PDA

View Full Version : 2011: The Bush Economy Gets A Makeover



Qtec
12-30-2011, 02:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you better off than you were four years ago? For a generation, that question has come to define presidential re-election campaigns. It's a question that requires an accounting not only of where we are as a country today, but also of where we were as a country four years ago.

More specifically, it's a question that goes directly to the issue of what President Obama did with the economy he inherited from George W. Bush.

It's a question that helps explain why media conservatives spent so much of 2011 gilding that Bush economy.

In June, former Reagan speechwriter and Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan proposed a campaign slogan for Republicans running against Obama: "He made it worse." The pitch was economic in nature, arguing that Obama "inherited financial collapse, deficits and debt" and that he proceeded to "make them all worse."

Noonan's slogan could not stand up to scrutiny: economists agree that deficits are necessary during a recession, and Obama's policies are widely acknowledged to have lowered unemployment and boosted GDP. So it's no surprise that the right-wing media quickly embraced the slogan while simultaneously waging what became a 12-month assault on economic history to misrepresent the economy Obama inherited.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>In June, Gretchen Carlson gave voice to the economic "argument" that media conservatives waged throughout the year:

CARLSON: How long can you continue to say that the hard hit recession of 2007 moving into 2008 is something that they inherited?

Let that marinate a bit. Despite acknowledging that the recession hit in 2007 -- more than a year before Obama took office -- Carlson posited that a point in time will arrive when we can all stop saying that Obama inherited a recession. That point in time does not exist: It will never not be true that Obama took office during a deep recession. Never.</span>

But Fox disregarded the facts in leading a relentless campaign to deflect attention from the great recession Obama inherited.

When Obama reminded an audience that he took office during the worst recession in several generations, Fox's Steve Doocy complained that Obama had "blamed Bush." Sean Hannity called it an "obsession" on the left to "blame Bush" and claimed: "You know, George Bush inherited a recession, and he inherited weak national security and he inherited the negative impact of 9-11."

Hannity's timeline is apparently powered by a flux capacitor. In fact, the economy Bush inherited had been expanding for 10 years: it didn't turn to recession until March 2001. By contrast, Obama inherited an economy that had been in recession for more than a year.


But it's simply not a question that he did.

Fox responded by complaining whenever this fact was noted. Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade lamented that it was "agonizing" to hear. Former Bush flak and Fox News regular Dana Perino said the "blaming Bush stuff" was "annoying."

Right-wing economic revisionism in 2011 frequently blurred the lines between when the Bush administration ended and the Obama administration began. Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace suggested that Obama's "watch" over the economy began in 2007. Fox's Eric Bolling credited Bush tax policies for creating 216,000 jobs -- in April 2011. In July, Rush Limbaugh blamed Obama for "massive layoffs" that "began in November 2008." </div></div>

and on..and on..and on.. (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201112210001?frontpage)

A classic from the Fair and Balanced network!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fox Business was so disinterested in dealing with the economic past inherited by the Obama administration that it didn't even give viewers the option of blaming Bush for the "jobs crisis" that started with 3.6 million jobs lost in 2008. </div></div>

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fbn-wr-20110707-bush-jobs.jpg

Q

LWW
12-30-2011, 02:37 AM
So you finally own up to the recession beginning during year one of a demokrook congress!

BRAVO!

Qtec
12-30-2011, 08:06 AM
Pathetic.

Right now, for the GOP have control and have done for more than a year or so. According to your theory, THEY are responsible for the present crisis, not the POTUS!

Q

Soflasnapper
12-30-2011, 11:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So you finally own up to the recession beginning during year one of a demokrook congress!

BRAVO! </div></div>

There is little evidence or reason to think any particular recession has had much of any cause in the Congress, or in the presidency.

It's relatively well understood that all post-WWII recessions were caused by the Federal Reserve's actions, over which neither the Congress nor the president enjoy much if any control.

Your astonishingly childish claims about how the majority parties in Congress immediately and totally dictate economic conditions are ill-founded and fantastic. As if a new Congress, having been just sworn in, controls all the areas the government spends money in, as in on-going wars, on-going new entitlements, old entitlements, or the momentum of the economy in either growing or shrinking as of their taking office.

Or even more glaringly loony, that a president alone does these things in any immediate fashion, and directly as a result of actions he can take alone.

