Headed for a recession

[asterism]

Uncertainty? lo, REALLY? Tell me WHEN a Biz has certainty?

But Yes, Bush/GOP put US in a deep hole with their nonsense



David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Countr


“(Reagan’s deficit policies) allowed George W. Bush to dive into the deep end, bankrupting the nation through two misbegotten and unfinanced wars, a giant expansion of Medicare and a tax-cutting spree for the wealthy that turned K Street lobbyists into the de facto office of national tax policy,” Stockman wrote.


David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country




Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs

By BRUCE BARTLETT

...The table below presents the bureau’s data. As one can see, the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration. Lack of demand for business products and services is vastly more important.

These results are supported by surveys. During June and July, Small Business Majority asked 1,257 small-business owners to name the two biggest problems they face. Only 13 percent listed government regulation as one of them. Almost half said their biggest problem was uncertainty about the future course of the economy — another way of saying a lack of customers and sales.

The Wall Street Journal’s July survey of business economists found, “The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists.”

In August, McClatchy Newspapers canvassed small businesses, asking them if regulation was a big problem. It could find no evidence that this was the case.

“None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it,” McClatchy reported. “Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-9 and its grim aftermath.”

The latest monthly survey of its members by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that poor sales are far and away their biggest problem. While concerns about regulation have risen during the Obama administration, they are about the same now as they were during Ronald Reagan’s administration, according to an analysis of the federation’s data by the Economic Policy Institute.

Academic research has also failed to find evidence that regulation is a significant factor in unemployment.


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/regulation-and-unemployment/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Yup....uncertainty. Trillions sitting on the sidelines because of it. True story

You'd think conservatives would stop trying to destroy demand in the economy, and give companies a reason to invest to make profits then.

But, a good economy never results from right wing ideology.

A good economy has never resulted form a left wing ideology either. Clinton was so centrist he was called "the best Republican we have" by the left and Obama has only been outdone by FDR in extending the pain of an economic collapse.

 

[asterism]

On Monday, Jason Furman, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, held a briefing about the Economic Report of the President, which features a chart showing how productivity has pulled away from wages since the 1970s. I asked him what policies, other than raising the minimum wage, the president sees as useful for raising the share of G.D.P. that goes to wages.

To my surprise, Mr. Furman responded with a list of education and human capital policies, including expanded prekindergarten, improved access to higher education, holding colleges accountable for quality and better apprenticeship programs. He also promoted policies to raise overall growth, like corporate tax reform.
These policies might promote wage growth over the long run (or, in the case of prekindergarten, the very long run). But they are not policies specifically aimed at tightening the labor market.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/people-think-were-in-a-recession-dont-blame-them/

The Obama team is out of ideas, they've even stopped trying. So much for this promise:



This was in 2008.

 

[Dad2three]

You do't seem to understand. Bush definitely fucked things up big time.


But Obama has made it worse. Median net worth continued to sink long after Obama said things were getting better.

You mean the hole Bush/GOP dug was wide and deep?

PLEASE show me a graph that shows it's worse today than Jan 2010, one year into office for Obama, we hit Bush's bottom March 2010!

I already showed you that.

Median net worth as of 2012, $39K. That's less than half of the "bottom" of 2010.

So you really don't know how graphs work huh? If you want to show me something, give me both 2010 AND 2012 graphs, don't expect me to agree with you because you say so! AND let them be the same source

BTW, Your graph is PER ADULT, NOT FAMILY...LOL




Jun 18, 2012 - U.S. median household net worth declined 35 percent between 2005 and 2010, from $102,844 to $66,740 (in 2010 constant dollars)

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb12-108.html


Keep trying

 

[Manonthestreet]

they never did try which is why Geithner was chosen and Bernake kept on twice.

 

[Dad2three]

On Monday, Jason Furman, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, held a briefing about the Economic Report of the President, which features a chart showing how productivity has pulled away from wages since the 1970s. I asked him what policies, other than raising the minimum wage, the president sees as useful for raising the share of G.D.P. that goes to wages.

