Are We Better Off...?

[The Rabbi]

Nope, he didn't. You haven't produced the evidence to support your contention because it does not exists. Let's move on here.

Yet another ripe one drops from the keyboard of "Jake, King of the Unsubstantiated Statement."

 

[Titanic Sailor]

You can forget about fixing Bush now, you have worse issues to deal with these neocommunists. It hasn't even been a year yet, and oh man, are we screwed coming up here. The little guy has a bulls eye on him, and Uncle Sam is the shooter.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

How's the Tarp and robulus accountability going?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

IS AMERICA BETTER OFF THAN WE WERE 9 MONTHS AGO?

In someways yes, and in someways no.

Nine Months ago the Dow was heading down fast. In January it was about 9000 at the high, its about 9700 now, so there' some recovery underway on Wall Street. Unemployment had started to creep up as GWB's tem ended and it now seems to have stabilized at least (though it is still too high). Gas prices are creeping up, but no where near the high they were at in July of 2008.

The biggest issue is that its too early to tell if things are turning around. The economy appears to have stabilized at least a little. If things continue as they are, then 3 years from now folks may very well conclude that they're better off under Obama than they were under the GOP. If you have to force an answer right now (which is pointless as the closest election where folks could do something about it is a year a way), that answer is that we're probably mostly worse off.

There's still a lot of left over crap from the Bush years to sort through so I'm willing to give Obama a pass on this question. Get back to me in 2010.

 

[rightwinger]

You can forget about fixing Bush now, you have worse issues to deal with these neocommunists. It hasn't even been a year yet, and oh man, are we screwed coming up here. The little guy has a bulls eye on him, and Uncle Sam is the shooter.

Titanic learned a new word!

"neocommunist"....he uses it in almost every post

Isn't it cute???

 

[Titanic Sailor]

neocomms, neocomms, neocomms.

 

[Old Rocks]

There was bound to be some kind of recovery.
But with the stimulus having only spent about 10% of what was allocated you can't attribute it to the stimulus. House prices are rising in part because the gov't is subsidizing loans to people who can't afford to pay for them. Sound familiar? How did we get here to begin with?But unemployment continues to rise. We have lost many jobs since January, and are about to lose more as GM closes Saturn. Employers are looking at a bunch of new taxes and mandates courtesy of team Obama and saying we're gonna wait and see before hiring anyone.
The only bright spots are overseas. Those countries eschewed an Obama type bail out and are seeing their economies recover nicely, without the burden of enormous gov't deficits. Any US company doing a lot of business overseas will be doing well, especially since they get paid in Euros and then translate those earnings into weaker dollars.

A home for everyone, that's how. Begun with some semblance of regulation under Clinton, the Bush administration took home ownership for minorities one step further in 2003 by promoting no down payment, easing of qualifications, low interest rates, and partnership with independent mortgage companies (i.e., Countrywide) which screwed the entire housing market.

TARP money (loans, not bailouts) kept the major financial institutions at least enough intact so that the entire flow of credit didn't get washed away on a global basis, money and credit that private enterprises need to keep their doors open. If GM and Chrysler had been allowed to go bellyup, so would the tens of thousands of supporting businesses.

You can following the stimulus money, almost daily, here:
Eye on the Stimulus - ProPublica

I get tired of explaining the reasons WHY things were done they way they were. Why don't YOU explain how YOU would have done things any differently taking into consideration the speed with which the economy began to crash.

Those programs were pushed by Rep Barney Frank sometimes over the objections of Republicans in Congress. So blaming Bush for this is getting old.
GM did go belly up, as did Chrysler. Or don't you read the papers.
The only blame I can assign to Bush was naming Bernanke Fed Secretary. He held rates too low and ignited this speculative bubble.
What would I have done? I would have stabilized the banking system (banks had ceased lending to each other), and then sat back and watched the individual banks fail and arranged for orderly sales of their assets. I would have cut taxes, esp for businesses and I would have made the Bush tax cuts permanent. It would have been far cheaper and resulted in a quicker more sustainable recovery.
As it is, we have decided that some banks are too big to fail and created moral hazard all over the place. GM is still a mess. A real bankruptcy would have cleaned out their problems.

I never ceased to be amazed at you Rushpublicans. More tax cuts. More defunding of the government when we are running record deficits.

