APP - The Bush Recession... Much worse than the Carter Recession was!

Superfreak said:
Again, you are talking about 4.2% vs. 4.4%... virtually identical. Again, you are comparing an economic boom period to one of a recession. Again, you are ignoring the fact that Clinton played a part in the CURRENT recession by eliminating Glass Steagall.

If you want to take a look at the damage done, look at the Nasdaq... it lost 80% of its value from peak to trough in the 2000-2002 downturn. It never recovered. The highest it got was about 2900 in Oct 2007. Then subsequently has dropped back to the current level of 2000. Bush was horrid when it comes to fiscal responsibility, no question. But he also did not have the benefit of a booming new technology like Clinton did.

Again, by your standards, then Obama is worse than Bush. Because unemployment has gone up over 16% in just a few months in office. OMG!!!

If you don't understand economics, just say so and quit pretending that you do. All you are doing is cherry picking one economic indicator (a lagging one at that) and trying to make a case out of it.
Click to expand...

The fact remains that bush never reached the low unemployment numbers of Clinton, nor did he ever attain job growth close to Clinton's.
Your feelgood "booms don't count" rule is ridiculous, numbers are numbers, history is history. Supply Side is Supply Side, recession is recession.
Re; Obama, if you want to report back at the end of his termS using the same standard, I would agree, however, a 7 month snapshot isn't necessarily history AND he inherited a far worse economic situation from bush than, maybe, any other President in history. The unemployment number was already in a steep downward trend on 1/20/09, only the Messiah could turn it around immediately. Maybe that's the power you feel he posesses.
 
Yurt said:
i meant it as my saying obama caused the market to tank 10% is as stupid as blaming bush for everything negative....its funny how i give a cause and effect for obama and you immediately put it down....yet you readily accept anything that puts bush down
Click to expand...

Maybe I missed it but I don't see the stock market analogy, I don't believe it was mentioned until you brought it up. I asked about the positive aspects of the bush presidency, also brought up by you, but what I received was more Obama attacks or nothing at all.
Do you want me to defend bush for you? It's not enough to say my opinion of him is invalid or unfair, it's up to you to explain to me why, maybe I'll change my evil ways. My overriding impression of bush, and I don't think I'm alone, is that he was a fish out of water being led by a crew of advisors that led him for their own(selfish? evil? greedy?) reasons into what became a failed presidency. If that doesn't give you enough ammo to work with, I don't know what will.
 
Last edited:
belme1201 said:
As I said, when you entered Glass-Steagall into the conversation you left out most of the details and blamed it on Clinton. I merely added to your "accidental" omission for clarification, knowing you would never try to mislead anybody. I presume your "unbelievable" is in reference to Phil Gramm's job?
As for your last 2 sentences, your hypocrisy is showing.
Click to expand...

Again, since you are obviously slow witted on this issue, YOU wanted to compare what occured under each President. It is obvious to anyone that the President doesn't pass laws. The President simply signs them into law. It is and always will be Congress that writes them. It wasn't accidental that left them out, it was purposeful given the nature of your comments.
 
belme1201 said:
The fact remains that bush never reached the low unemployment numbers of Clinton, nor did he ever attain job growth close to Clinton's.
Your feelgood "booms don't count" rule is ridiculous, numbers are numbers, history is history. Supply Side is Supply Side, recession is recession.
Re; Obama, if you want to report back at the end of his termS using the same standard, I would agree, however, a 7 month snapshot isn't necessarily history AND he inherited a far worse economic situation from bush than, maybe, any other President in history. The unemployment number was already in a steep downward trend on 1/20/09, only the Messiah could turn it around immediately. Maybe that's the power you feel he posesses.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you are apparently completely devoid of understanding or grasping even the most basic of economic principals. I never stated that booms dont count. That is simply a moronic strawman you created. I stated that you are comparing an economic boom to an economic recession. To hold the two up and act like either President was responsible for the resulting unemployment numbers to any great extent is laughable.
 
Superfreak said:
Again, since you are obviously slow witted on this issue, YOU wanted to compare what occured under each President. It is obvious to anyone that the President doesn't pass laws. The President simply signs them into law. It is and always will be Congress that writes them. It wasn't accidental that left them out, it was purposeful given the nature of your comments.
Click to expand...

