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."
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nope, he didn't. You haven't produced the evidence to support your contention because it does not exists. Let's move on here.
IS AMERICA BETTER OFF THAN WE WERE 9 MONTHS AGO?
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.
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.
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.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.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 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.
<snicker> Do you actually believe that?<snicker>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.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 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
How's the Tarp and robulus accountability going?
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.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 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.
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.
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 you think strong economies never experience down turns? How old are you?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.