What is needed is a tax on the wealthy that matchs the real tax burden on the middle class.

 

[The Rabbi]

A home for everyone, that's how. Begun with some semblance of regulation under Clinton, the Bush administration took home ownership for minorities one step further in 2003 by promoting no down payment, easing of qualifications, low interest rates, and partnership with independent mortgage companies (i.e., Countrywide) which screwed the entire housing market.

TARP money (loans, not bailouts) kept the major financial institutions at least enough intact so that the entire flow of credit didn't get washed away on a global basis, money and credit that private enterprises need to keep their doors open. If GM and Chrysler had been allowed to go bellyup, so would the tens of thousands of supporting businesses.

You can following the stimulus money, almost daily, here:
Eye on the Stimulus - ProPublica

I get tired of explaining the reasons WHY things were done they way they were. Why don't YOU explain how YOU would have done things any differently taking into consideration the speed with which the economy began to crash.

Those programs were pushed by Rep Barney Frank sometimes over the objections of Republicans in Congress. So blaming Bush for this is getting old.
GM did go belly up, as did Chrysler. Or don't you read the papers.
The only blame I can assign to Bush was naming Bernanke Fed Secretary. He held rates too low and ignited this speculative bubble.
What would I have done? I would have stabilized the banking system (banks had ceased lending to each other), and then sat back and watched the individual banks fail and arranged for orderly sales of their assets. I would have cut taxes, esp for businesses and I would have made the Bush tax cuts permanent. It would have been far cheaper and resulted in a quicker more sustainable recovery.
As it is, we have decided that some banks are too big to fail and created moral hazard all over the place. GM is still a mess. A real bankruptcy would have cleaned out their problems.

I never ceased to be amazed at you Rushpublicans. More tax cuts. More defunding of the government when we are running record deficits.

What is needed is a tax on the wealthy that matchs the real tax burden on the middle class.

Tax cuts have been proven to stimulate the economy far mroe than "stimulus spending." We run record deficits because we spend too damn much. Giving the gov't more money will only cause them to spend more money.
The wealthy (whoever they are) already pay a disproportionally large amount of tax. And since the tax they pay on income serves to discourage their economic activity, which is a stimulus for the economy, logic suggests that we should cut taxes on the wealthy, not raise them.

 

[rightwinger]

Those programs were pushed by Rep Barney Frank sometimes over the objections of Republicans in Congress. So blaming Bush for this is getting old.
GM did go belly up, as did Chrysler. Or don't you read the papers.
The only blame I can assign to Bush was naming Bernanke Fed Secretary. He held rates too low and ignited this speculative bubble.
What would I have done? I would have stabilized the banking system (banks had ceased lending to each other), and then sat back and watched the individual banks fail and arranged for orderly sales of their assets. I would have cut taxes, esp for businesses and I would have made the Bush tax cuts permanent. It would have been far cheaper and resulted in a quicker more sustainable recovery.
As it is, we have decided that some banks are too big to fail and created moral hazard all over the place. GM is still a mess. A real bankruptcy would have cleaned out their problems.

I never ceased to be amazed at you Rushpublicans. More tax cuts. More defunding of the government when we are running record deficits.

What is needed is a tax on the wealthy that matchs the real tax burden on the middle class.

Tax cuts have been proven to stimulate the economy far mroe than "stimulus spending." We run record deficits because we spend too damn much. Giving the gov't more money will only cause them to spend more money.
The wealthy (whoever they are) already pay a disproportionally large amount of tax. And since the tax they pay on income serves to discourage their economic activity, which is a stimulus for the economy, logic suggests that we should cut taxes on the wealthy, not raise them.

Excuse me while I puke.....




Thanks...I feel much better....

The idea that after the economic disaster of the last eight years that real Americans still advocate a tax cut as a means to stimulate the economy is absurd. What the hell have you been drinking? Trickle down is really....tinkle down. We give them money and they piss on us

Where have the tax cuts gone?

Bush went $5 TRILLION in debt to give the tax cuts. The economy crashed...Jobs went to China....AND....All Americans suffered....except for 10%

Which 10% ?????

The richest 10% who actually made money in the recession while the rest of America had to BAIL THEM OUT

 

[The Rabbi]

I never ceased to be amazed at you Rushpublicans. More tax cuts. More defunding of the government when we are running record deficits.