On some occasions, some presidents have made significant and even drastic differences, by Fed chair appointments perhaps (Nixon with Arthur Burns, Carter with Miller then Volcker, Reagan re-appointing Volcker), and large fiscal policy changes they may push through Congress as a signature policy-- Reagan's ruinously profligate and inflationary deficit policies causing Volcker's sado-monetarist ratcheting up the tightening of the money supply to achieve his pre-set M-3 growth figures and no more.

LWW
12-30-2011, 02:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pathetic.

Right now, for the GOP have control and have done for more than a year or so. According to your theory, THEY are responsible for the present crisis, not the POTUS!

Q </div></div>

Excellent point ... but ridiculous and wholly uneducated.

The reps control one house of congress only.

They have held it for 11 months.

Most, if not all, of the few changes they have been able to enact will not take place until next month.

The best that the TPM has been able to do is act as a slight brake against the onslaught of fascism led by the demokrooks and RINO's.

cushioncrawler
12-30-2011, 03:22 PM
The fundamentals of the usofa constitution are sound.
mac.

cushioncrawler
12-30-2011, 03:49 PM
"The American economy is the envy of the world, and we need to keep it that way," Bush said. "The fundamentals of our economy are strong. ... Job creation is strong. Real after-tax wages are on the rise. Inflation is low."

eg8r
12-31-2011, 12:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's relatively well understood that all post-WWII recessions were caused by the Federal Reserve's actions, over which neither the Congress nor the president enjoy much if any control.
</div></div>Then why don't we see you coming out against Obama every time he whines about the economy that "Bush" gave him? Obama has not accepted responsibility for anything, and according to this quote of yours he shouldn't, however he continues to blame it all on Bush, which according to this quote of yours would be unfounded.

eg8r

eg8r
12-31-2011, 12:56 AM
LOL, you really don't have a clue.

eg8r

Qtec
12-31-2011, 03:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama has not accepted responsibility for anything, </div></div>

Did Bush?
Did Rove , Cheney, Rumsfeld etc EVER accept any responsibility for the damage they caused?
Has Wall St?

No, they all want to shove the blame onto Obama and have done since the first day he was in the WH. My original post proves it. Try reading it.


eg,

" When Obama reminded an audience that he took office during the worst recession in several generations, Fox's Steve Doocy complained that Obama had "blamed Bush." Sean Hannity called it an "obsession" on the left to "blame Bush" and claimed: "You know, George Bush inherited a recession, and he inherited weak national security <span style='font-size: 17pt'>and he inherited the negative impact of 9-11.</span>"

He did not inherit 911. It happened on his watch.





Q

LWW
12-31-2011, 03:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He did not inherit 911.

Q </div></div>

Actually he did.

9/11 was obviously planned and set before Bush took office.

In fact, we had the 20th hijacker in custody, but the Clinton regime refused to review the laptop they had in custody. They also refused to kill Osama when they had the chance.

Next ridiculous claim please?

Soflasnapper
12-31-2011, 08:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's relatively well understood that all post-WWII recessions were caused by the Federal Reserve's actions, over which neither the Congress nor the president enjoy much if any control.
</div></div>Then why don't we see you coming out against Obama every time he whines about the economy that "Bush" gave him? Obama has not accepted responsibility for anything, and according to this quote of yours he shouldn't, however he continues to blame it all on Bush, which according to this quote of yours would be unfounded.

eg8r </div></div>

A good question! And so, requiring a long answer.

Mainly, the answer is that W is the exception who proves the rule. This isn't so much a recession as a depression, and it obviously was not caused by the normal way a typical recession is caused, which is that the Fed ratchets up the short-term interest rates it controls. In fact, the Fed took the opposite tactic, as we know, reducing interest rates and keeping them extremely low.

So how was W responsible? It was because of his fiscal policies. Out of respect for the missing Gayle, I ask we bow our heads and remember the catechism she and others pounded out from their keyboards. Pretty simple, really. Two wars of choice, unfunded. A 10-year tax cut, which isn't how fighting a recession is done. And a very large entitlement, unpaid for, and intentionally made vastly more expensive than necessary on purpose, by writing the law so as to legally prevent Medicare D from negotiating lower prices from their volume purchasing position.

These are well known claims, and beyond being well known, they are also true. Less well known, but equally true, and equally in the mix, are two more obscure actions. The ownership society related passed law to encourage zero down mortgage lending, and then the Comptroller interfering with states' prosecutions of banks for predatory lending practices under state laws.

