Why do people think the economy is good?

really? how come things went so HORRIBLE towards the end of his presidency? Could it be, oh could it be, that Clinton's policies took almost 8 years to take affect and cripple the economy? I think not buddy, Bush's trickle down (let's help the rich) policy, war waging etc... left us in shambles...

Sure, which policies were democrats to blame for? when it comes to the economy, trickle down was all Bush and this was just TERRIBLE.

WRONG.... Obama prevented great depression 2 by bailing out auto industry and supporting stimulus (which Bush desperately kick started). His policies were the right ones (which republicans blocked, delaying the recovery) and now you are seeing the policies taking effect, look at this economy!

if i'm not mistaken, Bush reversed the surplus and turned into a defecit? and relative to Clinton years, Bush' economy was dormant... and the trillion dollar tax cuts did little. I'm not sure what rationale you are using to give Bush credit for an economy that was inferior to the economy under his predecessor and for an economy that experience little improvement, if any, after Bush's grand plan - Trickle down.

WRONG. The economy was already going down the wrong path, before democrats took control of anything and the tax cuts were already in place - tax cuts that hurt the economy cause trickle down doesn't work. Not to mention, it wasn't the democrats that decided to invade Iraq under false pretense.

hmmm... your facts are just very wrong...

8 years of bad policy cannot be reversed in 2-3 years of good policy. 8 years of 1. taking trillions off revenues 2. spending trillions on wars and the biggest financial crisis since great depression cannot simply be fixed in a short period of time. After some really good work, Country is on right path again... now we need to make sure republicans DO NOT WIN on 2016 so the good work continues on. Had Al Gore won in 2000, i guarantee 2008 would've been in much better shape than it actually was... republicans don't understand the economy, they never have.

Will go down as a great president... mark my words.

being intellectually dishonest with your self aren't you?. Those first two years was ALL the effects of DISASTROUS and misguided policy for 8 years... Only a 2 year old chimp will attribute those two years to a new president who inherited a massive financial crisis, trillion dollar wars, tax cuts taking trillions off revenues. As CBO has pointed out, most of the deficit and debt were a result of 1. economic armagedon (which Bush passed on) 2. tax cuts (thanks to bush) 3. WARS (thanks to Bush)... Obama's policies (stimulus) attributed little to the deficit and debt. Any intellectual knows this but many of you are just not in this bucket.

look at the #'s, just look and think

no, that's trickle down

trickle down favors the rich, you didn't know?? basic stuff

I beg to differ, trillions off revenues is a serious matter

wrong... Reagan started the trend, everyone knows this. TRICKLE DOWN

many things, especially what it led to in 08 and the years that followed.. an 800 pound gorilla that obama has been finally putting to sleep.

 

You gave me no facts. You gave me something from the fed who played CYA.

 

You cannot trust the Bureau of labor statistics, you have to go to the IRS statistics on the number of wage and salary workers for each year. From 2001 to 2003 the number of wage and salary workers stayed at 110 million for each of those 3 years. The housing bubble created the most salary and wage workers at 120 million in 2007. When the bubble burst we lost over 8 million wage and salary workers.

Prior to 2000, wage and salary workers increased by 2 million each year. If we had continued growth in jobs, today we should be at 140 million wage and salary workers. We are struggling to get to 120 million wage and salary workers today. This means over 20 million jobs have been lost to outsourcing, moving overseas and technology. Yet our population keeps increasing now with immigration reform.

 

Because the majority of people are not Republican lickspittles of the Koch Cabal and the complete collapse of civilization is not in their interest, therefore they don't want to promote lies to cause such. They therefore have the temerity to accept the facts, rather than what they hear on right wing discussion boards

The only arguments I hear against this are the same old BS shibboleths that started the whole thing; and this was back in 2001 when they collapsed the dot com boom, which was a real economic upturn based on real technological change (which is still going on); they replaced it with the Real Estate Revival, a scam as old as the Mississippi Bubble.

