fate

Bush inherited a recession.

and Obama inherited a complete meltdown and both of Bushes wars.... but you don't allow them as "excuses" for him.
per you:
fate

Not really fair, but what else is new

b

I am not certain. But I am certain of this. I want the damn partisanship finished where it comes to the budget. This is one way to solve it. Let the Dems have their way, and we will know one way or the other. If it succeeds, great! If it does not, well, we have learned hopefully

.

As Freeman pointed out, the 2008 culmination of 8 solid years, and a 35 year period of dominance of conservative policies resulted in the worst crash since 1929. And the erasure and reversal of 35 years of fiscal prudence . (45 thru 80) .
But there hasn't been an acknowledgement or general acceptance of responsibility for that turn of events.
Greenspan admitted that he was wrong about the wisdom of the markets.... but that kind of honest analysis is rare.
People still cling to their belief systems against the evidence.
(I'd say both sides, but the dominance of conservative policies since 1980 makes it primarily a conservative problem. Perhaps more liberal ideas have dominated in a few areas in the US , but in business and financial areas the pendulum swung way right for a very long time.)

The conservative eras of 1992-2000 and 2004-2012 notwithstanding, of course.

rickyp wrote:fate

Bush inherited a recession.

and Obama inherited a complete meltdown and both of Bushes wars.... but you don't allow them as "excuses" for him.
per you:
fate

Not really fair, but what else is new

Good night, rickyp! The very least you can do is provide and honest context to my "not really fair" comment. This was what I was responding to:

danivon wrote:Not sure why it matters if Obama is after a legacy. He won't be standing on it in 2016. Perhaps another Democrat will be, but why should he really care about that?

What is important is the outcome, not the posturing. Both sides are posturing, but DF seems to want to make it all out to be Obama's fault again. Another 4 years of ODS it seems...

I didn't think it was fair to accuse me of ODS because I merely articulated what the NYT article says--Obama made demands far in excess of what he ran on. That has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama inheriting a fiscal mess.

Furthermore, it is either dishonest or sheer ignorance to suggest, as you do, that the fact that Bush inherited a recession can be glossed over. You and freeman2 whine incessantly about the glorious Clinton years. The truth is they ended rather badly. If I were to talk about the glorious Bush years, I'd be right--until the meltdown. It's the same thing. The Bush recession was worse, but that had less to do with Bush than it did a number of other factors which all came together.

My main point is irrefutable: the Clinton tax rates were not responsible for the fiscal success of those years any more than they were responsible for the recession.

However, what is facile is this notion that raising taxes right now is somehow going to help the problem. It won't.

Here's the reality: every American is about to get his/her tax burden raised, no matter what. NO ONE is talking about the Social Security taxes going back to "normal," but they are. That's money out of everyone's pocket. Additionally, the ACA taxes are going to really start kicking in.

I predict, right here, right now, the US will be in recession by the end of next year no matter how this fiscal cliff issue is resolved. Obama's determination to spend more and tax more will lead to a level of despair among the investor class the likes of which we have not seen in decades.

Sorry, DF. Looking back, on all the threads you've started mentioning the President and the bad stuff you accuse him of / insinuate he's done, all the times you've brought a discussion to 'Obama', it's quite clear that you don't have ODS.

And the Pope is clearly a Buddhist

fate

I predict, right here, right now

You might be right. But it would be one of the few times you've made an accurate prediction on these discussion boards....
from acceptance of ga marriage, the collapse of miltary morale due to gays being allowed to serve openly to election predictions you've generally been wrong.
Perhaps you need to look at things more objectively?
Objectively, looking at history, tax rates have had little to do with long term economic performance.
But they have had a lot to do with deficits, and since 1980 with the redistribution of income away from the middle class... (Well, maybe that reality is showing up in economic performance today. The US has always been a middle class consumer economy and by redistributing income away from the middle class since 1980 it has damaged the main engine of the economy. It was hidden for a decade or more by the real estate bubble and unhealthy lending and banking practices, but the middle class went backwards in 08 big time.)
I don't think Clinton was a paragon. He largely allowed deregulation of the financial industries and was culpable for one of the root causes of the crash of 08. But, like all sports teams, eventually you own your record. And, thanks to the dot.com boom he did have a great run at eliminating deficits.
No one forced Bush to bring in the tax cuts that drove deficits, and did nothing to help the economy....
So yeah, I recognize that Bush came into offfice during a recession. He also came into office inheriting a surplus... the first president to do so since Carter...
Objectively he took a fairly good position and made it much worse. Faced with the threat of terrorism he started two wars, and paid for them by borrowing from China.... Instead of demanding that this generation pay for its own wars...
Obama took a disastrous position and 1) stopped the bleeding, 2) reversed the course of the economy 3) hasn't dealt with deficits.... So he hasn't been perfect. But he's been given 4 more years, and besides tormenting you he'll have an opportunity to try and make strides in the difficult area.

danivon wrote:Sorry, DF. Looking back, on all the threads you've started mentioning the President and the bad stuff you accuse him of / insinuate he's done, all the times you've brought a discussion to 'Obama', it's quite clear that you don't have ODS.

