I should add that the same holds true if you want to include support from his own. On the other board it was asked time after time to silence us and list the positive accomplishments of the bush administration, the silence was deafening.
APP - The Bush Recession... Much worse than the Carter Recession was!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
I should add that the same holds true if you want to include support from his own. On the other board it was asked time after time to silence us and list the positive accomplishments of the bush administration, the silence was deafening.
LOL you're the lamest old geezer internet hero. You are a fucking idiot if you don't recall the jobless recovery propaganda. You're so dishonest. Typical liberal
uscitizen
Villified User
For example, most of us would agree that the slowdown in inflation in the 1980s (for which President Reagan is sometimes credited) was due to Fed Chair Paul Volcker, who was in fact appointed by President Carter. Moreover, the primary reason that Volcker was able to bring inflation down was his willingness to contribute to an economic recession in 1980, for which Carter was blamed. Perhaps the real error was allowing inflation to accelerate as much as it did prior to Volcker, for which much of the blame would logically go to Fed Chair Arthur Burns, appointed by President Nixon in 1970, and G. William Miller, Carter's pick in 1978. But even here there is a separate interesting question as to the contribution that bad real-time data may have made to those policy errors.
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2006/08/carter-recession-and-natural-rate-of.html
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2006/08/carter-recession-and-natural-rate-of.html
The bush "recovery" did not produce enough jobs to cover the growing US population. Check statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. His unemployment numbers were never anywhere close to the low number passed on to him by Clinton and were growing until Jan 2009 when he passed the baton to Obama.
You have a short memory.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3913
Though uscit is right, idiots kept saying "More people own homes than ever before.."
Many here have mentioned that this was because the government was forcing mortgages for people who couldn't afford them, we even warned that a bubble was coming. It was a period of insanity fiscally, and the reason I wouldn't vote for Bush, along with undeclared nation-building wars...
Although I would rather have heard it from someone other than Goldman, if Kerry compared the pre-2004 bush years to the Great Depression, he was wrong. I personally never heard it but it won't be the first time I haven't heard campaign hyperbole.
That said, Mr Goldman in the link did a convenient bit of twisting and turning such as comparing bush employment figures to Clinton's in 1996, 5 years before bush became president and not pointing to the fact that bush never was able to reach the low unemployment figures Clinton handed him on the day he became President. He also mentions productivity increases but fails to mention wages did not follow suit, great news for corporations, not so for workers..
In the period toward the end of the bush term Goldman's fiscal prognostications were so far off that he accepted a non-economic political job replacing Karen Hughs in her job? in the State Dept.
I didn't mention housing, but the Ownership Society was highlighted in the Goldman link as a positive thing.
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
lol, you changed context in the space of two posts?.....
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
And cutting taxes made the economy "fantastic" as viewed by liberals in 2009, shitty as hell as viewed by liberals then. LOL
Cutting taxes in a time of war, (unprecidented) was a huge mistake that helped put us here where we are today!
Topspin
Verified User
It's hard to believe someone could be dumber on economics than USGED, but Jarod 2 degrees and your not close to what usged understands.
Just because I dont belive what you do about economics does not mean that I am dumb about them. Plenty of very educated economists agree with me!
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Again with the ignorance. There was NO SURPLUS when Clinton left office. Each and every year, they outspent the revenue. This creates an ACTUAL DEFICIT and INCREASES our debt.
It is also ignorant to proclaim that Clintons first years of deficits are due to the previous administration. You might be able to make that claim for the first year, but what about the other SEVEN? Those are on him (and of course Congress).
Topspin
Verified User
I don't see anybody left or right that agrees with you. You do not listen to many economist at all.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
WRONG again.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000
Unemployment was sub 5% under Bush for all of 2006 and 2007 and the first couple of months of 2008.
yes, unemployment spiked during the first couple of years of Bush do the the dot com/tech/telecom bubbles bursting and the recession that resulted from that, but when the economy recovered, so did the employment numbers.
Same thing is occurring now.
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
What cracks me up is those who believe BUDGET surpluses = ACTUAL surpluses
That and the belief that the trillions in PROJECTED surpluses somehow disappeared overnight when Bush was elected rather than due to, oh I don't know... the RECESSION.
What specifically and Ill try to get you an economist who agrees with me.
Compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges. Whatever system you use to calculate the deficit or surplus, using the SAME method, compare, without semantics, the Clinton numbers to the bush numbers.
Regarding your 2nd paragraph, I made no claims about the deficit other than stating the fact that when he came to office the bush I budget was in effect until the first Clinton budget was adopted in '94 without a single GOP vote. Compare the results of that budget with bush Supply Side budgets. If job growth is a guage, the ball game ended a long time ago. The 10 year moving average in early 2001 was 23%, by the beginning of 2009 it had fallen to not quite 3%, 'nuf said? Can you name the last GOP President to present a balanced budget to Congress and when the GOP became deficit hawks? I seem to remember their din in the bush/Iraq years was deficits were either unimportant or irrelevent.