A little civics lesson. The president is not as inconsequential as you pretend him to be in oder to obviate the failure of the bush Presidency or the success of the Clinton Presidency.
The President presents The Budget to Congress because all of the departments of government are under the Executive Branch and his appointed Cabinet Secretaries report to him for their fiscal needs as well as the policies he expects them to follow. The Congress then votes on the Budget making changes mostly agreed upon with the President for his signature, IF he wants to sign it. Presidents establish the policies that will be in place for those departments while he is in office and a Congress of his party will write laws embracing the President's policies. When a single party is in control and the Congress no longer exercises its Constitutional oversight duties, we have what is called an Imperial Presidency as in the bush?Cheney years. bush never vetoed a single Congressional bill, fiscal or otherwise, as long as the GOP maintained their majority. The President doesn't "simply sign them into law", he may also veto them. That's what the Constitution is about, forgotten in the bush/GOP years. Was every bill laid on bush's desk a perfect bill until 2007?
You try to mislead readers as do your talk-show gurus by omitting essential facts, I merely fill in the omitted blanks.
As for your barbs, once you feel compelled to use those tactics, you have indicated to me that my point is made and your attempt at a reasoned, honest, discussion has ended. Also, to save me another post you should go back and read how often you mentioned the unfairness or mistake of comparing "bush's recession to the Clinton "boom".
Yes, I do want to compare presidents, it is the subject of this thread and a good lesson for all. Sorry when comparing your man against other presidents that he falls short, it is the reason making the comparison is uncomfortable for you.
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
Ok, so you are apparently completely devoid of understanding or grasping even the most basic of economic principals. I never stated that booms dont count. That is simply a moronic strawman you created. I stated that you are comparing an economic boom to an economic recession. To hold the two up and act like either President was responsible for the resulting unemployment numbers to any great extent is laughable.
Click to expand...

My comparison is between 2 presidents, one a success, the other a failure, economic conditions are the consequences of the policies in place during each man's term in office.
If one is to believe you mean what you say, can we expect you will say nothing about Obama fiscal polcies for the next 7.5 years or have not since Jan. 20?
 
Carter inherited stagflation from Nixon/Ford and had an oil embargo, in spite of that society functioned, we bought our first house then. Compared to Reagan/Bush/Bush and I blame Clinton too, Carter was a saint. Curious our only moral president is castigated by the wingnuts who cling to a false piety when it comes to morals.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ronald-Reagan-Worst-Presi-by-Robert-Parry-090605-584.html

"....there's a growing realization that the starting point for many of the catastrophes confronting the United States today can be traced to Reagan's presidency. There's also a grudging reassessment that the "failed"- presidents of the 1970s--Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter--may deserve more credit for trying to grapple with the problems that now beset the country."

Amazon.com: The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy (9780674768680): Albert O. Hirschman: Books
 
belme1201 said:
A little civics lesson. The president is not as inconsequential as you pretend him to be in oder to obviate the failure of the bush Presidency or the success of the Clinton Presidency.
The President presents The Budget to Congress because all of the departments of government are under the Executive Branch and his appointed Cabinet Secretaries report to him for their fiscal needs as well as the policies he expects them to follow. The Congress then votes on the Budget making changes mostly agreed upon with the President for his signature, IF he wants to sign it. Presidents establish the policies that will be in place for those departments while he is in office and a Congress of his party will write laws embracing the President's policies. When a single party is in control and the Congress no longer exercises its Constitutional oversight duties, we have what is called an Imperial Presidency as in the bush?Cheney years. bush never vetoed a single Congressional bill, fiscal or otherwise, as long as the GOP maintained their majority. The President doesn't "simply sign them into law", he may also veto them. That's what the Constitution is about, forgotten in the bush/GOP years. Was every bill laid on bush's desk a perfect bill until 2007?
You try to mislead readers as do your talk-show gurus by omitting essential facts, I merely fill in the omitted blanks.
As for your barbs, once you feel compelled to use those tactics, you have indicated to me that my point is made and your attempt at a reasoned, honest, discussion has ended. Also, to save me another post you should go back and read how often you mentioned the unfairness or mistake of comparing "bush's recession to the Clinton "boom".
Yes, I do want to compare presidents, it is the subject of this thread and a good lesson for all. Sorry when comparing your man against other presidents that he falls short, it is the reason making the comparison is uncomfortable for you.
Click to expand...


Again, you display your dimwitted lack of comprehension. I have never stated that Bush was good. To the contrary I have stated that he was horrid with regards to fiscal policy. I have simply been correcting one error after another of yours as you continue to try to spin your way out of your moronic comments.

The economic boom of the 1990's began prior to Clinton taking office and had to do with the tech/internet/telecom boom. It was NOT primarily a result of anything politicians did, but rather what the business world did. Likewise, the bust was a due in large part to morons who thought we were in a new economy where earnings didn't matter anymore. As with any new tech revolution, only the strong survived and the bulk of the new companies went out of business sending us into a recession.

The recession should have been over sooner than it was, but 9/11, Greenspan, and the removal of Glass Steagall instead created a new bubble. That WAS the fault of both Clinton and Bush.

You continue to try to bring in old tired lines of Bush is bad... to try to distract from the FACT that Clinton could easily have vetoed the bill to remove Glass Steagall, but he chose not to, because like the Reps and many other Dems, he wanted to cheerlead 'more people own homes than ever before'. Bush continued this idiocy.

But your partisan blinders are welded to the side of your head preventing you from seeing the whole picture. You continue to pretend that an economic boom should be compared to an economic recession as some sort of proof of your point. What you continue to fail to grasp is that an economic boom will always show better results than a recession. So what is your point?
 
belme1201 said:
My comparison is between 2 presidents, one a success, the other a failure, economic conditions are the consequences of the policies in place during each man's term in office.
If one is to believe you mean what you say, can we expect you will say nothing about Obama fiscal polcies for the next 7.5 years or have not since Jan. 20?
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO... really? Next time just come out an state that you have no clue when it comes to economics. You would have saved me a lot of time.