And the Pope is clearly a Buddhist

Actually, I'd rate the first one "mostly true" and the second "one hundred percent true."

rickyp wrote:fate

I predict, right here, right now

You might be right. But it would be one of the few times you've made an accurate prediction on these discussion boards....
from acceptance of ga marriage, the collapse of miltary morale due to gays being allowed to serve openly to election predictions you've generally been wrong.

Not really, no.

Did I ever say gay marriage would never win a single vote? Nope, what I did say is it had never won a popular vote, which was true until a few weeks ago.

Did I ever say the military would cease to function if gays were allowed to serve openly?

Nope.

I do believe it will have a corrosive effect, but that will be over time. Here's another flash: should they put women on subs or allow them to serve in infantry units, there will be problems. It's not rocket science, it's common sense. Gays serving openly in the military would be no problem at all, if it just meant they didn't have to keep it secret any longer. However, that's not what it will mean.

But, please jog my memory, are you in the American military? Do you have any firsthand knowledge--you know, other than HuffPo and every liberal-leaning publication on Earth?

Perhaps you need to look at things more objectively?

You calling for "objectivity?" I cracked a couple of ribs.

Objectively, looking at history, tax rates have had little to do with long term economic performance.

Then, why do you keep bringing up the glorious days under Clinton if it's not about tax rates? How many times has someone on the Left said something to the effect that "the economy soared with the Clinton rates; surely it won't hurt to return to them?"

But they have had a lot to do with deficits, and since 1980 with the redistribution of income away from the middle class...

You can't possibly connect this to the middle class . . . by just saying it.

As for deficits, please illustrate how ANYTHING Obama is proposing will actually cut into the deficits.

Is it demanding freedom to raise the debt ceiling (sans Congress)?

Is it promising to spend more money on Stimulus (current ask is $50B)?

Let me ask another question: Illinois and other States have raised various taxes. Do projections match actual income?

(Well, maybe that reality is showing up in economic performance today. The US has always been a middle class consumer economy and by redistributing income away from the middle class since 1980 it has damaged the main engine of the economy. It was hidden for a decade or more by the real estate bubble and unhealthy lending and banking practices, but the middle class went backwards in 08 big time.)

Yet, more American homes have non-necessities than most other countries. "Poor" people in this country often live very well. I've already cited an article that claims one must make $60K a year to have as much disposable income as someone making less than half that, when one factors in government assistance.

No one forced Bush to bring in the tax cuts that drove deficits, and did nothing to help the economy....

That exaggerates their effect and neglects the low unemployment of most of his term in office. It also ignores 9/11 and many other factors.

So yeah, I recognize that Bush came into offfice during a recession. He also came into office inheriting a surplus... the first president to do so since Carter...

Oh brother. That was more than wiped out by 9/11, masterminded by OBL, who was offered to Clinton. He declined to take possession.

Objectively he took a fairly good position and made it much worse.

Objectively, Obama took a bad economy and made it worse.

Look, for just a minute, can you foolish liberals look "forward?" Can you stop trying to find new ways to blame Bush for everything? He really didn't put disease-infested blankets in packages given to Native Americans, nor did he give the Japanese clearance to attack Pearl Harbor.

PLEASE, just stop it.

Tell us how Obama is going to lower the deficit. Go ahead. Tell us--without blaming Bush.

He has no plan. None. Raising taxes while raising spending will not touch it.

How will raising taxes increase economic growth? Go ahead. Explain it. How does taking money out of the private sector and giving it to government give us growth?

How does giving Obama unchecked power to raise the Debt Ceiling help (that is what he is demanding)? What happens one day when the US is no longer seen as a "safe" place to invest? How long can we keep borrowing before that happens? Does any American ever have to sacrifice if he/she is NOT rich? Is it possible to solve our fiscal problems on the backs of the wealthy?

Answer the questions--and try not to lecture about "it's important to note how we got here."

No, no it's not. We've already had 4 years of whining and crying about that. Now, how about shutting up and doing something, Mr. President?

Faced with the threat of terrorism he started two wars, and paid for them by borrowing from China.... Instead of demanding that this generation pay for its own wars...
Obama took a disastrous position and 1) stopped the bleeding, 2) reversed the course of the economy 3) hasn't dealt with deficits.... So he hasn't been perfect. But he's been given 4 more years, and besides tormenting you he'll have an opportunity to try and make strides in the difficult area.