To my surprise, Mr. Furman responded with a list of education and human capital policies, including expanded prekindergarten, improved access to higher education, holding colleges accountable for quality and better apprenticeship programs. He also promoted policies to raise overall growth, like corporate tax reform.
These policies might promote wage growth over the long run (or, in the case of prekindergarten, the very long run). But they are not policies specifically aimed at tightening the labor market.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/people-think-were-in-a-recession-dont-blame-them/

The Obama team is out of ideas, they've even stopped trying. So much for this promise:



This was in 2008.

Weird, You'd think after 8 years of Dubya/GOP policy the economy would have been booming, using those 'job creator' policies, what happened?

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



"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.

 

[Dad2three]

Yup....uncertainty. Trillions sitting on the sidelines because of it. True story

You'd think conservatives would stop trying to destroy demand in the economy, and give companies a reason to invest to make profits then.

But, a good economy never results from right wing ideology.

A good economy has never resulted form a left wing ideology either. Clinton was so centrist he was called "the best Republican we have" by the left and Obama has only been outdone by FDR in extending the pain of an economic collapse.

Yeah, sure, Clinton increasing taxes (3 new brackets and top increased to 39.6%) and cutting the deficit in half in 1993, without a single GOP vote, wasn't 'left'...

 

[asterism]

Links for those who don't believe President Clinton was called "

MADDOW: Well, and what we ended up with is what we ended with, in my
opinion, is the two terms of the Clinton administration, which is that Bill
Clinton was—
HAYES: Yes.
MADDOW: -- probably the best Republican president the country ever
had, if you look at the policies that he passed.
Chris Hayes, Washington editor for “The Nation”—thank you very much
for your time tonight. It‘s good to see you.
HAYES: Thank you, Rachel. And happy birthday.

Wednesday, March 31st - msnbc - Rachel Maddow show | NBC News

And then Clinton responded:

Bill Clinton peeved that Rachel Maddow called him a Republican - Salon.com

 

[asterism]

You mean the hole Bush/GOP dug was wide and deep?

PLEASE show me a graph that shows it's worse today than Jan 2010, one year into office for Obama, we hit Bush's bottom March 2010!

I already showed you that.

Median net worth as of 2012, $39K. That's less than half of the "bottom" of 2010.

So you really don't know how graphs work huh? If you want to show me something, give me both 2010 AND 2012 graphs, don't expect me to agree with you because you say so! AND let them be the same source

BTW, Your graph is PER ADULT, NOT FAMILY...LOL




Jun 18, 2012 - U.S. median household net worth declined 35 percent between 2005 and 2010, from $102,844 to $66,740 (in 2010 constant dollars)

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb12-108.html


Keep trying

Refute my claim. Show me that median net worth is better now than it was in 2010.


Good luck.

 

[Dad2three]

Obama and his crack team of "experts" knew that the economy was in the shitter when they started. It's true that none of these people currently running things caused the problem.

But, they promised to fix it. They even made a fancy chart to show us how great things were going to be if we just passed their stimulus. The stimulus was enacted and the results are worse than what they said would happen without any stimulus at all!

source

Obama didn't cause the problem but he wasn't elected to help us blame the other guys, he was elected to fix it. He promised to fix it. He stated over and over that he was qualified to fix it.

He failed.

On edit:

Here's a chart that includes more recent unemployment data:

We're STILL much worse off than the Obama team predicted we'd be even if the stimulus wasn't passed.

We're STILL much worse off than the Obama team predicted we'd be even if the stimulus wasn't passed


SERIOUSLY? LOL

Try again


Stimulus was sold BEFORE they knew the depth of the Dubya great recession, DEC 2008 IN FACT, Released Jan 2009


8 percent figure comes from a staff-written projection issued Jan. 9, 2009 — before Obama had taken the oath of office.


