Why do people think the economy is good?

http://www.workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/supp_act.asp

The worst part about it is that extending them would have created jobs, to get more people off of unemployment. But, Republicans opted to try to starve those who were doing without.

 

WRONG.
Gingrich wasn't in charge for the last two years of the 90s. Clinton and the Democrats did most of their damage then.

WRONG
Clinton tried to warn us ONE DAY AFTER IT HAPPENED. And the Algore REINVENTING AMERICA forbade the airlines from ethnically profiling, which is how a bunch of Arabs with boxcutters were allowed on a commercial flight.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_economic_expansions_in_the_United_States[/QUOTE]
THAT'S A (*)(*)(*)(*)ING LIE.

The Newt Gingrich expansion took place because of the Reagan Tax Cuts and banking deregulation, which allowed the tech companies that drove the 90s economy to get their startup capital. ("Investor's Business Daily"). The housing bubble was the fault of Carter, Clinton and Obama's ACORN.
I would demand that you get your facts straight, but facts don't seem a high priority for you uneducated liberals who are allergic to the truth.
Oh, and the alleged LBJ expansion was made possible by the John F. Kennedy SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS TAX CUTS. JFK would have been considered to the right of Reagan by today's numbskull left wing standards.

 

CRA, Fannie/Freddie. That screwed housing. Using your analogy, since racism is up under Obama, Obama causes racism.

Your link proves nothing. 2024?

 

Who can explain what goes on in the mind of an elitist uneducated ivory tower liberal?

Do you EVER read anything that is factual or true? Or does ALL your crap originate in your lower intestinal tract?
http://www.christianpost.com/news/obama-pushes-congress-for-unemployment-benefits-extension-112044/

 

the CRA, Fannie and Freddie did not make the subprime loans that made the housing bubble expand, and cause the credit crunch. You can't even get basic facts right.

CRA didn't cause the bubble
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/10/barry-ritholtz.html

 

Someone deleted a post of mine. If this forum doesn't want discussion, then why keep it online?

 

Bubble economies didn't exist for the most part, between the New Deal and the conservative moves to deregulate banking/finance, secures trading, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

Your own quote, before the bolded part, disproves your assertion.

 

You are usually wrong on most things; on this you are not wrong.

 

1) Never go to a guy with a degree in economics for correct answers.

2) A couple hundred thousand new jobs per month is not as bad as 700,000 jobs lost per month.

 

Now that's funny, I don't care who you are. And, since so many Republicans are jumping on the pc bandwagon these days, I do NOT mean it is funny that your economy that sucks.

 

http://spectator.org/articles/42211/true-origins-financial-crisis

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...vernment-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/

......and Dodd and Frank made money on it. Librul parasites............redundant.

 

He helped pull it out of the 2000/2001 recession, dot.com bubble burst and 9/11 and helped create that 52 months of full employment where we didn't have to worry about creating lots of new jobs because everyone was working, incomes were rising and tax receipts soaring leading the the last Bush/Republican deficit of a paltry $161B.

THEN the Democrats took control of the government and helped bring about the collapse of the economy. Oh and that includes on Senator then President Obama.

It took two years of Democrats and Barack to put us in that hole and they have to pull us out of it due to their 8 years of bad policy.

What was the bad policy that produced that 52 months of full employment, rising incomes and falling deficits?

Yes after two years of Democrat control of the government we were in horrible shape, but those job losses bottomed out the month Obama moved his office to the White House and the recession ended 6 months later.

Wrong we were on the back end of the recession and even before his stimulus took effect the job loss rate had MARKEDLY receeded.

Bush managed to do it in three years and what specifically are you attributing to Obama, what polices have "gotten us out of this hole" and be specific. His stimulus was supposed to limit unemployment to just 8% it soared to 10% and stayed over 9% for the next three years and technically it is still double digit when you account for all those who have simply given up.

What you are saying is that Obama was too inept for the job and should never have been elected and I agree.

What is screwed up about limiting unemployment during a recession, dot.com bust and 9/11 attack to one month at 6.5%, then 52 months of solid growth and full employment, rising middle class incomes and bringing the deficit down to a paltry $161B before handing it over to the Democrats and Obama who in two years ran unemployment to 10% and increased the deficit to $1,600B and kept it over $1,000B for the next four years. How did there HUGE spending to fix the economy work out?

It we created just one job a month that would be consistent job creation, that's a strawman argument. And 200,000 ain't near what we need it to be to put everyone back to work, that is just barely keeping our heads above water and YES participation rate has EVERYTHING to do with it the ONLY reason the unemployment number is so low now.

But your statement WOULD be true if that were the case demonstrating that it is a spurious statement to make.

So you support making the rich richer and the poor poorer.......gotcha

ROFL really and how exactly do tax cuts increase the income gap? The income reported is before tax, Bush took millions at the bottom off the tax roles competely while lowering the middle class rate more than the top rate and after the tax rate cuts the highest earners paid hugely more in actual tax dollars and a higher share of the tax burden. The rising income gap is because Obama has failed to put the working class back to work making money, a huge percent of the new jobs are part time jobs and the monetary policies which he supports are pumping money into the hands of the wealthy investors.

First debt and deficits have more to do with government spending, but after the Gingrich/Kaisch tax rate cuts we balanced the budget, after the Bush tax rate cuts we brought the deficit back down to a paltry $161B. It wasn't tax rates that drove it to over $1,400B in just two years, it was Democrats spending.