We Know Better, The Old Ways are Best, It's Not Right if it's Not Perfect, and finally, Anyone Who Doesn't Agree with us are Fools Who Just Don't Want to Recognize the Hard Fact that the Rich Are Better than Anyone Who's Not, were and are their main catchphrases

Finally I have to note that this whole thread is based on the timeless wisdom of Some Guy Who Went to College Told Me. What's the matter, lost your printout of An Email Chain Letter My Great Aunt Sent Me?

 

Other than a handful of left wing partisan hacks who don't consider the facts, who's claiming the economy is in good shape?

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-economys-in-great-shape-we-just-dont-believe-it-2014-06-04

 

the Fed has economists who produce analysis independent from th actions of the Federal Reserve FOMC. Those economists do their job, and telling the truth, even if it's critical of the Fed, won't make them lose their jobs.

So again, you can stick with poorly written opinion, while I'll stick with facts.

 

And that right there supports my comment better than I ever could.

 

The fed has a vested interest in putting out a positive report on the CRA. Please.

So go ahead and stick with the fox watching the hen-house,.

 

You prove my point with every post mister "ivory tower liberal"

As I said and your own link proves, there were no federal UI extensions for all of 2014, which you would have realized if you were capable of understanding a calendar!!! The date of your link was Jan 5, 2014 which would have made the budget deal that ended all extensions passed Dec 2013.

Your MessiahRushie has YOU pegged!!!

March 01, 2012
RUSH: To put it bluntly, dumb people are too dumb to know it." It's a blessing! You know, the worst thing would be to be dumb and to know it -- and there's evidence all over that the dumb do not know they're dumb.

 

Didn't have one and I repeat the Clinton DOJ went after them with a vengence even after courts threw out moves on their part which sent shockwaves throughout the industry and scared investors into runs of the stocks of MS and other fast growing startup companies. So yes Clinton is partially responsible for the dot.com bust but thanks to the proper actions by the Bush administration that recession and slowdown and it's affects were mitigated and we go through it and onto a very strong recovery.

He had 8 years why didn't he just kill him then?

Oh spare me no one had to be warned about we all knew that already. The fact is the Clinton administration failed to do anything about it. Bush did.

It did both, it made people go out and look for and take jobs, that made them tax revenue generator instead of tax revenue takers.

The economy was already in the SECOND YEAR of taking off when Clinton was elected and his tax increase slowed down that growth and along with it the growth in federal tax revenues.

The rise in the market was due to a broad based economic expansion after the 2000/2001 recession and the bills never got out of committed as the Democrats and a few Republicans refuse to accept the fact that or willing hid the fact that there was a problem and than Fannie and Freddie were in deep trouble.

Ahhh were do those unemployment dollars come from? But yes due to the proper response by the Bush administration the economy grew and we had full employment with record number of people paying taxes. And it wasn't because of government hand outs, it was because people were working and they didn't have extended unemployment any longer so they went out and got jobs.

 

I know there have been all sorts of bubbles through out our history and the more government tries to tangle itself in the economy and business the worst those bubbles become and the more government thinks it can fix them the worst the recoveries are.

Absolutely false as we saw when the Republicans controlled the congress under Clinton and the Bush/Republican years compared to Democrat control of government the last 8 years.

- - - Updated - - -

So long as the left tries to use the bogus GOP obstructing as an excuse instead of finally engaging in some policies that will encourage business to expand.............

 

What was horrible about OUR economy 2003-2007? And the global crisis began LATE 2007 and was actually the 2008 Crisis.

 

It's because most players don't understand economics.

 

No his policies were in effect long before 2008 when the Democrats took control of the government. What happened was we were at the end of a LONG period of economic growth and full employment. We were due for at least a slowdown.

What was terrlible about 52 months of full employment, soaring tax revenues, solid GDP growth and a deficit declining to a paltry $161B?