Sid_Vicious
12-31-2011, 09:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's relatively well understood that all post-WWII recessions were caused by the Federal Reserve's actions, over which neither the Congress nor the president enjoy much if any control.
</div></div>Then why don't we see you coming out against Obama every time he whines about the economy that "Bush" gave him? Obama has not accepted responsibility for anything, and according to this quote of yours he shouldn't, however he continues to blame it all on Bush, which according to this quote of yours would be unfounded.

eg8r </div></div>

A good question! And so, requiring a long answer.

Mainly, the answer is that W is the exception who proves the rule. This isn't so much a recession as a depression, and it obviously was not caused by the normal way a typical recession is caused, which is that the Fed ratchets up the short-term interest rates it controls. In fact, the Fed took the opposite tactic, as we know, reducing interest rates and keeping them extremely low.

So how was W responsible? It was because of his fiscal policies. Out of respect for the missing Gayle, I ask we bow our heads and remember the catechism she and others pounded out from their keyboards. Pretty simple, really. Two wars of choice, unfunded. A 10-year tax cut, which isn't how fighting a recession is done. And a very large entitlement, unpaid for, and intentionally made vastly more expensive than necessary on purpose, by writing the law so as to legally prevent Medicare D from negotiating lower prices from their volume purchasing position.

These are well known claims, and beyond being well known, they are also true. Less well known, but equally true, and equally in the mix, are two more obscure actions. The ownership society related passed law to encourage zero down mortgage lending, and then the Comptroller interfering with states' prosecutions of banks for predatory lending practices under state laws.

</div></div>

Two major things causes me trouble. First, Bush went on national TV in September of 2008 as a lame duck, and announced that this countries banking system had been allowed to get to a state putting us on the edge of THE NEXT GREAT DEPRESSION! That shit happened on Bush's watch folks. Soooo, Obama came in with that bomb Bush dropped two months before the elections, and by the grace of God, Obama averted the next GREAT DEPRESSION. Bush gets a reprieve from a lot of lame brains, and Obama is accused as worst than Bush by the same lame brains. IMO, this feels like the skit where the 3 stooges run around and slap themselves silly, the stooges being the dummies on the right side here.

Bush says, "since the last Great Depression", and Obama averts it in his term. If that isn't a real biggie, then I don't know what one would be. sid

Soflasnapper
12-31-2011, 09:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He did not inherit 911.

Q </div></div>

Actually he did.

9/11 was obviously planned and set before Bush took office.

In fact, we had the 20th hijacker in custody, but the Clinton regime refused to review the laptop they had in custody. They also refused to kill Osama when they had the chance.

Next ridiculous claim please? </div></div>

Now with the post-modernist or possibly dada approach to political discussions I see-- mixing fact with fiction in a displeasing melange AGAIN???

9/11 was obviously planned and set before Bush took office.

True enough, but I'd argue that his election was a necessary condition for it to succeed, and probably for it to be attempted. That's debatable, of course, which I'd be happy to do, but that isn't the main complaint here.

In fact, we had the 20th hijacker in custody, but the Clinton regime refused to review the laptop they had in custody.

Completely wrong, and utter garbage. That guy was caught about 4 months before 9/11, and it was the guy that W later promoted who made this decision.

They also refused to kill Osama when they had the chance.

BS. The Clinton administration seems the only administration interested to kill him until Obama's. Stationing a cruise missile submarine off shore, flying Predator drones to find him, and actually launching missiles at his known location?

Clinton had signed several intelligence findings authorizing bin Laden's assassination, had all these assets put in place to accomplish that mission, and actually had a missile attack launched at him. How is that 'refus[ing]' to kill him? The approval and order was given.

On a couple of other occasions, although Clinton approved strikes, the CIA said there were problems, as in too great an uncertainty of the information, and he went with the experts' opinions.

Qtec
01-01-2012, 01:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FBI refusal to act

Moussaoui was arrested in Minnesota August 16 after officials of a flight school, the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Eagan, a suburb of Minneapolis, tipped off the FBI that he was seeking flight training on a Boeing 747 jumbo jet.

His conduct aroused suspicion: his attitude was belligerent, he was evasive about his personal background, he declined to speak French with an instructor who knew the language, and he paid the $6,300 fee in cash. He insisted on training to fly a jumbo jet despite an obvious lack of skill even with small planes. The prospective student reportedly did not want to learn how to take off or land, only how to steer the jet while it was in the air.

