A Lesson in Civics for Liberals

[Chris]

Then Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy

How did zero sum bets destroy the world economy?

What does the notional amount of the bets have to do with anything?

Because they were hedging the "bets" with AIG. And AIG couldn't cover the loses.

Sheesh.

But AIG did cover the losses. So how did that destroy the world economy?

It wasn't just AIG.

A £516 trillion derivatives ‘time-bomb’
Not for nothing did US billionaire Warren Buffett call them the real ‘weapons of mass destruction’


By Margareta Pagano and Simon Evans
12 October 12 2008

The market is worth more than $516 trillion, (£303 trillion), roughly 10 times the value of the entire world’s output: it’s been called the “ticking time-bomb”.

It’s a market in which the lead protagonists – typically aggressive, highly educated, and now wealthy young men – have flourished in the derivatives boom. But it’s a market that is set to come to a crashing halt – the Great Unwind has begun.

Last week the beginning of the end started for many hedge funds with the combination of diving market values and worried investors pulling out their cash for safer climes.

Some of the world’s biggest hedge funds – SAC Capital, Lone Pine and Tiger Global – all revealed they were sitting on double-digit losses this year. September’s falls wiped out any profits made in the rest of the year. Polygon, once a darling of the London hedge fund circuit, last week said it was capping the basic salaries of its managers to £100,000 each. Not bad for the average punter but some way off the tens of millions plundered by these hotshots during the good times. But few will be shedding any tears.

The complex and opaque derivatives markets in which these hedge funds played has been dubbed the world’s biggest black hole because they operate outside of the grasp of governments, tax inspectors and regulators. They operate in a parallel, shadow world to the rest of the banking system. They are private contracts between two companies or institutions which can’t be controlled or properly assessed. In themselves derivative contracts are not dangerous, but if one of them should go wrong – the bad 2 per cent as it’s been called – then it is the domino effect which could be so enormous and scary.

A £516 trillion derivatives ‘time-bomb’ « Did You Know

 

[BluePhantom]

Same concept as why people blame the quarterback for everything. There's a reason why Dan Marino never won a Super Bowl. He had no team around him. Why did Jake Plummer get sacked like crazy and was a disaster for the Cardinals, but when he went to Denver his numbers improved dramatically? Simple....Denver had a strong offensive line and the Cardinals had shit. People in Arizona were screaming for Plummer's head. What they should have been screaming for was a fucking left tackle. It's the same concept.

Just to put the final point on this...consider that the average person reads headlines and maybe they quickly scan the article. Very few people ever fully read an article then go do research to find out if what was written in the article is accurate. Well offense gets headlines, defense wins Super Bowls. Now I can't remember the exact stats for this but a few years ago I did a statistical analysis of common things that happen in determining who wins and loses a football game. When a quarterback passes for 300+ yards their team wins about 45% of the time. When the defense limits the opposing team to under 30 carries they win about 95% of the time. But what gets the headlines? The quarterback throwing for 300 yards.

Same concept with politics. Presidents get headlines and as such they get the credit/blame even though it's usually not up to them at all.

 

[BlindBoo]

Since I see the same argument happening on multiple threads I am going to post this as a separate thread so i can just link it up to the others. The common argument I see from many (I won't say all) liberals is stuff like "look what happened to the economy during Bush's term vs. Clinton's term." As I am a teacher, I am happy to educate you thoroughly on this topic. I am really going to spell this out for you too so there are no questions.

Forget about who was president. The president doesn't control spending. The president doesn't pass laws. The president doesn't set interest levels. The president does not set economic policy that influences business and through it, the economy. Congress and the Fed do that. The president can ask Congress to do something, but it's ultimately up to Congress to say "yes" or "no". The president is only responsible when he has a Congress that is willing to do what the president says. This is basic civics. This is shit you should have learned in high school.

