Face The Facts: The President Inherited a Recession

[California Girl]

What I love best about these threads about economics....

1. Each side blames the other - when, in fact, both sides are equally responsible.

2. Most of you don't know as much about economics as you think you do.

Thanks for the laughs. And, if our politicians could read this shit, they'd be laughing too - at all of you. Cuz while you're busy whining about 'Obama' and 'Bush'.... they (both sides) are robbing you blind.

You're an idiot... And by that I mean that you exhibit the congitive acuity common to a young child.

Now allow me to demonstrate.

You've made the idiotic assertion that 'both sides' are equally responsible... This statement is beyond false, it is ludicrous... utterly baseless, thoroughly void of any factual basis.

Site one Conservative Economic Principle which can even POTENTIALLY bring about economic calamity...

Site one Conservative Economic Policy which you can correlate to economic calamity...

When you fail to sustain your position; which FTR is a 100% certainty, you will be conceding to ME, that you are IN FACT: AN IDIOT.

Now I will be notifying you of this challenge... ignoring that notice, thus the challenge will be a default concession.

Fuck off PMing me, you freak.

 

[California Girl]

People must have missed Greenspan's admission, or basically all of our nation's on-goings from 1995-present day. Liberals were threatening banks to make risky loans to poor people and minorities. Fannie and Freddie did it. Pelosi, and that piece of human garbage Barney Frank, advocated these risky practices, and threatened the banks who resisted.

Then, liberals took the House and Senate in 2006, thanks in large part to public irritation with a brutal, unpredictable war after 9-11. In 2006, before libs took power, our economy was doing quite well, even as Bush was WARNING about the possible housing collapse thanks to Freddie and Fannie and risky loans forced by liberal threats. Greenspan detailed this.

Then the housing bubble hit, and all hell broke loose. If, back in the 90's these bleeding heart liberals would have simply allowed homes to be bought by only those people who could afford them, and responsible enough to pay for them, a large part of this recession may have been avoided.

But, ya know, koombaya, lets all share the wealth, consequences be damned.

All that is true.

Economists have been warning about this shit since 2001. And congress ignored them. To his credit, Bush did try.... just not hard enough. He chickened out.

Both the Dems and the GOP had a hand in this crap.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How much did Bush have to reinvest in the Military to prepare for Iraq???? There's maintenance, attrition, modernization. These things alway's seem to take the hit. Personally I thing the Services should have more to say about what their true needs are, and Congress responding to that, rather than shoving projects down their throat's without regard to their voice. This perspective regards both sides of the Aisle and pork spending.

That said, the Clinton cuts hurt the military making his recovery falsely look good.

I am mildly astounded that someone would, with a straight face, invoke Iraq as an argument as to why we need so much military.

btw, remember when the Cold War supposedly ended? Remember the peace dividend? Remember how Reagan massively increased defense spending with the argument that it would win the Cold War?
Was ending the Cold War really not supposed to create an opportunity for us to rollback defense spending?

Wasn't that at least in part the POINT?

First you misinterpret Iraq spending with repairing mismanagement. Again upkeep, maintenance, repair, and attrition.

Second, my point was to listen to the military more about what their true needs are, Congressmen are not the experts, nor are they good listeners. A prepared military is good at a lot of things, that includes disaster response.

Third, let's distinguish between large stock piles and modernization, we are only effective against current threat, by being current in technology.

Rollbacks on spending??? Is that with eye's open or eye's shut??? Be specific.

Listen to the military? You want to listen to the people who work for the government as to how much government spending we have?

You didn't tell me, how much is enough? We spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined. How much more do we need?

What current threat? Conservatives want to start building missile defenses, which will start every other major power building missile defenses, and everyone will start building better offensive weapons to beat the missile defenses...

...and there you go, off on another budget busting arms race.

When is it enough??

Conservatives complain that SS is spending too much. Medicare is spending too much. Too much is being spent on education. Too much on healthcare for the needy. Too much on this, too much on that,

but never, ever, do conservatives say too much is being spent on the military.

When would it be enough?

Somebody at least give me a number, a goal, a limit, something from the right that would refute the notion that when it comes to the military...

...we can never spend enough.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keep in mind, the trillions that Bush added to the debt generated another big rise in the amount of interest we have to pay on that debt. A trillion dollars borrowed, at 5% interest, costs 50 billion a year in interest. How many trillion did Bush add to the debt?

 

[Rozman]

Whenever people complain about the spending of the Obama administration there's a good number on the left that complain " Well Bush started it" So what does that mean exactly? does that give Obama the OK to do the same thing?. Look I didn't ask this guy to run for President.If he doesn't think it's fair that he stepped into it he can either try to fix it or complain about it. It's too bad he decided to complain about it.
If he feels he's in over his head then he should resign.

