adds an average of 150,000 jobs per month during Obama's entire second term, which is plausible, then it will have created about 7.7 million jobs by the time Obama leaves office. Many presidents have done better, but not the one Obama replaced
.


Questions LiarChick

No questions for someone so lacking in math. The financial crash was caused by policies enacted by both parties. Anyone who is objective knows that. Moreso, anyone who is objective knows more of that came from the party with the usual handout mentality, government intervention mentality, government-fixes-all mentality.

Just because the crash happened on Bush's watch doesn't mean it was caused 100% by him. Crashes are always a result of policies that span multiple presidencies. Everyone knows that. Everyone.

And here's some other things the uninformed fail to mention:

Bush inherited the Clinton economy as it was moving into what's called the trough of the business cycle. Clinton didn't hand him the upside of the cycle, it was the downside Bush had to fix.

In 2011 we were hit by terrorists who did a lot of damage to the economy. Here's an area where you'll see liberals show what consummate know-nothings they are. Bush had to enact a number of things to bring us back from that hit, much like the way we had to recover after Pearl Harbor was hit.

Do you ever see a liberal account for that? Noooooooo. No. And No. But then a liberal's response to attack on the homeland would be just turn the other cheek anyway being the pacifists that they are.

Please one of you liberals tell me how much it costs the economy when you shut down the entire airline industry and all the secondary business connected to that. I've yet to see one do it.

Bush does take blame for adding the cost of Medicare D and the Rep Party does have it's part to blame for the financial meltdown, but for anyone trying to claim the meltdown was all Bush, they're as corrupt and brainless as they come.

you said a lot here, and you did mention medicare part d. Yeah righties tend to go to that as an example.

For the most part you just want to really blame liberals. Been there done that, and so far you havent brought anything new to the table. Our debt problems span decades. Our bubble crisis span decades, Or deregulation of the industries span decades.

That's because a liberal is in the White House. The biggest spending liberal of them all. That's who's leading the economic direction of the country right now.

Talk to me when a real fiscal conservative gets in the White House. There are plenty of big spending Republicans too, they don't get a pass either.

 

[EconChick]

Can't refute FACTUAL DATA. Got it


The economists’ conclusion: “In the context of our model and according to this evidence, regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures are largely to blame for the occurrence and the severity of the Great Recession.”


Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble? | AEIdeas


WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. ONE DUBYA CHEERED ON IN THE US

And once again you fail to address my point that Keynsians dominate academia and the media.

So wow, you found yet another Keynsian idiot's theory.

Do you even know what I'm implying when I dis your Keynsian sources?

Yeah, it was Keynes who cheered on the Banksters WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. Oh wait, no that was Dubya

You really really really need to go study up on your Keynsianism. You are so clueless it's not funny. It's also apparent you think in a binary sense.

That means it's either black or white to you. Black or white. Black or white. In the field of economics, there is nothing worse than a black and white thinker.

That's why it's so easy to trounce you. If you showed more complex thinking, it would be harder.

 

[Plasmaball]

No questions for someone so lacking in math. The financial crash was caused by policies enacted by both parties. Anyone who is objective knows that. Moreso, anyone who is objective knows more of that came from the party with the usual handout mentality, government intervention mentality, government-fixes-all mentality.

Just because the crash happened on Bush's watch doesn't mean it was caused 100% by him. Crashes are always a result of policies that span multiple presidencies. Everyone knows that. Everyone.

And here's some other things the uninformed fail to mention:

Bush inherited the Clinton economy as it was moving into what's called the trough of the business cycle. Clinton didn't hand him the upside of the cycle, it was the downside Bush had to fix.

In 2011 we were hit by terrorists who did a lot of damage to the economy. Here's an area where you'll see liberals show what consummate know-nothings they are. Bush had to enact a number of things to bring us back from that hit, much like the way we had to recover after Pearl Harbor was hit.