Let's go back to January, 1993 when Clinton took office. At the time he had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives and they were willing to advance Clinton's agenda. That ended in January, 1995 when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. The Republicans were not willing to simply do what Clinton told them and they advanced their own economic agenda. This was the case throughout the rest of Clinton's terms in office. So from January, 1993 through December, 1994 it was Clinton who bore responsibility for the economy because Congress was doing what he told them. From January, 1995 through December, 2000 it was the Congressional Republicans that controlled the economy.

Now when Bush took office in January of 2001, just like Clinton's first two years, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and they did what Bush told them to do until December, 2006. At that point the Democrats took over both houses of Congress and they told Bush to shove his agenda up his ass and did their own thing. That means from January, 2007 - December, 2008 it was the Congressional Democrats who ran the economy.

When Obama took office in January, 2009 the Democrats still held both houses of Congress but they did what Obama told them to do. So Obama was in control of the economy until December, 2010. After the Republicans took the House of Representatives in January, 2011 no one has been able to control the economy because Congress is split.

So let me give you a breakdown of who was in control of the economy and when:

January, 1993 - December, 1994 = Bill Clinton
January, 1995 - December, 2000 = Congressional Republicans
January, 2001 - December, 2006 = George W. Bush
January, 2007 - December, 2008 = Congressional Democrats
January, 2009 - December, 2010 = Barack Obama
January, 2011 - now = no one

Now there are rare occasions when the president has to work with a Congress that is controlled by the other party and Congress is willing to do what the president says anyhow. This is VERY rare however. One example would be 1985 through roughly mid to late 1987. During this time the Democrats controlled Congress but Reagan was president. During Reagan's first term the Congressional Democrats had a tendency to play hard ball. After Reagan's landslide re-election; however, they did exactly what Reagan told them anyhow because they were absolutely terrified of public backlash due to his immense popularity. This is the exception; not the rule.

Now if all you want to do is play the game of looking at a given stat and blaming it on (or giving credit to) whoever happened to be the president at the time to further your political agenda, knock yourself out, but you are basing your argument on a complete ignorance of how government works.

If you really want to understand who is responsible for what, stop looking at the dates of presidential terms, and start looking at what happened with the economy according to the dates I just laid out above.

Your civics lesson does not equate in to an economic lesson.

 

[BluePhantom]

What a HUGE pile of right wing rubbish.

Maybe you just FORGOT...

Bush's 'ownership society'

"America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.

End of the ‘Ownership Society’

Oh my God what a total misrepresentation of what the Ownership Society was. You make it sound like Bush was talking about physical ownership of material goods and property. Actually all you did was copy and paste a section of an op-ed from the Daily Beast (not exactly a bastion of unbiased news reporting).

The Ownership Society was about a society wherein the people take ownership of their lives. It's the opposite of the Entitlement Society. It means the people take responsibility for themselves, they make their own decisions on health care, savings, retirement, whether or not they can afford to buy a house,buy a car, etc. Suggesting that Bush was pressing the concept that everyone has a right to own shit.....that's fucking laughable. It was about "government should get the hell out of the way and let individuals decide what is best for them and what they can afford to do." Jesus H. Christ.

 

[Sallow]

Same concept as why people blame the quarterback for everything. There's a reason why Dan Marino never won a Super Bowl. He had no team around him. Why did Jake Plummer get sacked like crazy and was a disaster for the Cardinals, but when he went to Denver his numbers improved dramatically? Simple....Denver had a strong offensive line and the Cardinals had shit. People in Arizona were screaming for Plummer's head. What they should have been screaming for was a fucking left tackle. It's the same concept.

Just to put the final point on this...consider that the average person reads headlines and maybe they quickly scan the article. Very few people ever fully read an article then go do research to find out if what was written in the article is accurate. Well offense gets headlines, defense wins Super Bowls. Now I can't remember the exact stats for this but a few years ago I did a statistical analysis of common things that happen in determining who wins and loses a football game. When a quarterback passes for 300+ yards their team wins about 45% of the time. When the defense limits the opposing team to under 30 carries they win about 95% of the time. But what gets the headlines? The quarterback throwing for 300 yards.

Same concept with politics. Presidents get headlines and as such they get the credit/blame even though it's usually not up to them at all.