 

[The T]

DEBT Folks...DEBT...

An lookie where it spikes? Onward and UPWARD?

SOURCE

 

[Intense]

I am mildly astounded that someone would, with a straight face, invoke Iraq as an argument as to why we need so much military.

btw, remember when the Cold War supposedly ended? Remember the peace dividend? Remember how Reagan massively increased defense spending with the argument that it would win the Cold War?
Was ending the Cold War really not supposed to create an opportunity for us to rollback defense spending?

Wasn't that at least in part the POINT?

First you misinterpret Iraq spending with repairing mismanagement. Again upkeep, maintenance, repair, and attrition.

Second, my point was to listen to the military more about what their true needs are, Congressmen are not the experts, nor are they good listeners. A prepared military is good at a lot of things, that includes disaster response.

Third, let's distinguish between large stock piles and modernization, we are only effective against current threat, by being current in technology.

Rollbacks on spending??? Is that with eye's open or eye's shut??? Be specific.

Listen to the military? You want to listen to the people who work for the government as to how much government spending we have?

You didn't tell me, how much is enough? We spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined. How much more do we need?

What current threat? Conservatives want to start building missile defenses, which will start every other major power building missile defenses, and everyone will start building better offensive weapons to beat the missile defenses...

...and there you go, off on another budget busting arms race.

When is it enough??

Conservatives complain that SS is spending too much. Medicare is spending too much. Too much is being spent on education. Too much on healthcare for the needy. Too much on this, too much on that,

but never, ever, do conservatives say too much is being spent on the military.

When would it be enough?

Somebody at least give me a number, a goal, a limit, something from the right that would refute the notion that when it comes to the military...

...we can never spend enough.

How much is R&D??? While you're at it maybe explain how China has stollen so much technology from us? How much welfare is enough? How many Illegals crossing the border is enough?

 

[The T]

First you misinterpret Iraq spending with repairing mismanagement. Again upkeep, maintenance, repair, and attrition.

Second, my point was to listen to the military more about what their true needs are, Congressmen are not the experts, nor are they good listeners. A prepared military is good at a lot of things, that includes disaster response.

Third, let's distinguish between large stock piles and modernization, we are only effective against current threat, by being current in technology.

Rollbacks on spending??? Is that with eye's open or eye's shut??? Be specific.

Listen to the military? You want to listen to the people who work for the government as to how much government spending we have?

You didn't tell me, how much is enough? We spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined. How much more do we need?

What current threat? Conservatives want to start building missile defenses, which will start every other major power building missile defenses, and everyone will start building better offensive weapons to beat the missile defenses...

...and there you go, off on another budget busting arms race.

When is it enough??

Conservatives complain that SS is spending too much. Medicare is spending too much. Too much is being spent on education. Too much on healthcare for the needy. Too much on this, too much on that,

but never, ever, do conservatives say too much is being spent on the military.

When would it be enough?

Somebody at least give me a number, a goal, a limit, something from the right that would refute the notion that when it comes to the military...

...we can never spend enough.

How much is R&D??? While you're at it maybe explain how China has stollen so much technology from us? How much welfare is enough? How many Illegals crossing the border is enough?

How much servitude can WE sell our future Generations into? That's exactly what this Government is doing.

 

[Rozman]

I wonder if maybe things took a turn for the worse when the Democrats took over control of Congress in 2006?

 

[The T]

HANNITY: "First of all, this president -- you know and I know and everybody knows -- inherited a recession...it was by every definition a recession" (11/6/02)

HANNITY: "Now here's where we are. The inherited Clinton/Gore recession. That's a fact." (5/6/03)

HANNITY: "The president inherited a recession." (7/10/03)

HANNITY: "He got us out of the Clinton-Gore recession." (10/23/03)

HANNITY: "They did inherit the recession. They did inherit the recession. We got out of the recession." (12/12/03)

HANNITY: "And this is the whole point behind this ad, because the president did inherit a recession." (1/6/04)

HANNITY: "Historically in every recovery, because the president rightly did inherit a recession. But historically, the lagging indicator always deals with employment." (1/15/04)

HANNITY: "Congressman Deutsch, maybe you forgot but I'll be glad to remind you, the president did inherit that recession." (1/20/04)

HANNITY: "He did inherit a recession, and we're out of the recession." (2/2/04)

HANNITY: "The president inherited a recession." (2/23/04)

HANNITY: "The president inherited a recession." (3/3/04)