Do you ever see a liberal account for that? Noooooooo. No. And No. But then a liberal's response to attack on the homeland would be just turn the other cheek anyway being the pacifists that they are.

Please one of you liberals tell me how much it costs the economy when you shut down the entire airline industry and all the secondary business connected to that. I've yet to see one do it.

Bush does take blame for adding the cost of Medicare D and the Rep Party does have it's part to blame for the financial meltdown, but for anyone trying to claim the meltdown was all Bush, they're as corrupt and brainless as they come.

you said a lot here, and you did mention medicare part d. Yeah righties tend to go to that as an example.

For the most part you just want to really blame liberals. Been there done that, and so far you havent brought anything new to the table. Our debt problems span decades. Our bubble crisis span decades, Or deregulation of the industries span decades.

That's because a liberal is in the White House. The biggest spending liberal of them all. That's who's leading the economic direction of the country right now.

Talk to me when a real fiscal conservative gets in the White House. There are plenty of big spending Republicans too, they don't get a pass either.

great more nothing

 

[EconChick]

I don't know about the area you live in, but in my area people are working and living....They are hiring and need skilled workers along with general laborers, professional positions are in need of people to fill positions. It's good where I live and people are filling restaurants, shopping malls, bars, the streets are packed with spenders and visitors, vacationers, campers, canoeist, and the lakes are loaded with boats....It's great to be here and vibrant with activity.. It's a hell of a lot better than 2008 when the day was darkened by gloom and doom.....
carry on pragmatics, cynics and naysayers...It's your Constitutional right and you get to enjoy what many in the world do without....the glass is half full, not half empty...

See The Glass Half Full Or Empty? Why Optimists Are Happier, Healthier & Wealthier!

See The Glass Half Full Or Empty? Why Optimists Are Happier, Healthier & Wealthier! - Forbes

By the vie, the veggie garden is doing great this year and the harvest is most bountiful....

Cute post, Moonglow. Liked it!

I'm an optimist too. When I was constantly under rocket fire in Iraq, I too would always look at the cup half full. Unfortunately I'm not comparing optimism with pessimism here. I'm talking about the impact of our President's policies.

Comparing it to the financial crash is not really a valid comparison. That's like saying you're now only 80,000 in debt instead of 100,000 in debt.

 

[Dad2three]

Your knowledge of the Reagan years comes from David Stockman????????? Stockman is a flippin idiot. Reagan gave him a real big boot in the ass from his Administration once he figured that out.

By all means keep showing your incredible ignorance.

Oh when he said 'trickle down' was a failure? Sure.. lol

Reaganomics went to to destroy the middle class, but hey, we created a few new billionaires!

When a president gets growth roaring to levels almost unmatched....and when that president gets unemployment to almost "full employment" it takes a real dullard to not realize those policies help the middle class more than any other policy impacts.

The very def of low enough unemployment to be called "full employment" means you've created conditions that allows almost everyone who wants to work to work. How can you possibly think that only billionaires benefit from that.

You must be regurgitating some dumbass class out at Berkley. No wonder so many stats are at your fingertips.

Oh you mean when Clinton got US to 4% unemployment? By increasing the top marginal rate?

Spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981–88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. In addition, the public debt rose from 26% GDP in 1980 to 41% GDP by 1988

Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021 - CBO

HOLY CRAP ISN'T THAT KEYNESIAN?