It's always really annoying to see sports compared to politics. You couldn't have two more different disciplines.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because they were hedging the "bets" with AIG. And AIG couldn't cover the loses.

Sheesh.

But AIG did cover the losses. So how did that destroy the world economy?

It wasn't just AIG.

A £516 trillion derivatives ‘time-bomb’
Not for nothing did US billionaire Warren Buffett call them the real ‘weapons of mass destruction’


By Margareta Pagano and Simon Evans
12 October 12 2008

The market is worth more than $516 trillion, (£303 trillion), roughly 10 times the value of the entire world’s output: it’s been called the “ticking time-bomb”.

It’s a market in which the lead protagonists – typically aggressive, highly educated, and now wealthy young men – have flourished in the derivatives boom. But it’s a market that is set to come to a crashing halt – the Great Unwind has begun.

Last week the beginning of the end started for many hedge funds with the combination of diving market values and worried investors pulling out their cash for safer climes.

Some of the world’s biggest hedge funds – SAC Capital, Lone Pine and Tiger Global – all revealed they were sitting on double-digit losses this year. September’s falls wiped out any profits made in the rest of the year. Polygon, once a darling of the London hedge fund circuit, last week said it was capping the basic salaries of its managers to £100,000 each. Not bad for the average punter but some way off the tens of millions plundered by these hotshots during the good times. But few will be shedding any tears.

The complex and opaque derivatives markets in which these hedge funds played has been dubbed the world’s biggest black hole because they operate outside of the grasp of governments, tax inspectors and regulators. They operate in a parallel, shadow world to the rest of the banking system. They are private contracts between two companies or institutions which can’t be controlled or properly assessed. In themselves derivative contracts are not dangerous, but if one of them should go wrong – the bad 2 per cent as it’s been called – then it is the domino effect which could be so enormous and scary.

A £516 trillion derivatives ‘time-bomb’ « Did You Know

It wasn't just AIG.

Your original claim was wrong, I know.

The market is worth more than $516 trillion

No it isn't.

They are private contracts between two companies or institutions which can’t be controlled or properly assessed. In themselves derivative contracts are not dangerous

Excellent!

but if one of them should go wrong

How does a contract "go wrong"?

 

[BluePhantom]

It's always really annoying to see sports compared to politics. You couldn't have two more different disciplines.

So your post is not to refute the point, simply to say you don't like the way I presented it. Fine with me.

 

[Sallow]

What a HUGE pile of right wing rubbish.

Maybe you just FORGOT...

Bush's 'ownership society'

"America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.

End of the ‘Ownership Society’

Oh my God what a total misrepresentation of what the Ownership Society was. You make it sound like Bush was talking about physical ownership of material goods and property. Actually all you did was copy and paste a section of an op-ed from the Daily Beast (not exactly a bastion of unbiased news reporting).

The Ownership Society was about a society wherein the people take ownership of their lives. It's the opposite of the Entitlement Society. It means the people take responsibility for themselves, they make their own decisions on health care, savings, retirement, whether or not they can afford to buy a house,buy a car, etc. Suggesting that Bush was pressing the concept that everyone has a right to own shit.....that's fucking laughable. It was about "government should get the hell out of the way and let individuals decide what is best for them and what they can afford to do." Jesus H. Christ.

Ah so..the "ownership" society does not have a need for government..correct? Because stuff like infrastructure, police protection, and a fire department are all a part of the "entitlement" society.

 

[Sallow]

It's always really annoying to see sports compared to politics. You couldn't have two more different disciplines.

So your post is not to refute the point, simply to say you don't like the way I presented it. Fine with me.

Refute what point? Sports is the physical conditioning of the body to excel at a game. Politics is the profession of setting policy, legislating and interacting with others to govern.

Very different things.

 

[BluePhantom]

Ah so..the "ownership" society does not have a need for government..correct? Because stuff like infrastructure, police protection, and a fire department are all a part of the "entitlement" society.