No, he won't. His entire message is that he's going to give and give and give. Of course, he's not paying for it. Neither are we. It's "the wealthy" who are going to pay for it. However, if he took ALL of their money, it would not solve the problem. But, don't look behind the curtain--keep pretending that he has the answers.

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is ODS?

Bush did not inherit a recession, it started after he came in. And I doubt very much that it was caused by high taxes. But what would I know, having been in the industry concerned, why IT companies went through a bubble that then burst.

The other key difference is that the dotcom recession was minor and shortlived. The 08 recession was deeper, wider and much longer than that - indeed the worst since WWII.

I don't think next year will be pretty, but I've seen plenty of doom and gloom from the same quarters. After a few dozen repetitions, it has less effect, even with the Galtian twist.

geojanes wrote:Sorry for my ignorance, but what is ODS?

Obama Derangement Syndrome. Closely related to Bush Derangement Syndrome which prevailed on the left before it.

danivon wrote:Bush did not inherit a recession, it started after he came in.

BDS personified. He didn't inherit it? Really?

The world's largest economy sank into a recession in March, ending 10 years of growth that was the longest expansion on record in the United States, a group of economists that dates U.S. business cycles said Monday.

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), composed of academic economists from Harvard, Stanford and other universities, joined a chorus of economists and investors who were saying that a recession had already begun. The group posted its decision on its Web site.

It ruled that the long expansion ended in March and the nation's tenth recession since the end of World War II began at the same time. The declaration means the longest expansion lasted exactly 10 years.

So, you want to blame Bush, who had been in office for . . . less than 2 months?

And I doubt very much that it was caused by high taxes. But what would I know, having been in the industry concerned, why IT companies went through a bubble that then burst.

Well, apparently, you don't know much about the recession.

I never said it was caused by high rates. However, I HAVE mentioned the dot-com bubble several times. It must be related to your BDS.

The other key difference is that the dotcom recession was minor and shortlived. The 08 recession was deeper, wider and much longer than that - indeed the worst since WWII.

Yes, and would you like to lay it at the feet of Bush so that we can argue about the real estate bubble all over again? More BDS!

The point is that Obama has prolonged it by his regulatory regime and by focusing on burdening business via Obamacare. We continue to flounder financially because Obama can't stop playing the "soak the rich" playlist he's got on his iPod.

I don't think next year will be pretty, but I've seen plenty of doom and gloom from the same quarters. After a few dozen repetitions, it has less effect, even with the Galtian twist.

No, it won't be pretty. It's how Obama wants it. He can't continue expanding the entitlement mentality if things get better. He will keep decrying energy prices and expand entitlement programs to "help" the poor. He will find ways to expand other government aid. The idea is to create a permanent Democratic majority by expanding the dependency class. It really is akin to what Chavez has done in Venezuela.

To put it in geopolitical terms, it's the Palestinian problem. The Arab nations could solve it with their wealth, but they insist on keeping the problem alive to maintain unrest.

In one sense, Obama's politics are brilliant. In terms of America's future, his plans are poisonous.

Doctor Fate wrote:BDS personified. He didn't inherit it?

As your link affirms, my words were correct - it started after he came in.

So, you want to blame Bush, who had been in office for . . . less than 2 months?

No. I don't blame Bush. I don't blame Clinton either. It was the result of an investment bubble in a new sector, where people were making silly decisions and new start-ups were ridiculously overvalued compared to what they really were. Government had little to do with it, if anything. Other, or course, than making the framework for internet commerce available some years beforehand.

When we discuss the internet, you are keen to point out that it only got anywhere when the private sector went in and used it to create wealth. Sure, they did, but along they way they had a gold rush and consequent bust, and had an effect on the wider economy because of it.

Well, apparently, you don't know much about the recession.

I never said it was caused by high rates. However, I HAVE mentioned the dot-com bubble several times. It must be related to your BDS.

Oh, do put a sock in it. I did not blame Bush for everything. I don't blame him for many things. I haven't blamed him for the dotcom bubble. I've pointed out two aspects of it compared to the 2008 crash:

1) it started after Bush came into office, and so he didn't inherit' it in the same way that Obama came in during a recession
2) it was nowhere near as bad - and at it's worst was eclipsed by how bad the 2008 recession was by January 2009.

I was remembering this charming bit from you.

DF a page ago or so to freeman2 wrote:Your post is boring.

Clinton was great . . . and the dot-com bubble had nothing to do with it? It was because tax rates were higher?

Really?

It was a bit confusing, with all those question, and no actual considered response to what freeman was saying, just snark. So I agree, you haven't attempted to explain the dotcom bubble.

But I do know a bit about the dotcom bubble, as I was working in the same industry during it.

And actually, I don't really blame Bush for the 2008 crash. It was a product of the whole political and economic system, and had been building for some time. He has, however, responsibility for the large deficits that the US too into it.