What is needed is a tax on the wealthy that matchs the real tax burden on the middle class.

Tax cuts have been proven to stimulate the economy far mroe than "stimulus spending." We run record deficits because we spend too damn much. Giving the gov't more money will only cause them to spend more money.
The wealthy (whoever they are) already pay a disproportionally large amount of tax. And since the tax they pay on income serves to discourage their economic activity, which is a stimulus for the economy, logic suggests that we should cut taxes on the wealthy, not raise them.

Excuse me while I puke.....




Thanks...I feel much better....

The idea that after the economic disaster of the last eight years that real Americans still advocate a tax cut as a means to stimulate the economy is absurd. What the hell have you been drinking? Trickle down is really....tinkle down. We give them money and they piss on us

Where have the tax cuts gone?

Bush went $5 TRILLION in debt to give the tax cuts. The economy crashed...Jobs went to China....AND....All Americans suffered....except for 10%

Which 10% ?????

The richest 10% who actually made money in the recession while the rest of America had to BAIL THEM OUT

<snicker> Do you actually believe that?<snicker>
I'd ask you to post proof for anything you've written here (hell, anywhere on this site for that matter) but that would be a joke.

 

[MaggieMae]

How's the Tarp and robulus accountability going?

So far, taxpayer return on the TARP investment has been 15%. Not too shabby when you guys thought it would ALL be flushed. I don't know what "robulus" accountability is, so you must enlighten me, genius.

 

[MaggieMae]

Those programs were pushed by Rep Barney Frank sometimes over the objections of Republicans in Congress. So blaming Bush for this is getting old.
GM did go belly up, as did Chrysler. Or don't you read the papers.
The only blame I can assign to Bush was naming Bernanke Fed Secretary. He held rates too low and ignited this speculative bubble.
What would I have done? I would have stabilized the banking system (banks had ceased lending to each other), and then sat back and watched the individual banks fail and arranged for orderly sales of their assets. I would have cut taxes, esp for businesses and I would have made the Bush tax cuts permanent. It would have been far cheaper and resulted in a quicker more sustainable recovery.
As it is, we have decided that some banks are too big to fail and created moral hazard all over the place. GM is still a mess. A real bankruptcy would have cleaned out their problems.

I never ceased to be amazed at you Rushpublicans. More tax cuts. More defunding of the government when we are running record deficits.

What is needed is a tax on the wealthy that matchs the real tax burden on the middle class.

Tax cuts have been proven to stimulate the economy far mroe than "stimulus spending." We run record deficits because we spend too damn much. Giving the gov't more money will only cause them to spend more money.
The wealthy (whoever they are) already pay a disproportionally large amount of tax. And since the tax they pay on income serves to discourage their economic activity, which is a stimulus for the economy, logic suggests that we should cut taxes on the wealthy, not raise them.

How did tax cuts stimulate the economy? Why didn't they encourage these once American businesses to remain here, but which now operate overseas? Didn't their CEOs "trickle down" their windfall to shore up their own businesses and keep them on American soil, employing Americans?

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/popups/exporting.america/content.html

 

[The Rabbi]

Does the term "non-sequitur" mean anything to you?
Try this on for size:

Economic Fact #1: The latest World Bank findings show that GDP per capita in the U.S. reached $41,813 (in purchasing power parity dollars) in 2005. This was a third higher than the United Kingdom's, 37% above Germany's and 38% more than Japan's (see chart above).

Economic Fact #2: U.S. output has expanded faster than in most advanced economies since 2000. The IMF reports that real U.S. GDP grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). The U.S. economy is 19% larger than in 2008, and this U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period.

Economic Fact #3: Average per-capita consumption of the U.S. population was second only to Luxembourg's, out of 146 countries covered in 2005. The U.S. average was $32,045. This was 27% above the levels in the UK ($25,155), 38% higher than Canada ($23,526), 30% above France ($23,027) and 47% above Germany ($21,742). China stood at $1,751.

Economic Fact #4: The U.S. unemployment rate averaged 4.7% from 2001-2007. This compares with a 5.2% average rate during President Clinton's term of office, and is well below the euro zone average of 8.3% since 2000.