Two Obama aides, Christina Romer, the nominee to head the Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, an incoming economic adviser to Vice President-elect Biden, wrote a 14-page report that attempted to assess the impact of a possible $775 billion stimulus package and how much of a difference it would make compared to doing nothing.

Thus, it was not an official government assessment or even an analysis of an actual plan that had passed Congress.

Page 4 of the report included a chart that showed that unemployment would peak at 8 percent in 2009, compared to 9 percent in 2010 if nothing was done. But the report also contained numerous caveats and warnings because, after all, it was merely a projection.


Mitt Romney?s claim that Obama said stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent - The Washington Post


DID THEY KNOW THE ECONOMY WOULD TANK 9%+ LAST QUARTER OF 2008 (GDP)?

Of course it was an official government assessment. Regardless of where Roemer was when she initially wrote the report, it was used to sell the stimulus to the American people and she was appointed to serve as the head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

It was indeed an official government assessment.


You can't claim incompetence in assessing the situation while at the same time claiming that Obama and his crack team of "experts" were qualified to run things. It's an either/or situation. Either they were competent or they weren't. The results speak for themselves.

You mean it was a desire to stop the economy to head into ANOTHER GOP great depression and it worked? Though from the start, the 'left' said it was to small and to heavy on non stimulus tax cuts (40%)?


CBO Director Demolishes GOP's Stimulus Myth

Under questioning from skeptical Republicans, the director of the nonpartisan (and widely respected) Congressional Budget Office was emphatic about the value of the 2009 stimulus. And, he said, the vast majority of economists agree.

In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

"Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. "That," he added, "is a distinct minority."


CBO Director Demolishes GOP's Stimulus Myth

 

[asterism]

On Monday, Jason Furman, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, held a briefing about the Economic Report of the President, which features a chart showing how productivity has pulled away from wages since the 1970s. I asked him what policies, other than raising the minimum wage, the president sees as useful for raising the share of G.D.P. that goes to wages.

To my surprise, Mr. Furman responded with a list of education and human capital policies, including expanded prekindergarten, improved access to higher education, holding colleges accountable for quality and better apprenticeship programs. He also promoted policies to raise overall growth, like corporate tax reform.
These policies might promote wage growth over the long run (or, in the case of prekindergarten, the very long run). But they are not policies specifically aimed at tightening the labor market.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/people-think-were-in-a-recession-dont-blame-them/

The Obama team is out of ideas, they've even stopped trying. So much for this promise:



This was in 2008.

Weird, You'd think after 8 years of Dubya/GOP policy the economy would have been booming, using those 'job creator' policies, what happened?

It boomed and then it went bust. Bush never was a fiscal conservative on the government spending side and he really wasn't very good with monetary policy. He was good at creating an environment for growth, it just wasn't sustainable and he didn't look out for the crash that everyone (well almost everyone actually paying attention) knew was coming.

That said, it was good for awhile and the recover was much better than this one we're in. The business cycle does have some natural peaks and valleys. Do what is needed to create the boom, but don't get out of control to foster an amazing bust. The key is to not let things get out of control. Bush failed us on on that.

But Obama can't even foster an an environment to have a boom in the first place.

I'll take boom and bust over bust and slightly less terrible bust any day.

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

Mostly true. But it beats the shit out of what we've got now - big-government mandated stagnation.

"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.

Because while you might claim he "tried," he failed and has given up.

I've been a critic of Bush's economic policies since 2004 and was a huge critic of his Medicare Part D mess. But two wrongs don't make a right and the solution to a too-big government under Bush is not an ever bigger government under Obama.

Blame Bush all you want for fostering the bust after the boom. I blame Obama for the sustained bust after he won telling us that he was the change we were looking for.

 

[Dad2three]

I already showed you that.

Median net worth as of 2012, $39K. That's less than half of the "bottom" of 2010.