Neither Bush nor I said anything of the sort. Quit trying to weasel your way through the discussion by twisting what was said.

 

[grunt11b]

As I am a teacher............

So is my wife.

How does it feel to be a leech and undeserving of the pay you receive from public taxes? (At least according to conservatives)

Noone is saying that public employees do not deserve there pay. I am a federal employee and get paid well. I would like to hear from you a quote from a conservative that says teachers are not deserving of the pay they receive.
Also, my brothers a teacher here in west virginia but because we are originally from PA he has been trying to find a job teaching there but cannot find one, he is now getting ready to enter the State Police academy there to become a Trooper. Most of my family are public employees and I am a conservative, I think you pain a broad picture of conservatives that simply is not true.

 

[BluePhantom]

It's always really annoying to see sports compared to politics. You couldn't have two more different disciplines.

So your post is not to refute the point, simply to say you don't like the way I presented it. Fine with me.

Refute what point? Sports is the physical conditioning of the body to excel at a game. Politics is the profession of setting policy, legislating and interacting with others to govern.

Very different things.

The point was not about sports. The point was about what people pay attention to and why their focus is often misguided. The example I gave should be easy enough for you to understand, yet instead of focusing on the thrust of the argument, you attempt to divert attention from it by focusing on the example instead of the issue. Why does that not surprise me?

 

[grunt11b]

Since I see the same argument happening on multiple threads I am going to post this as a separate thread so i can just link it up to the others. The common argument I see from many (I won't say all) liberals is stuff like "look what happened to the economy during Bush's term vs. Clinton's term." As I am a teacher, I am happy to educate you thoroughly on this topic. I am really going to spell this out for you too so there are no questions.

Forget about who was president. The president doesn't control spending. The president doesn't pass laws. The president doesn't set interest levels. The president does not set economic policy that influences business and through it, the economy. Congress and the Fed do that. The president can ask Congress to do something, but it's ultimately up to Congress to say "yes" or "no". The president is only responsible when he has a Congress that is willing to do what the president says. This is basic civics. This is shit you should have learned in high school.

Let's go back to January, 1993 when Clinton took office. At the time he had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives and they were willing to advance Clinton's agenda. That ended in January, 1995 when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. The Republicans were not willing to simply do what Clinton told them and they advanced their own economic agenda. This was the case throughout the rest of Clinton's terms in office. So from January, 1993 through December, 1994 it was Clinton who bore responsibility for the economy because Congress was doing what he told them. From January, 1995 through December, 2000 it was the Congressional Republicans that controlled the economy.

Now when Bush took office in January of 2001, just like Clinton's first two years, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and they did what Bush told them to do until December, 2006. At that point the Democrats took over both houses of Congress and they told Bush to shove his agenda up his ass and did their own thing. That means from January, 2007 - December, 2008 it was the Congressional Democrats who ran the economy.

When Obama took office in January, 2009 the Democrats still held both houses of Congress but they did what Obama told them to do. So Obama was in control of the economy until December, 2010. After the Republicans took the House of Representatives in January, 2011 no one has been able to control the economy because Congress is split.

So let me give you a breakdown of who was in control of the economy and when:

January, 1993 - December, 1994 = Bill Clinton
January, 1995 - December, 2000 = Congressional Republicans
January, 2001 - December, 2006 = George W. Bush
January, 2007 - December, 2008 = Congressional Democrats
January, 2009 - December, 2010 = Barack Obama
January, 2011 - now = no one

Now there are rare occasions when the president has to work with a Congress that is controlled by the other party and Congress is willing to do what the president says anyhow. This is VERY rare however. One example would be 1985 through roughly mid to late 1987. During this time the Democrats controlled Congress but Reagan was president. During Reagan's first term the Congressional Democrats had a tendency to play hard ball. After Reagan's landslide re-election; however, they did exactly what Reagan told them anyhow because they were absolutely terrified of public backlash due to his immense popularity. This is the exception; not the rule.

Now if all you want to do is play the game of looking at a given stat and blaming it on (or giving credit to) whoever happened to be the president at the time to further your political agenda, knock yourself out, but you are basing your argument on a complete ignorance of how government works.