Maybe it never occurred to you but there is a floor at the bottom but the ceiling has no limit, the gap is always going to grow. But the fact is it has grown at it's fastest rate in recent history under Democrat control and Democrat policy. The growth was slowed 2003-2007 when Republican policy put people back to work earning incomes, incomes that were growing.

He was was part and parcel in helping put us in it and instrumental in keeping us in it and proved himself incompetent in dealing with it.

Obama and the Democrats had almost free reign the last two years of the Bush administration when they took over the government then had absolute free reign when they controlled all three branches the first two years. Obama got his stimulus, he got his tax increase, he got his health care. And they all have failed.

And all you and the left and the Democrats are left with are pitiful excuses.
, slowing progress to the point where they even shut down the government.[/QUOTE]

- - - Updated - - -

What was horrible about 2003-2007?

 

Ahh that was the Clinton justice department that started going after Microsoft and threatening other dot.com companies to brought that about by scaring the investors into a run on the stocks.

Wrong as the investigations showed and no one had to warned al Qaeda wanted to attack the US they already did. But there was no actionable intellegence transferred to the Bush administration and if the Clinton administration knew enough to warn them then why hadn't they stopped them?

Actually no it doesn't pale in comparison and "Clinton expansion": what Clinton expansion? He came into office during the second year of a very strong expansion and then slowed that expansion with his tax rate increase and along with that slowed the growth of federal tax revenues. It was when Gingrich and Kaisch forced him to sign tax rate cuts that the economy got back on track and revenues soared, and then they forced him to sign welfare reform and refused to pass his higher spending request that we had the brief surpluses.

Wrong again, during that growth we had solid wage and income growth and the housing market was just a small part of it it was a broad based expansion and that bubble didn't have to burst except for the Democrats refusing to even acknowledge it was coming let alone allow action to help prevent it.

- - - Updated - - -

It didn't before and it KEPT people on unemployment, one of the reasons we see unemployment falling now is because people are losing their unemployment dollars.

 

"Bubbles" exist in almost any period of strong economic growth and then we have recessions and slowdowns and the fat is weaned off and we start another period of growth. And the financial industry is probably the MOST regulated industry we have.

 

L

Between the Great Depression and the commercial real estate bubble of the late-1980s, all of the recessions were induced by the Federal Reserve, to either prevent overheating of the economy, thus keeping bubbles from forming, or, in the case of the Carter/Volcker plan, to break the back of stagflation, after the oil shocks created an environment of lowered employment with high inflation. The interest rate increases were able to end stagflation, but caused a short, but deep, recession, that lasted early in the Reagan tenure. Reagan's reelection was based in what Carter and Volcker enacted at that time.

 

I know perfectly well the history and as I stated, bubbles have always existed in growing economies and they get burst during recessions and slowdowns. It is the natural business cycle and government would do well to keep out of it and not attempt to micromanage the economy but instead induce business friendly policies and get out of the way.

 

As long as the Feds keep dumping trillions the economy is doing slightly better than stagnant.
The Feds will never stop right?

 

So, you'd rather go with the Spectator's opinion instead of the facts.
That's becoming more apparent with your every post.

 

Who says conservatives don't want monopolies and oligopolies? Microsoft was breaking the law. The Sherman anti-trust laws should be invoked far more often. And, by this admission of yours, you'd have allowed the bubble to grow larger, though, the Microsoft verdict didn't cause the bubble to burst, as the IPOD investments weren't based on what Microsoft did or did not do.

The Clinton Administration had a standing order for Osama bin Laden to be killed by any means necessary. And they warned the incoming Bush Asministration that al Queada would be the biggest threat of terrorism in the world against the U.S.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22231-2004Mar24.html

welfare reform wouldn't have made the economy do any better. It didn't even help to reduce deficits. But, the Clinton economy took off after the 1993 signing into law of a small stimulus package, and investments in education and training. Plus, passing S-CHIP and the EITC later on.

The rise in the markets was largely based on the GOP's bubble. And the GOP, as the majority party in congress and the White House, never introduced a single bill into committee to address their housing bubble.

people were able to look for better paying jobs, and this substantially add to the tax base, as well as the stimulative effects of the unemployment extensions. As they were kicked off of unemployment by the GOP, it took real dollars outof the economy, and suppressed employment.

 

Then you know that there weren't bubbles, on the scale of the last three recessions, all throughout the time of the stricter banking/financial and securities markets between the Great Depression and late-1980s commercial real estate bubble. And almost no banking failures until Reagan's S&L failures.

Democrats do grow the economy faster and stronger than Republicans. And bubbles can largely be thwarted, without the kind of conservative failure we saw in 2006-2008, just using monetary policy, if banking, finance and securities have both the regulations in place, and the regulators to enforce them, in place. It was proven with over 55 years of a lack of bubbles in the US, thanks to the foresight of FDR.

 

So long as the GOP keeps obstructing full recovery, what would you have the Federal Reserve do, to meet their mandate?

 

oh dear...

So.... why were they not similarly inflated at the last election?

 

Err. That global financial crisis thingy in 2007?

 

The economy of the world has fundamentally changed with the rise of globalization. Therefore, it would make sense to acknowledge that what worked for us after WWII may no longer work and to seek out new ways of providing jobs and capital to people.

 

I think that exact argument was used in the dot.com bubble and in the lead up to the GFC. "Its a different economy now and the normal rules don't apply anymore".
No. Same economy. Same rules. New fools ...