So you really don't know how graphs work huh? If you want to show me something, give me both 2010 AND 2012 graphs, don't expect me to agree with you because you say so! AND let them be the same source

BTW, Your graph is PER ADULT, NOT FAMILY...LOL




Jun 18, 2012 - U.S. median household net worth declined 35 percent between 2005 and 2010, from $102,844 to $66,740 (in 2010 constant dollars)

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb12-108.html


Keep trying

Refute my claim. Show me that median net worth is better now than it was in 2010.


Good luck.

Sorry, YOU made the CLAIM that median net worth is half of what it was in 2010, it's up to YOU to show proof of your claim, lol


Having problems proving your posit huh? lol

 

[asterism]

You'd think conservatives would stop trying to destroy demand in the economy, and give companies a reason to invest to make profits then.

But, a good economy never results from right wing ideology.

A good economy has never resulted form a left wing ideology either. Clinton was so centrist he was called "the best Republican we have" by the left and Obama has only been outdone by FDR in extending the pain of an economic collapse.

Yeah, sure, Clinton increasing taxes (3 new brackets and top increased to 39.6%) and cutting the deficit in half in 1993, without a single GOP vote, wasn't 'left'...

Bullshit, he did not cut the deficit in half in 1993.

The deficit didn't shrink until a Republican House provided balance. Together they both reduced the deficit.

Deficit by year:

1990 221,036
1991 269,238
1992 290,321
1993 255,051
1994 203,186
1995 163,952
1996 107,431


Historical Tables | The White House

 

[Dad2three]

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/people-think-were-in-a-recession-dont-blame-them/

The Obama team is out of ideas, they've even stopped trying. So much for this promise:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vAEBApWOdM

This was in 2008.

Weird, You'd think after 8 years of Dubya/GOP policy the economy would have been booming, using those 'job creator' policies, what happened?

It boomed and then it went bust. Bush never was a fiscal conservative on the government spending side and he really wasn't very good with monetary policy. He was good at creating an environment for growth, it just wasn't sustainable and he didn't look out for the crash that everyone (well almost everyone actually paying attention) knew was coming.

That said, it was good for awhile and the recover was much better than this one we're in. The business cycle does have some natural peaks and valleys. Do what is needed to create the boom, but don't get out of control to foster an amazing bust. The key is to not let things get out of control. Bush failed us on on that.

But Obama can't even foster an an environment to have a boom in the first place.

I'll take boom and bust over bust and slightly less terrible bust any day.

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

Mostly true. But it beats the shit out of what we've got now - big-government mandated stagnation.

"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.

Because while you might claim he "tried," he failed and has given up.

I've been a critic of Bush's economic policies since 2004 and was a huge critic of his Medicare Part D mess. But two wrongs don't make a right and the solution to a too-big government under Bush is not an ever bigger government under Obama.

Blame Bush all you want for fostering the bust after the boom. I blame Obama for the sustained bust after he won telling us that he was the change we were looking for.

Got it, Bush having households double their debt in 7 years and crashing the economy will magically be solved with Gov't policy *shaking head*



Sorry, there is a reason economy's as larges as the US have problems getting restarted after bad GOP policy


DECEMBER 2007


The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.


The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush | Vanity Fair





Economic Downturn and Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Projected Deficits


The goal of reining in long-term deficits and debt would be much easier to achieve if it were not for the policies set in motion during the Bush years. That era’s tax cuts — most of which policymakers extended in this year’s American Taxpayer Relief Act, with President Obama’s support — and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the debt that we will owe, under current policies, by 2019.

By contrast, the economic recovery measures and financial rescues will account for just over 10 percent of the debt at that time




Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance in this decade. Even if we regard the economic downturn as unavoidable, we would have entered it with a much smaller debt — allowing us to absorb the recession’s damage to the budget and the cost of economic recovery measures, while keeping debt comfortably below 50 percent of GDP, as Figure 2 suggests. That would have put the nation on a much sounder footing to address the demographic challenges and the cost pressures in health care that darken the long-run fiscal outlook.

Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Manonthestreet]

and yet govt continues to take in record revenue.

 

[Dad2three]

A good economy has never resulted form a left wing ideology either. Clinton was so centrist he was called "the best Republican we have" by the left and Obama has only been outdone by FDR in extending the pain of an economic collapse.

Yeah, sure, Clinton increasing taxes (3 new brackets and top increased to 39.6%) and cutting the deficit in half in 1993, without a single GOP vote, wasn't 'left'...

Bullshit, he did not cut the deficit in half in 1993.

The deficit didn't shrink until a Republican House provided balance. Together they both reduced the deficit.

Deficit by year:

1990 221,036
1991 269,238
1992 290,321
1993 255,051
1994 203,186
1995 163,952
1996 107,431


Historical Tables | The White House

MORE RIGHT WING GARBAGE

To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction.


"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits." — Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994



"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity." — Business Week, May 19, 1997


AFTER CLINTON'S FIRST BUDGET SURPLUS, THE GOP PASSED A $700+ BILLION TAX CUT HE HAD TO VETO TO GET 3 MORE!!!


President Clinton vetoed the Republicans' $792 billion tax cut bill yesterday

Washingtonpost.com: Budget Special Report


WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED ONCE BUSH/GOP GOT TOGETHER




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.”

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

 

[Manonthestreet]

Despite record revenue, the federal government still ran a deficit of $436.382 billion in the first eight months of the fiscal year, which began on Oct. 1, 2013 and will end on Sept. 30, 2014. Federal Tax Revenues Set Record Through May; Feds Still Running $436B Deficit | CNS News

 

[asterism]

We're STILL much worse off than the Obama team predicted we'd be even if the stimulus wasn't passed


SERIOUSLY? LOL

Try again


Stimulus was sold BEFORE they knew the depth of the Dubya great recession, DEC 2008 IN FACT, Released Jan 2009


8 percent figure comes from a staff-written projection issued Jan. 9, 2009 — before Obama had taken the oath of office.


Two Obama aides, Christina Romer, the nominee to head the Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, an incoming economic adviser to Vice President-elect Biden, wrote a 14-page report that attempted to assess the impact of a possible $775 billion stimulus package and how much of a difference it would make compared to doing nothing.

Thus, it was not an official government assessment or even an analysis of an actual plan that had passed Congress.

Page 4 of the report included a chart that showed that unemployment would peak at 8 percent in 2009, compared to 9 percent in 2010 if nothing was done. But the report also contained numerous caveats and warnings because, after all, it was merely a projection.


Mitt Romney?s claim that Obama said stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent - The Washington Post


DID THEY KNOW THE ECONOMY WOULD TANK 9%+ LAST QUARTER OF 2008 (GDP)?

Of course it was an official government assessment. Regardless of where Roemer was when she initially wrote the report, it was used to sell the stimulus to the American people and she was appointed to serve as the head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

It was indeed an official government assessment.


You can't claim incompetence in assessing the situation while at the same time claiming that Obama and his crack team of "experts" were qualified to run things. It's an either/or situation. Either they were competent or they weren't. The results speak for themselves.

You mean it was a desire to stop the economy to head into ANOTHER GOP great depression and it worked? Though from the start, the 'left' said it was to small and to heavy on non stimulus tax cuts (40%)?

Don't blame the Republicans for the failure of the stimulus. Your side had the House, the Senate, and the Oval Office. If you think it should have been bigger, blame the folks you voted for.

CBO Director Demolishes GOP's Stimulus Myth

Under questioning from skeptical Republicans, the director of the nonpartisan (and widely respected) Congressional Budget Office was emphatic about the value of the 2009 stimulus. And, he said, the vast majority of economists agree.

In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

"Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. "That," he added, "is a distinct minority."


CBO Director Demolishes GOP's Stimulus Myth

Do I have the post the chart again? These folks promised results. Those results didn't happen.