If you really want to understand who is responsible for what, stop looking at the dates of presidential terms, and start looking at what happened with the economy according to the dates I just laid out above.

Isn't it Republicands blaming Obama for this economy. you are preaching to the wrong people. Republicans controlled Congress and the White House from 2001 to 2007 and they own a majority of what is wrong with this economy. Clinton and Republican own some responsibility because of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. Anyone who blames Democratic controlled Congress in 2007 of the the Stock Market in 2007 is ignorant and unable to point to one thing Congress did to cause the Stock Market crash.

After 3 years in office, 2 of which the democrats had complete control of the house/senate and white house...this economy now belongs to them. With a filibuster proof congress and the white house they had every opportunity to pass legislation that would have turned this around, but instead chose to pass legislation that sank the economy even further into the ground. While Bush and some in the GOP can be blamed for some of it, they cannot howvere be blamed for all of it. When you guys on the left decide to hold your own people accountable as we on the right have done the last few years only then can we turn this ship around. Dont give Obama,pelosi and reid and the like a free pass, hold them accountable.

 

[grunt11b]

Isn't it Republicands blaming Obama for this economy. you are preaching to the wrong people. Republicans controlled Congress and the White House from 2001 to 2007 and they own a majority of what is wrong with this economy. Clinton and Republican own some responsibility because of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. Anyone who blames Democratic controlled Congress in 2007 of the the Stock Market in 2007 is ignorant and unable to point to one thing Congress did to cause the Stock Market crash.

First off, the Dems had strong minorities all throughout the 2001-2006 period. The Dems took control at the beginning of 2007. The economy did not start going bad until the middle of 2008. Remember McCain rushing back to Washington to deal with the crisis during the campaign? Yeah, that was 2008. The market didnt crash until then. And the economy has little to do with the stock market. The market recovered through 2009 and the economy is still the shits. This is thanks to Dem policies like Obamacare and Dodd Frank.

The stock market crash happened in Sep. 2007, the Consumer Confidence crash happened in june 2007( after it leveled from a series of dips due to Bush's irrational response to 911) and the housing crash was in 2006. None of which had anything to due with Obama,Dodd or Frank.

We had a stock market crash in 2007? I did not know that.
And what would have been the proper response to 911?

 

[grunt11b]

I love all this re-writing of history by Republicans.

Bush started two useless wars, a trillion dollar unfunded Medicare program, and defunded the government with tax breaks for the rich.

Then Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy, while Bush's SEC looked the other way.

There's your civics lesson for you.

Last I checked, al-queada started the war, and Bush had a majority in the senate and congress of democrats who overwhelmingly supported and gave him authority to go to war, unlike the illegal wars without congressional approval Obama got us in in Libya.

 

[grunt11b]

Since I see the same argument happening on multiple threads I am going to post this as a separate thread so i can just link it up to the others. The common argument I see from many (I won't say all) liberals is stuff like "look what happened to the economy during Bush's term vs. Clinton's term." As I am a teacher, I am happy to educate you thoroughly on this topic. I am really going to spell this out for you too so there are no questions.

Forget about who was president. The president doesn't control spending. The president doesn't pass laws. The president doesn't set interest levels. The president does not set economic policy that influences business and through it, the economy. Congress and the Fed do that. The president can ask Congress to do something, but it's ultimately up to Congress to say "yes" or "no". The president is only responsible when he has a Congress that is willing to do what the president says. This is basic civics. This is shit you should have learned in high school.

Let's go back to January, 1993 when Clinton took office. At the time he had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives and they were willing to advance Clinton's agenda. That ended in January, 1995 when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. The Republicans were not willing to simply do what Clinton told them and they advanced their own economic agenda. This was the case throughout the rest of Clinton's terms in office. So from January, 1993 through December, 1994 it was Clinton who bore responsibility for the economy because Congress was doing what he told them. From January, 1995 through December, 2000 it was the Congressional Republicans that controlled the economy.