Wrong, the recession as already turning around when he moved over to the White House, the job losses bottomed out that month and had greatly curtailed before ANY of his stimulus was even enacted. His policies and threats of them kept us from going into a full recovery, kept business from expanding because of the looming, then come to fruition, massive new regulations and taking over the health care industry. He did NOT save the auto industry, he saved some unions jobs and screwed the industry and it's investors.

The surplus was already cut in half before his first budget due to the slowdown and recession he inherited, the dot.com bubble bursting and 9/11, did you forget about those or something?

False again, it was quite strong and benefitted the middle class greatly.

Tax revenues soared after the tax rate cuts went into affect and that along with some spending restraint lower the deficit to a measly $161B, the last Bus/Republican deficit, you forget that one. Then the Democrats, including Senator Obama took control and in just two years took that $161B to $1,400B.

What credit are you giving Clinton for the economy during his term? I give Bush credit for taking the correct actions and then getting out of the way. Clinton slowed economic growth and tax the growth of tax revenues with his tax rate increase and helped bring about the dot.com bust with his going after Microsoft. It was after Gingrich and Kaisch force tax rate cuts and welfare reform and even more spending restraint of Clinton that the economy REALLY took off and produced the brief surpluses.

Wrong we had been on the correct path for 52 except for dealing with the housing bubble which was obstructed by the Democrats. The tax cuts helped produce that 52 months of full employment and income gains by the middle class, and it's not "tickle down" it is called "supply side" and it works every time. And the Democrats were in full support of the ATUMF with the most ardent and vocal supporter being Hillary Clinton the presumptive nominee for the next election. You telling me you don't support her?

2008-2009 recession was 2/3 over by the time Obama took office and ended the following June BEFORE his stimulus was even put in place. The job lose rate bottomed out the month he took office and rapidly receded before his stimulus was even in place. My facts are correct, your knowledge of facts seems quite lacking.

There was no eight years of bad policy as 2003-2007 demonstrate except for the Democrats obstructing mortgage reform.

Prove revenues decreased after the Bush tax rates went into full effect. Prove we did not have strong revenue growth after they went into full effect.

What you are saying is the Obama was just not up to the job.

And what policies do you attribute this to?

Had Al Gore won guess what, the economy would still have gone into recession and the surplus still would have gone away but he would have instituted the same harmful policies that Clinton did and that Obama did, massive government spending, failed stimulus and tax increases. Then the recession would have been extended and the recovery no where near as strong. What we need now is a President who knows that government is not the answer, business and economic growth are the answers along with restrained spending increases and a stable low tax policy.

ROFL of believe me they are marked. And will be tossed back at you.

Just the last two years, 2003-2007 were GREAT years.

I attribute it to DEMOCRATS, who include Harry Reid, Nancy Pelposi and yes one Senator and then President Obama.

Bush had already solved that for him.

The wars were won and winding down and cost about $80B a year.

The deficit was down to a paltry $161B the last Republican budget, the Democrats including Obama raised it to $1,400B in just two years and kept it over $1,000B the next 4 years. They increased spending by 9% in 2008 and 18% in 2009, with PRESIDENT OBAMA signing the 2009 Omnibus Spending bill into law. And intellectual knows these facts.

I would suggest you do so.

No it's called Obama policy.

Obama policy favors the rich, didn't know that? Has the income gap increased or decreased under President Obama? Have middle class incomes increased or decreased under Obama?

Ahh tax revenues soared after the Bush tax rate cuts. The highest earners not only paid HUGELY more in actual revenues they paid a higher share of the tax bill.

Try responding to what I posted............

It was the Democrats and Obama who created it and then fed it for 8 years.

 

My first reaction is to make fun of anyone who would consider a master's student an authority on economics. But yea, the government has been playing games with numbers since ... well, pretty much since they discovered numbers.

I'd keep it simpler. If you're putting a lot in and getting a lot out of the economy -- if you're needs and wants are satisfied by that process -- you're probably happy with the economy. Most people aren't.