We're not even where we were told we'd be 3 years ago. It doesn't matter if big government advocates think in hindsight that the stimulus made things better. They all said it was going to work much better than it did.

You can't make promises and then try to justify failure by saying that your failure is better than nothing at all when your promise included a scenario of what you thought would happen if nothing at all was done.

 

[Manonthestreet]

We actually could be running a surplus at this point had a little restraint been applied......

 

[Dad2three]

Despite record revenue, the federal government still ran a deficit of $436.382 billion in the first eight months of the fiscal year, which began on Oct. 1, 2013 and will end on Sept. 30, 2014. Federal Tax Revenues Set Record Through May; Feds Still Running $436B Deficit | CNS News

ECONOMISTS MEASURE REVENUES VIA GDP, NOT record revenues, not even close

We already know what economic policies work best for our country. Clinton knew that we had to cut spending and increase revenues. We had revenues of 20.6% of GDP and a surplus in 2000. Then something terrible happened, the Republicans gained complete control in 2001 and instead of sticking with what was working they decided that their ideology was more important. The debt has gone up $12 trillion since then.


2013 they got it back to 16.7% of GDP, predicting 17.3% this year


Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

 

[asterism]

Weird, You'd think after 8 years of Dubya/GOP policy the economy would have been booming, using those 'job creator' policies, what happened?

It boomed and then it went bust. Bush never was a fiscal conservative on the government spending side and he really wasn't very good with monetary policy. He was good at creating an environment for growth, it just wasn't sustainable and he didn't look out for the crash that everyone (well almost everyone actually paying attention) knew was coming.

That said, it was good for awhile and the recover was much better than this one we're in. The business cycle does have some natural peaks and valleys. Do what is needed to create the boom, but don't get out of control to foster an amazing bust. The key is to not let things get out of control. Bush failed us on on that.

But Obama can't even foster an an environment to have a boom in the first place.

I'll take boom and bust over bust and slightly less terrible bust any day.



Mostly true. But it beats the shit out of what we've got now - big-government mandated stagnation.

"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.

Because while you might claim he "tried," he failed and has given up.

I've been a critic of Bush's economic policies since 2004 and was a huge critic of his Medicare Part D mess. But two wrongs don't make a right and the solution to a too-big government under Bush is not an ever bigger government under Obama.

Blame Bush all you want for fostering the bust after the boom. I blame Obama for the sustained bust after he won telling us that he was the change we were looking for.

Got it, Bush having households double their debt in 7 years and crashing the economy will magically be solved with Gov't policy *shaking head*



Sorry, there is a reason economy's as larges as the US have problems getting restarted after bad GOP policy


DECEMBER 2007


The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.


The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush | Vanity Fair





Economic Downturn and Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Projected Deficits


The goal of reining in long-term deficits and debt would be much easier to achieve if it were not for the policies set in motion during the Bush years. That era’s tax cuts — most of which policymakers extended in this year’s American Taxpayer Relief Act, with President Obama’s support — and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the debt that we will owe, under current policies, by 2019.

By contrast, the economic recovery measures and financial rescues will account for just over 10 percent of the debt at that time

Well then maybe our President should have read Vanity Fair before making his predictions on how much better things were going to be if we elected him.

The point isn't that Bush sucked, I've conceded that. He SUCKED!

Obama isn't any better, and he's actually worse.

Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance in this decade. Even if we regard the economic downturn as unavoidable, we would have entered it with a much smaller debt — allowing us to absorb the recession’s damage to the budget and the cost of economic recovery measures, while keeping debt comfortably below 50 percent of GDP, as Figure 2 suggests. That would have put the nation on a much sounder footing to address the demographic challenges and the cost pressures in health care that darken the long-run fiscal outlook.

Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Don't move the goalposts. We're talking about the economy and how it pertains to those outside of the 1%, not the budget. As to the "what if" scenario being presented, without the downturn in the economy Obama wouldn't have gotten elected in the first place.