Now when Bush took office in January of 2001, just like Clinton's first two years, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and they did what Bush told them to do until December, 2006. At that point the Democrats took over both houses of Congress and they told Bush to shove his agenda up his ass and did their own thing. That means from January, 2007 - December, 2008 it was the Congressional Democrats who ran the economy.

When Obama took office in January, 2009 the Democrats still held both houses of Congress but they did what Obama told them to do. So Obama was in control of the economy until December, 2010. After the Republicans took the House of Representatives in January, 2011 no one has been able to control the economy because Congress is split.

So let me give you a breakdown of who was in control of the economy and when:

January, 1993 - December, 1994 = Bill Clinton
January, 1995 - December, 2000 = Congressional Republicans
January, 2001 - December, 2006 = George W. Bush
January, 2007 - December, 2008 = Congressional Democrats
January, 2009 - December, 2010 = Barack Obama
January, 2011 - now = no one

Now there are rare occasions when the president has to work with a Congress that is controlled by the other party and Congress is willing to do what the president says anyhow. This is VERY rare however. One example would be 1985 through roughly mid to late 1987. During this time the Democrats controlled Congress but Reagan was president. During Reagan's first term the Congressional Democrats had a tendency to play hard ball. After Reagan's landslide re-election; however, they did exactly what Reagan told them anyhow because they were absolutely terrified of public backlash due to his immense popularity. This is the exception; not the rule.

Now if all you want to do is play the game of looking at a given stat and blaming it on (or giving credit to) whoever happened to be the president at the time to further your political agenda, knock yourself out, but you are basing your argument on a complete ignorance of how government works.

If you really want to understand who is responsible for what, stop looking at the dates of presidential terms, and start looking at what happened with the economy according to the dates I just laid out above.

Why don't you just skip the lecture and tell us what you want to blame Obama for,

specifically.

Everything from 2008 on up is a good start, how much time you got?

 

[grunt11b]

Holy shit, you could get a job rewriting history and textbooks in Texas. You make the wingnut bullshit sound purdy...

Nicely written but ultimately completely incorrect. Leaves out stuff like historically, if a president wants a war..he gets it. And congress, when dominated by conservatives, will do everything in it's power to thwart or negate the power of the opposing party.

Especially when the opposing party would like nothing more than to bring the country to it's knees and do away with the constitution.
Also, when the Democrats had a filibuster proof house and senate where they open to GOP ideas or did they just ram there own agenda through regardless of what the GOP thought? You cant complain about one side doing it if your not going to complain about there other as well.

 

[grunt11b]

First off, the Dems had strong minorities all throughout the 2001-2006 period. The Dems took control at the beginning of 2007. The economy did not start going bad until the middle of 2008. Remember McCain rushing back to Washington to deal with the crisis during the campaign? Yeah, that was 2008. The market didnt crash until then. And the economy has little to do with the stock market. The market recovered through 2009 and the economy is still the shits. This is thanks to Dem policies like Obamacare and Dodd Frank.

Well go on then. Explain in detail how Obamacare and Dodd/Frank caused this economic mess. Bear in mind, neither is fully implemented yet. So this should be interesting. Sorta like "Minority Report" without all the logic.

When it comes to Obamacare, it's pure speculation. Corporations know that they cannot afford to keep employees or hire new ones when Obamacare is enacted, so they simply quite hiring new employees and have laid off countless others.
Obamacare's Corporate Cost Burden? - Fox News Video - Fox News
Uncertainty alone kills job growth and the economy.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV4u-9qU96U]Lofchie Says Dodd-Frank Creates Model Of Uncertainty - YouTube[/ame]

 

[grunt11b]

Since I see the same argument happening on multiple threads I am going to post this as a separate thread so i can just link it up to the others. The common argument I see from many (I won't say all) liberals is stuff like "look what happened to the economy during Bush's term vs. Clinton's term." As I am a teacher, I am happy to educate you thoroughly on this topic. I am really going to spell this out for you too so there are no questions.