Reagan administration unemployment averaging 7.5%. The unemployment averaged 6.4 percent under President Carter and 7.8 percent under President Ford


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

For the 70% of American households that still lacked any stake at all in the stock market, the Reagan economy was not quite so lustrous as it seemed to those enjoying the fruits of rising equity values. Real wages, which had increased steadily from 1945 to 1972 but then stalled through the stagflation era, remained flat through the 1980s as well. Unemployment declined from the atrocious highs of the late 1970s and early 1980s, but the high-paying blue-collar industrial jobs that had been the mainstay of the midcentury economy continued to disappear

The uneven distribution of benefits from the Reagan boom reflected a growing trend toward what has been called the "financialization" of the American economy. As the financial sector displaced industrial manufacturing as the dominant economic force in American society, the gains from growth came to accrue almost entirely to those with major investments in the market, while individuals dependent solely upon wages and salaries found it harder and harder to get ahead



During Ronald Reagan's presidency, the wealthiest one-fifth of American households (those who naturally owned the most stock) saw their incomes increase by 14%. Meanwhile, the poorest one-fifth (who presumably owned no stock) endured an income decline of 24%, while the incomes of the middle three-fifths of American families stayed more or less flat


This uneven pattern represented a marked departure from the earlier economic expansions of the 1940s, '50s, and '60s, which had generated smaller returns for investors but raised income levels across all classes of society.


Economy in The Reagan Era


CAL POLY, SLO GRAD BTW

 

[Dad2three]

No questions for someone so lacking in math. The financial crash was caused by policies enacted by both parties. Anyone who is objective knows that. Moreso, anyone who is objective knows more of that came from the party with the usual handout mentality, government intervention mentality, government-fixes-all mentality.

Just because the crash happened on Bush's watch doesn't mean it was caused 100% by him. Crashes are always a result of policies that span multiple presidencies. Everyone knows that. Everyone.

And here's some other things the uninformed fail to mention:

Bush inherited the Clinton economy as it was moving into what's called the trough of the business cycle. Clinton didn't hand him the upside of the cycle, it was the downside Bush had to fix.

In 2011 we were hit by terrorists who did a lot of damage to the economy. Here's an area where you'll see liberals show what consummate know-nothings they are. Bush had to enact a number of things to bring us back from that hit, much like the way we had to recover after Pearl Harbor was hit.

Do you ever see a liberal account for that? Noooooooo. No. And No. But then a liberal's response to attack on the homeland would be just turn the other cheek anyway being the pacifists that they are.

Please one of you liberals tell me how much it costs the economy when you shut down the entire airline industry and all the secondary business connected to that. I've yet to see one do it.

Bush does take blame for adding the cost of Medicare D and the Rep Party does have it's part to blame for the financial meltdown, but for anyone trying to claim the meltdown was all Bush, they're as corrupt and brainless as they come.

you said a lot here, and you did mention medicare part d. Yeah righties tend to go to that as an example.

For the most part you just want to really blame liberals. Been there done that, and so far you havent brought anything new to the table. Our debt problems span decades. Our bubble crisis span decades, Or deregulation of the industries span decades.

That's because a liberal is in the White House. The biggest spending liberal of them all. That's who's leading the economic direction of the country right now.

Talk to me when a real fiscal conservative gets in the White House. There are plenty of big spending Republicans too, they don't get a pass either.

I keep bringing up, and you keep ignoring, SPENDING ORIGINATES IN THE HOUSE

 

[Dad2three]

And once again you fail to address my point that Keynsians dominate academia and the media.

So wow, you found yet another Keynsian idiot's theory.

Do you even know what I'm implying when I dis your Keynsian sources?

Yeah, it was Keynes who cheered on the Banksters WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. Oh wait, no that was Dubya

You really really really need to go study up on your Keynsianism. You are so clueless it's not funny. It's also apparent you think in a binary sense.

That means it's either black or white to you. Black or white. Black or white. In the field of economics, there is nothing worse than a black and white thinker.

That's why it's so easy to trounce you. If you showed more complex thinking, it would be harder.

Dream on. It's ALL you have. Dreams and myths

 

[EconChick]

you said a lot here, and you did mention medicare part d. Yeah righties tend to go to that as an example.

For the most part you just want to really blame liberals. Been there done that, and so far you havent brought anything new to the table. Our debt problems span decades. Our bubble crisis span decades, Or deregulation of the industries span decades.