So I'd say the economy sucks right now. *shrug*





​

 

Nice try. at best 2003-7 was a mirage. 2008 was the beginning of trying to pick up the pieces of a complete, total and utter ****-up of cosmic proportions. Well done Bush II

 

Prove your point and show analysis of their economists that has been steered towards a conclusion.

 

Lousy missinformation, the growth was across the board and solid as a rock, along with increasing middle class incomes and soaring tax revenues.

Sorry you don't get your own facts. And thank you for pointing out the failures of Obama's policies to get us into a strong recovery as opposed the success of Bush's. Well done Bush, bad job Obama.

 

Didn't have one what?

Those stocks were overvalued, a datapoint, Microsoft was well past being a start-up, as their IPO was back in the 1980s.

Show the deregulation legislation that made it happen, then.

You mean, a housing bubble, that saw stagnant wages, and tax cuts that created deficits when they should have been paying down on deficits and debt, turning into the largest recession since the Great Depression? With a record like that, no wonder debt and deficits go up so high from Republicans.

The military missed. But, Clinton devoted resources and energy towards eliminating al Queada. Bush didn't and we had 9/11/01. Obama finished the job, by focusing assets on that elimination, that the Bush Administration dropped.

Bush's response was to end the hunt for bin Ladin. His response was to act like it was all hunky dory, until 9/11/01. Then, he missed the mark and started a war in Iraq that had nothing at all to do with al Queada, or US national security.

Not really. Many of those people ended up on welfare, as they had nothing coming in. Besides, your premise has no logic or evidence to support it.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2014/201465/201465pap.pdf

Revenues rising reduced deficits left from Reagan/Bush41. Clinton and Democrats further enacted Keynesian deficit reduction in the 1993-1994, and surpluses came because of that. We wouldn't have been in such good shape without the investments in workforce development and education that Democrats passed.

The rise was mostly in stock markets, while wages stagnated, and fell in real dollars, for the middle class, with poverty rising during the Bush43 terms. And it was all predicated on a housing bubble.

The Federal government.

Growth was never that hot during Bush43 terms. Revenues fell as a percentage of GDP under Bush, and deficits soared instead of balanced budgets, like Clinton and Democrats did in the 1990s. And, unemployment benefits being extended kept many Americans from falling into poverty after the Bush/GOP housing bust and recession.
http://www.dol.gov/dol/maps/euc/euc.htm

http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/07/news/economy/unemployment-insurance-economy/

 

I thought you said you knew the history. This is showing you don't.

It was Democrats and Clinton who grew the economy in the 1990s. And the Democrats haven't had control of the economy since the House became a Republican majority 4 years ago, after obama and the Democrats set the stage for economic growth. It could have been faster without the TeaBaggeds taking control of the house after the 2010 elections.

Democrats proposed bills that would expand businesses and more and better jobs, while Boehner and McConnell blocked them from passing the legislature. you don't seem to grasp simple civics.

 

anemic growth, and it being based on a housing bubble.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/07/238731/graphs-bush-tax-cuts-legacy/

Which was caused by the housing bubble going bust, which started in late 2006, after being identified by Dean Baker in 2002...

 

Perhaps if your friend had a "MASTERS DEGREE" in philosophy he would understand that good is a subjective term and relative to the individual. Economics can also be examined from microeconomics to macroeconomics. The individual is primarily concerned with their own economics, which if good can skew their own view of economics at a macro level.

 

You have imploding rocks where you are?

So which of Bush II's policies do you see as successfully reacting to his economic crisis?

 

This is a absolute fact that NAFTA (Clinton) allowed most of the good paying jobs to move overseas. Obamacare (Obama) created part time jobs that doubled its numbers for the first time in history. Both created excessive damage to the job sector.

Any increase in job numbers are being given to foreign born citizens who will work cheaper in cost for employers.