Yes, and would you like to lay it at the feet of Bush so that we can argue about the real estate bubble all over again? More BDS!

Nope. Please show where I blamed Bush. It started shortly after he took office. Obama came in during the actual slide, which is massively different.

The point is that Obama has prolonged it by his regulatory regime and by focusing on burdening business via Obamacare.

Opinion stated as fact is still opinion. I don't see how you can prove that the recession was made worse by Obama any more than anyone can prove that he helped, because we don't have a parallel universe to compare to. If you have more than bluster and op-eds from blowhards, please edify us with actual back-up to your assertions.

The rest of your post? I can see why you deny ODS.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:BDS personified. He didn't inherit it?

As your link affirms, my words were correct - it started after he came in.

Thus demonstrating terminal BDS--he'd been in office 6 weeks!

So, you want to blame Bush, who had been in office for . . . less than 2 months?

No. I don't blame Bush. I don't blame Clinton either. It was the result of an investment bubble in a new sector, where people were making silly decisions and new start-ups were ridiculously overvalued compared to what they really were. Government had little to do with it, if anything. Other, or course, than making the framework for internet commerce available some years beforehand.

Oh, okay, but the 2008 meltdown was Bush's fault? Nothing to do with a real estate bubble brought on (largely) by a program started by Clinton?

Well, apparently, you don't know much about the recession.

I never said it was caused by high rates. However, I HAVE mentioned the dot-com bubble several times. It must be related to your BDS.

Oh, do put a sock in it. I did not blame Bush for everything. I don't blame him for many things. I haven't blamed him for the dotcom bubble. I've pointed out two aspects of it compared to the 2008 crash:

It's nice of you to not blame Bush for the dot-com bubble, since he was governor of Texas during that time. Very nice.

1) it started after Bush came into office, and so he didn't inherit' it in the same way that Obama came in during a recession

Please. So, in 6 weeks, how much blame do you want to assign him?

If "none," then say so.

2) it was nowhere near as bad - and at it's worst was eclipsed by how bad the 2008 recession was by January 2009.

Which was not Bush's fault either. However, Obama's recovery has been the worst ever recorded for a sharp downturn in the American economy. There's something to boast about!

Your post is boring.

Yours is, actually.

Clinton was great . . . and the dot-com bubble had nothing to do with it? It was because tax rates were higher?

So I agree, you haven't attempted to explain the dotcom bubble.

But I do know a bit about the dotcom bubble, as I was working in the same industry during it.

So you've said. Hey, do it three or four more times and you'll have a resume!

And actually, I don't really blame Bush for the 2008 crash. It was a product of the whole political and economic system, and had been building for some time. He has, however, responsibility for the large deficits that the US too into it.

So, is Obama responsible for even bigger deficits coming out of it?

Yes, and would you like to lay it at the feet of Bush so that we can argue about the real estate bubble all over again? More BDS!

Nope. Please show where I blamed Bush. It started shortly after he took office. Obama came in during the actual slide, which is massively different.

Not really. The scope of what they had to deal with was different, but Bush inherited a recession by any reasonable measure. If a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth (i.e. 6 months), Bush was president for 1/4 of that period and had little/no chance to enact policy.

The point is that Obama has prolonged it by his regulatory regime and by focusing on burdening business via Obamacare.

Opinion stated as fact is still opinion. I don't see how you can prove that the recession was made worse by Obama any more than anyone can prove that he helped, because we don't have a parallel universe to compare to. If you have more than bluster and op-eds from blowhards, please edify us with actual back-up to your assertions.

I have posted innumerable facts concerning the pathetic "recovery." I'm not going to jump through additional hoops just to please you. You know, if you know anything about economics, that this recovery has been remarkably tepid.

I don't really care about your opinion, which is mostly all you ever post.

Three things.

1) If I write in a post: "And actually, I don't really blame Bush for the 2008 crash. It was a product of the whole political and economic system, and had been building for some time. " You don't need to ask "Oh, okay, but the 2008 meltdown was Bush's fault?".

2) The dotcom bubble did not actually lead to a technical recession, as there never was two quarters of negative growth. 2001Q1 and 2001Q3 were negative, but 2001Q2 was positive. All other quarters in 2000-2002 were positive, with a single quarter of zero growth being the exception. So Bush did not in any way inherit a recession.

3) If this is true: "I don't really care about your opinion, which is mostly all you ever post." you are welcome to ignore it. I do find it odd though, because you seem to be quite keen to tell me what my opinion is (even if it is just your own imagination at work).

1. Pardon me for being confused. It's easy to be confused when you so readily take both sides of an issue.

2. A fine example of your double-speak: you claimed a recession started on Bush's watch. Now you say it was not officially a recession.

3. I responded in kind. I refuse to prove again what I've already proven, your opinion notwithstanding.