That's because a liberal is in the White House. The biggest spending liberal of them all. That's who's leading the economic direction of the country right now.

Talk to me when a real fiscal conservative gets in the White House. There are plenty of big spending Republicans too, they don't get a pass either.

great more nothing

Great, another partisan pretends to act objective.

If this were 2007 and Bush was president, I'd expect the responses to my question in the title to reflect on him.

But your hero's now the President. Not anyone else. It's a reflection on him.

Do I see you answering the question about his policies? No............ of course not.

Where in this thread do you mention Obama's policies. No where. You libs are soooooooooooo fucking sensitive about his fuck ups.

Busted dude.

 

[Dad2three]

No questions for someone so lacking in math. The financial crash was caused by policies enacted by both parties. Anyone who is objective knows that. Moreso, anyone who is objective knows more of that came from the party with the usual handout mentality, government intervention mentality, government-fixes-all mentality.

Just because the crash happened on Bush's watch doesn't mean it was caused 100% by him. Crashes are always a result of policies that span multiple presidencies. Everyone knows that. Everyone.

And here's some other things the uninformed fail to mention:

Bush inherited the Clinton economy as it was moving into what's called the trough of the business cycle. Clinton didn't hand him the upside of the cycle, it was the downside Bush had to fix.

In 2011 we were hit by terrorists who did a lot of damage to the economy. Here's an area where you'll see liberals show what consummate know-nothings they are. Bush had to enact a number of things to bring us back from that hit, much like the way we had to recover after Pearl Harbor was hit.

Do you ever see a liberal account for that? Noooooooo. No. And No. But then a liberal's response to attack on the homeland would be just turn the other cheek anyway being the pacifists that they are.

Please one of you liberals tell me how much it costs the economy when you shut down the entire airline industry and all the secondary business connected to that. I've yet to see one do it.

Bush does take blame for adding the cost of Medicare D and the Rep Party does have it's part to blame for the financial meltdown, but for anyone trying to claim the meltdown was all Bush, they're as corrupt and brainless as they come.

you said a lot here, and you did mention medicare part d. Yeah righties tend to go to that as an example.

For the most part you just want to really blame liberals. Been there done that, and so far you havent brought anything new to the table. Our debt problems span decades. Our bubble crisis span decades, Or deregulation of the industries span decades.

That's because a liberal is in the White House. The biggest spending liberal of them all. That's who's leading the economic direction of the country right now.

Talk to me when a real fiscal conservative gets in the White House. There are plenty of big spending Republicans too, they don't get a pass either.

Best fiscal conservative since Ike was BJ Bill, second best is Prez Obama. Grow up and grow a brain...

 

[EconChick]

Yeah, it was Keynes who cheered on the Banksters WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. Oh wait, no that was Dubya

You really really really need to go study up on your Keynsianism. You are so clueless it's not funny. It's also apparent you think in a binary sense.

That means it's either black or white to you. Black or white. Black or white. In the field of economics, there is nothing worse than a black and white thinker.

That's why it's so easy to trounce you. If you showed more complex thinking, it would be harder.

Dream on. It's ALL you have. Dreams and myths

Dude, look at the fricken polls!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Laugh my fucking ass off. Your delusion has me rolling in the floor. His approval on the economy and jobs is in the 30s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[EconChick]

you said a lot here, and you did mention medicare part d. Yeah righties tend to go to that as an example.

For the most part you just want to really blame liberals. Been there done that, and so far you havent brought anything new to the table. Our debt problems span decades. Our bubble crisis span decades, Or deregulation of the industries span decades.

That's because a liberal is in the White House. The biggest spending liberal of them all. That's who's leading the economic direction of the country right now.

Talk to me when a real fiscal conservative gets in the White House. There are plenty of big spending Republicans too, they don't get a pass either.

Best fiscal conservative since Ike was BJ Bill, second best is Prez Obama. Grow up and grow a brain...