 

[MaggieMae]

Does the term "non-sequitur" mean anything to you?
Try this on for size:

Economic Fact #1: The latest World Bank findings show that GDP per capita in the U.S. reached $41,813 (in purchasing power parity dollars) in 2005. This was a third higher than the United Kingdom's, 37% above Germany's and 38% more than Japan's (see chart above).

Economic Fact #2: U.S. output has expanded faster than in most advanced economies since 2000. The IMF reports that real U.S. GDP grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). The U.S. economy is 19% larger than in 2008, and this U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period.

Economic Fact #3: Average per-capita consumption of the U.S. population was second only to Luxembourg's, out of 146 countries covered in 2005. The U.S. average was $32,045. This was 27% above the levels in the UK ($25,155), 38% higher than Canada ($23,526), 30% above France ($23,027) and 47% above Germany ($21,742). China stood at $1,751.

Economic Fact #4: The U.S. unemployment rate averaged 4.7% from 2001-2007. This compares with a 5.2% average rate during President Clinton's term of office, and is well below the euro zone average of 8.3% since 2000.

So....wha happened! An economy THAT strong must have had some major kinks in it. Why didn't it hold together? A vibrant economy can only remain that way when workers produce which keeps businesses alive. When said economy suddenly realizes that all those fancy numbers were based on, shall we say misreading and miscalculating certain trends, it means trouble.

 

[nodoginnafight]

"The plane was flying nicely ....... up until it crashed ......."

 

[The Rabbi]

Does the term "non-sequitur" mean anything to you?
Try this on for size:

Economic Fact #1: The latest World Bank findings show that GDP per capita in the U.S. reached $41,813 (in purchasing power parity dollars) in 2005. This was a third higher than the United Kingdom's, 37% above Germany's and 38% more than Japan's (see chart above).

Economic Fact #2: U.S. output has expanded faster than in most advanced economies since 2000. The IMF reports that real U.S. GDP grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). The U.S. economy is 19% larger than in 2008, and this U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period.

Economic Fact #3: Average per-capita consumption of the U.S. population was second only to Luxembourg's, out of 146 countries covered in 2005. The U.S. average was $32,045. This was 27% above the levels in the UK ($25,155), 38% higher than Canada ($23,526), 30% above France ($23,027) and 47% above Germany ($21,742). China stood at $1,751.

Economic Fact #4: The U.S. unemployment rate averaged 4.7% from 2001-2007. This compares with a 5.2% average rate during President Clinton's term of office, and is well below the euro zone average of 8.3% since 2000.

So....wha happened! An economy THAT strong must have had some major kinks in it. Why didn't it hold together? A vibrant economy can only remain that way when workers produce which keeps businesses alive. When said economy suddenly realizes that all those fancy numbers were based on, shall we say misreading and miscalculating certain trends, it means trouble.

So you think strong economies never experience down turns? How old are you?
We have had downturns in 2000, 1990, 1981, 1973, 1960 etc etc back to before the country was founded. This one is no different.
And despite that we have built the strongest economy in the world that has brought a better standing of living to more people than any other system in history.

 

[Shorebreak]

So you think strong economies never experience down turns? How old are you?
We have had downturns in 2000, 1990, 1981, 1973, 1960 etc etc back to before the country was founded. This one is no different.
And despite that we have built the strongest economy in the world that has brought a better standing of living to more people than any other system in history.

This one is no different?

Did those other ones have the US President walking out of meetiungs and announcing that we're going to be accountablke to a new global accounting system, like Bush did in the fall of 2008?

Did those other ones have the Prime Minister of England declaring that we need a new global financial order as a response to the finance crisis?

Was the French President calling for the same thing?

Did those other down turns result in the US government taking over 90% of the mortgage industry, taking control of our largest corporations, setting limits on corporate salaries, and eliminating reporting of dollar distributions by the Federal Reserve?

Did those down turns result in the UN openly talking about creating a new monetary system with a world currency?

Were other nations divesting themselves of the US dollar on a massive scale?

In those other down turns, were foreclosures (which won't hit their peak until 2011) based upon federally mandated loan practices that forced banks to take impossible risks, and enticed buyers with rediculous entry fees and requirements?

I'll tell you the difference between this down turn and others:

This one wasn't created to profit the banks. This one was created to decimate the US economy by bringing us into parity with other economies - so that the US people will swallow entering into a regional economy when they're told that it will help stabilize us and bring back jobs.