Forget about who was president. The president doesn't control spending. The president doesn't pass laws. The president doesn't set interest levels. The president does not set economic policy that influences business and through it, the economy. Congress and the Fed do that. The president can ask Congress to do something, but it's ultimately up to Congress to say "yes" or "no". The president is only responsible when he has a Congress that is willing to do what the president says. This is basic civics. This is shit you should have learned in high school.

Let's go back to January, 1993 when Clinton took office. At the time he had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives and they were willing to advance Clinton's agenda. That ended in January, 1995 when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. The Republicans were not willing to simply do what Clinton told them and they advanced their own economic agenda. This was the case throughout the rest of Clinton's terms in office. So from January, 1993 through December, 1994 it was Clinton who bore responsibility for the economy because Congress was doing what he told them. From January, 1995 through December, 2000 it was the Congressional Republicans that controlled the economy.

Now when Bush took office in January of 2001, just like Clinton's first two years, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and they did what Bush told them to do until December, 2006. At that point the Democrats took over both houses of Congress and they told Bush to shove his agenda up his ass and did their own thing. That means from January, 2007 - December, 2008 it was the Congressional Democrats who ran the economy.

When Obama took office in January, 2009 the Democrats still held both houses of Congress but they did what Obama told them to do. So Obama was in control of the economy until December, 2010. After the Republicans took the House of Representatives in January, 2011 no one has been able to control the economy because Congress is split.

So let me give you a breakdown of who was in control of the economy and when:

January, 1993 - December, 1994 = Bill Clinton
January, 1995 - December, 2000 = Congressional Republicans
January, 2001 - December, 2006 = George W. Bush
January, 2007 - December, 2008 = Congressional Democrats
January, 2009 - December, 2010 = Barack Obama
January, 2011 - now = no one

Now there are rare occasions when the president has to work with a Congress that is controlled by the other party and Congress is willing to do what the president says anyhow. This is VERY rare however. One example would be 1985 through roughly mid to late 1987. During this time the Democrats controlled Congress but Reagan was president. During Reagan's first term the Congressional Democrats had a tendency to play hard ball. After Reagan's landslide re-election; however, they did exactly what Reagan told them anyhow because they were absolutely terrified of public backlash due to his immense popularity. This is the exception; not the rule.

Now if all you want to do is play the game of looking at a given stat and blaming it on (or giving credit to) whoever happened to be the president at the time to further your political agenda, knock yourself out, but you are basing your argument on a complete ignorance of how government works.

If you really want to understand who is responsible for what, stop looking at the dates of presidential terms, and start looking at what happened with the economy according to the dates I just laid out above.

Very nice post.

It is also helpful to remember that the economy does not turn on a dime. It usually takes a bit of time for the effects of a policy to start being felt, and can often show continuing ripples well after, depending on what the policy is.

Out of curiosity, BP, what do you teach?

Which is why Clinton had such a good economy and bush had such a bad one!

Clinton had a decent economy because he worked with Republicans, not against them like Obama is right now. The blame Bush window has now past, time to hold the current president and his party accountable dont you think?

 

[Sallow]

Holy shit, you could get a job rewriting history and textbooks in Texas. You make the wingnut bullshit sound purdy...

Nicely written but ultimately completely incorrect. Leaves out stuff like historically, if a president wants a war..he gets it. And congress, when dominated by conservatives, will do everything in it's power to thwart or negate the power of the opposing party.

Especially when the opposing party would like nothing more than to bring the country to it's knees and do away with the constitution.
Also, when the Democrats had a filibuster proof house and senate where they open to GOP ideas or did they just ram there own agenda through regardless of what the GOP thought? You cant complain about one side doing it if your not going to complain about there other as well.

The Senate (not the house) was never "filibuster" proof..as the many filibusters have proved. And at no time did Democrats NOT include republican ideas. ObamaCare IS THE REPUBLICAN HEALTHCARE PLAN! I don't know how much more to stress that. Cap and Trade? Republican. TARP? Republican. GM Bailout? Republican!

Gosh.