Fiscal conservative????????????????? You must be taking the best drugs Cali can offer. Yeahhhhh, next you'll be telling me the Japanese won WWII.

 

[Moonglow]

I don't know about the area you live in, but in my area people are working and living....They are hiring and need skilled workers along with general laborers, professional positions are in need of people to fill positions. It's good where I live and people are filling restaurants, shopping malls, bars, the streets are packed with spenders and visitors, vacationers, campers, canoeist, and the lakes are loaded with boats....It's great to be here and vibrant with activity.. It's a hell of a lot better than 2008 when the day was darkened by gloom and doom.....
carry on pragmatics, cynics and naysayers...It's your Constitutional right and you get to enjoy what many in the world do without....the glass is half full, not half empty...

See The Glass Half Full Or Empty? Why Optimists Are Happier, Healthier & Wealthier!

See The Glass Half Full Or Empty? Why Optimists Are Happier, Healthier & Wealthier! - Forbes

By the vie, the veggie garden is doing great this year and the harvest is most bountiful....

Cute post, Moonglow. Liked it!

I'm an optimist too. When I was constantly under rocket fire in Iraq, I too would always look at the cup half full. Unfortunately I'm not comparing optimism with pessimism here. I'm talking about the impact of our President's policies.

Comparing it to the financial crash is not really a valid comparison. That's like saying you're now only 80,000 in debt instead of 100,000 in debt.

As of today I am 10k in debt.....in 2008 I was 60k in debt....I reduced my debt liability by frugal living. I have worked through 40 years of presidents and the state of the economy . I have always found work and even ran a business. I made money even in the worst of times..Because I do what it takes to survive, no matter what I must do..
This president and his policies have allowed the US to regain much of what was lost during the last president. I never determine my abilities or my income by what a president does or says. I keep my nose to the grindstone and know that you must learn to live through the good times and bad times,and cherish what matters most, love of my family and my dogs..Love of the beautiful planet and what it has to offer..
Money will come and go, but that is not what happiness is about.

 

[Dad2three]

You really really really need to go study up on your Keynsianism. You are so clueless it's not funny. It's also apparent you think in a binary sense.

That means it's either black or white to you. Black or white. Black or white. In the field of economics, there is nothing worse than a black and white thinker.

That's why it's so easy to trounce you. If you showed more complex thinking, it would be harder.

Dream on. It's ALL you have. Dreams and myths

Dude, look at the fricken polls!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Laugh my fucking ass off. Your delusion has me rolling in the floor. His approval on the economy and jobs is in the 30s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, that explains it, you get your economics from polls, lol

 

[Plasmaball]

That's because a liberal is in the White House. The biggest spending liberal of them all. That's who's leading the economic direction of the country right now.

Talk to me when a real fiscal conservative gets in the White House. There are plenty of big spending Republicans too, they don't get a pass either.

great more nothing

Great, another partisan pretends to act objective.

If this were 2007 and Bush was president, I'd expect the responses to my question in the title to reflect on him.

But your hero's now the President. Not anyone else. It's a reflection on him.

Do I see you answering the question about his policies? No............ of course not.

Where in this thread do you mention Obama's policies. No where. You libs are soooooooooooo fucking sensitive about his fuck ups.

Busted dude.

Because my issues with Obama stem in the spying, constitutional aspect of things. Economically he is no better than bush. Same people, same crap, just rotate the person in charge..

Your problem here is you like to assume positions without asking. Look hey that might work with other people, but it doesnt for me.

The problems stem from carter, to Reagan putting greenspan in charge, who is a less government is better type guy ( even though he says he was wrong) To clinton repealing glass/seagal, too Bush appointing more wall street men, to Obama doing the same.

Meanwhile nobody really went to jail, bailouts happened when they shoudnt have and we are right back where we started. Its a giant circlejerk, between our Government, Wallstreet, and the Credit ratings.

So please, assume my position all you like little girl....Its been done by better.

Again you bring nothing new