The instructor and a vice president of the flight school briefed two Democratic congressmen from the Minneapolis area in November about their repeated efforts to get the FBI to take an interest in Moussaoui’s conduct. Their accounts were first reported in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, then in the New York Times December 22.

The vice president of the flight school, who briefed Minnesota Congressmen James Oberstar and Martin Sabo, said it took four to six phone calls to the FBI to find an agent who would help. The instructor became so frustrated by the lack of response that he gave a prescient warning to the FBI that “a 747 loaded with fuel can be used as a bomb.”
Investigation blocked in Washington

Moussaoui was detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service on charges of violating the terms of his visa. Local FBI investigators in Minneapolis immediately viewed Moussaoui as a terrorist suspect and sought authorization for a special counterintelligence surveillance warrant to search the hard drive of his home computer. This was rejected by higher-level officials in Washington, who claimed there was insufficient evidence to meet the legal requirements for the warrant. </div></div>

The FBI guy sent more than 70 emails to DC!



Q

cushioncrawler
01-01-2012, 02:26 AM
In view of the fakt that the usofa iz in recession more than out of recession, the question shood not be how duz/did the usofa get into recession -- recession iz the norm -- think of some other question.
mac.

LWW
01-01-2012, 04:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This isn't so much a recession as a depression ...</div></div>

Yet you were just recently explaining how the glorious policies of dear leader had us in an economic expansion nearly 3 years old?

So which is it?

LWW
01-01-2012, 04:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In fact, we had the 20th hijacker in custody, but the Clinton regime refused to review the laptop they had in custody.

Completely wrong, and utter garbage. That guy was caught about 4 months before 9/11, and it was the guy that W later promoted who made this decision.</div></div>

You finally caught me in an error ... but far from being completely wrong.

A correct statement would have been that rules put in place by the Clinton regime stopped the laptop from being reviewed.

What never ceases to amaze me is that the moonbat crazy left blames Bush for not doing things that were illegal prior to the Patriot Act ... and then blame him for actually doing those things after the Patriot Act was passed.

I'm honestly not sure why it amazes me though as most leftists are more than willing to believe as many variants of "TRUTH" as their current godking commands them to.

Qtec
01-01-2012, 04:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You finally caught me in an error ... but far from being completely wrong. </div></div>

Not for the first time and YES, absolutely completely wrong.

The guy sent 70 emails pleading for permission. The DC guy who refused him later got promoted.
Can you explain why the guy who could have prevented 911, but didn't, gets a promotion?

Q

Gayle in MD
01-02-2012, 10:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You finally caught me in an error ... but far from being completely wrong. </div></div>

Not for the first time and YES, absolutely completely wrong.

The guy sent 70 emails pleading for permission. The DC guy who refused him later got promoted.
Can you explain why the guy who could have prevented 911, but didn't, gets a promotion?

Q </div></div>

Can they explain why the Bush Administration removed everything about the Saudi financing of bin Laden, and al Qaeda from the 9/11 report?

There was plenty of information that proved that the money that financied al Qaeda, came straight out of Saudi Arabia, AND most of the Hi-Jackers, were from Saudi Arabia!

Now just imagine, what the Repiglicans would have said, if we saw on the news, President Obama, kissing the Saudi King on the lips, and holding hands with him!!! What if the Saudis had financed a business, in President Obama's past? What if President Obama's father, had been in business with bin Laden's family for decades?

The Bush family have been thick as thieves with the Saudi royalty, for decades.

Bush was president for seven plus months, before the attack.

Bush was the president who was warned, over and over, that there was an attack coming...

"bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States"

Rice, Bush and Cheney, all lied about the severity and intensity of the warnings.

Numerous intelligence agents, from top levels, have written about it in their books.

Bush did not do one single thing, NOTHING, to prevent the attack, NOTHING.

Bush, and the Chariman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, both free market zealots, refused to address the coming collapse, which had been written about for years, warnings from everywhere, and yet they adopted policies which exacerbated and invited the very collapse which resulted in their incompetence, and irresponsibility, OR their corruption.

This is STILL the Bush Recession. Deep Recessions like this one do not fade in just a few years, regardless of who is the president, or which party inherits the disastrous economy, and Bush stood watch over the most extreme redistribution of wealth, upwards, in the history of this country.

The right remains in denial. What else can they do.
That IS their forte' after all, lie and deny. Same ol' same ol'.
G.