While policies can play a role in economic results, you are foolish to think that the tech boom was a result of policies from DC. The tech boom began in the mid 1980's and picked up steam in the early 1990's. It culminated in the overly euphoric mess we saw in 1999. Bottom line, it began long before Clinton was in office. Clintons best policy action was in large part to stay out of the way.

Again, Obama's policies CAN effect the economy, but unless they are drastic (ie... raising insane levels of debt or removing all regulations from business) then they are not going to have a significant effect on the economy.
 
belme1201 said:
My comparison is between 2 presidents, one a success, the other a failure, economic conditions are the consequences of the policies in place during each man's term in office.
If one is to believe you mean what you say, can we expect you will say nothing about Obama fiscal polcies for the next 7.5 years or have not since Jan. 20?
Click to expand...

Side note... fiscally speaking, Clinton did come close to having a fiscal year in which we did not raise our debt (2000) and for that he should get some credit. That said, when you look at it from the point of view that he had one of the greatest economies in a time of peace and yet he STILL failed each of his eight years to pay down any debt.
 
Superfreak said:
ROFLMAO... really? Next time just come out an state that you have no clue when it comes to economics. You would have saved me a lot of time.

While policies can play a role in economic results, you are foolish to think that the tech boom was a result of policies from DC. The tech boom began in the mid 1980's and picked up steam in the early 1990's. It culminated in the overly euphoric mess we saw in 1999. Bottom line, it began long before Clinton was in office. Clintons best policy action was in large part to stay out of the way.

Again, Obama's policies CAN effect the economy, but unless they are drastic (ie... raising insane levels of debt or removing all regulations from business) then they are not going to have a significant effect on the economy.
Click to expand...

.....and in the light of your overwhelming knowledge of economics, Clinton's success having "culminated in an overly euphoric mess", and based on the removal of Glass-Steagall by Gramm and the GOP Congress then signed by Clinton, the economy left by bush, or his fiscal policies, one of the subjects of this thread, are not to be compared or even mentioned(see above), when discussing the conditions Obama found on 1/20/09, because bush policies had no influence on those conditions. Correct?
 
Superfreak said:
Side note... fiscally speaking, Clinton did come close to having a fiscal year in which we did not raise our debt (2000) and for that he should get some credit. That said, when you look at it from the point of view that he had one of the greatest economies in a time of peace and yet he STILL failed each of his eight years to pay down any debt.
Click to expand...

So, you are faulting Clinton for not turning the deficits around starting on day 1 of his Presidency even though he was not yet operating on his own budget which went into effect more than a year later and passed without a GOP vote, starting a trend of reduced deficits and a path to balance and a surplus in OMB terms used by Dem and GOP Presidents and the Congress. It was also the Clinton budget in effect going into the start of the bush presidency, and we know what happened to the Clinton trend when ultimately placed in bush/GOP hands. It should be noted that GOP economic/political gurus at the time minimized deficit spending as being unimportant in order to justify deficits created by tax cuts.
Of course, I have now learned from you that Presidential budgets, appointments, or policies have little or no effect on the economy, so.......What the Hell.
 
Superfreak said:
ROFLMAO... really? Next time just come out an state that you have no clue when it comes to economics. You would have saved me a lot of time.

While policies can play a role in economic results, you are foolish to think that the tech boom was a result of policies from DC. The tech boom began in the mid 1980's and picked up steam in the early 1990's. It culminated in the overly euphoric mess we saw in 1999. Bottom line, it began long before Clinton was in office. Clintons best policy action was in large part to stay out of the way.

Again, Obama's policies CAN effect the economy, but unless they are drastic (ie... raising insane levels of debt or removing all regulations from business) then they are not going to have a significant effect on the economy.
Click to expand...

I've always given Clinton a lot of credit for staying out of the way. He was smart doing that.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
I've always given Clinton a lot of credit for staying out of the republicans way. He was smart doing that.
Click to expand...

fixed that for ya. I know it is really what you meant, and pretty much what he did. Strange that he was more conservative than the presidents gefore and after him.
 
midcan5 said:
Carter inherited stagflation from Nixon/Ford and had an oil embargo, in spite of that society functioned, we bought our first house then. Compared to Reagan/Bush/Bush and I blame Clinton too, Carter was a saint. Curious our only moral president is castigated by the wingnuts who cling to a false piety when it comes to morals.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ronald-Reagan-Worst-Presi-by-Robert-Parry-090605-584.html

"....there's a growing realization that the starting point for many of the catastrophes confronting the United States today can be traced to Reagan's presidency. There's also a grudging reassessment that the "failed"- presidents of the 1970s--Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter--may deserve more credit for trying to grapple with the problems that now beset the country."

Amazon.com: The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy (9780674768680): Albert O. Hirschman: Books
Click to expand...

Midcan, incompetence is not a synonym for morality. I don't think Carter has anything to teach anyone about morality, either...
 
T&A said:
Midcan, incompetence is not a synonym for morality. I don't think Carter has anything to teach anyone about morality, either...
Click to expand...
Well, I would be happy to have a neighborhood full of people like Jimmy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top