HANNITY: "Well, you know, we're going to show ads, as a matter of fact, in the next segment, Congressman. Thanks for promoting our next segment. What I like about them is everything I've been saying the president ought to do: is focusing in on his positions, on keeping the nation secure in very difficult times, what he's been able to do to the economy after inheriting a very difficult recession, and of course, the economic impact of 9/11." (3/3/04)

HANNITY: "All right. So this is where I view the economic scenario as we head into this election. The president inherited a recession." (3/16/04)

HANNITY: "First of all, we've got to put it into perspective, is that the president inherited a recession." (3/26/04)

HANNITY: "Clearly, we're out of the recession that President Bush inherited." (4/2/04)

HANNITY: "Stop me where I'm wrong. The president inherited a recession, the economic impact of 9/11 was tremendous on the economy, correct?" (4/6/04)

HANNITY: "[President George W. Bush] did inherit a recession." (5/3/04)

HANNITY: "[W]e got [the weak U.S. economy] out of the Clinton-Gore recession." (5/18/04)

HANNITY: "We got out of the Clinton-Gore recession." (5/27/04)

HANNITY: "We got out of the Clinton-Gore recession." (6/4/04)

FACT: "The recession officially began in March of 2001 -- two months after Bush was sworn in -- according to the universally acknowledged arbiter of such things, the National Bureau of Economic Research. And the president, at other times, has said so himself." (Washington Post, 7/1/03)

As Everybody Knows, The President Inherited A Recession



---

What is it about the right in America that makes them lie so blatantly, yet when it comes to truth -- Obama inherited an economic meltdown -- they spin and lie and deny?

Uh-Huh...I'll play the game with you. And what does Obama do in response? Ease Regulations? Lower Taxes? NOPE. He ADDS to the Trauma that Bush failed to correctly address.

Obama has done Nothing but ADD to the DEBT...and while he was at it take over Corporations (GM/Chrysler)...and threaten to do the SAME to others that are 'Too Big to fail'.

He's More than tripled the DEBT and it all favours Government holding the winning hand.
And YOU come in here citing a Radio Host? How refreshing...NOT. [While missing the POINT altogether]...

DEBT son...Debt...And you seem to take great pride in it...

WHY>?

Do YOU hate Hannity that much you would use him for some bullshit thread on someone that you don't like? You should've picked a different premise...seriously. The FACTS are stacked against you.

GO to Hannity's site and tell him what a Jackass you think he is...don't use HIM for something that even *HE* hasn't control over.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2309977-post86.htmlhttp://www.usmessageboard.com/2309977-post86.html

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

People must have missed Greenspan's admission, or basically all of our nation's on-goings from 1995-present day. Liberals were threatening banks to make risky loans to poor people and minorities. Fannie and Freddie did it. Pelosi, and that piece of human garbage Barney Frank, advocated these risky practices, and threatened the banks who resisted.

Then, liberals took the House and Senate in 2006, thanks in large part to public irritation with a brutal, unpredictable war after 9-11. In 2006, before libs took power, our economy was doing quite well, even as Bush was WARNING about the possible housing collapse thanks to Freddie and Fannie and risky loans forced by liberal threats. Greenspan detailed this.

Then the housing bubble hit, and all hell broke loose. If, back in the 90's these bleeding heart liberals would have simply allowed homes to be bought by only those people who could afford them, and responsible enough to pay for them, a large part of this recession may have been avoided.

But, ya know, koombaya, lets all share the wealth, consequences be damned.

All that is true.

Economists have been warning about this shit since 2001. And congress ignored them. To his credit, Bush did try.... just not hard enough. He chickened out.

Both the Dems and the GOP had a hand in this crap.

Dems and GOP are meaningless... Those are POLITICAL PARTIES.

The relevant entities at play are the Americans and the anti-Americans, OKA: The Ideological Left; the Progressive, Liberal, Socialists...

Of course, if ya weren't an idiot... you'd know that.

 

[The T]

People must have missed Greenspan's admission, or basically all of our nation's on-goings from 1995-present day. Liberals were threatening banks to make risky loans to poor people and minorities. Fannie and Freddie did it. Pelosi, and that piece of human garbage Barney Frank, advocated these risky practices, and threatened the banks who resisted.

Then, liberals took the House and Senate in 2006, thanks in large part to public irritation with a brutal, unpredictable war after 9-11. In 2006, before libs took power, our economy was doing quite well, even as Bush was WARNING about the possible housing collapse thanks to Freddie and Fannie and risky loans forced by liberal threats. Greenspan detailed this.

Then the housing bubble hit, and all hell broke loose. If, back in the 90's these bleeding heart liberals would have simply allowed homes to be bought by only those people who could afford them, and responsible enough to pay for them, a large part of this recession may have been avoided.

But, ya know, koombaya, lets all share the wealth, consequences be damned.

All that is true.

Economists have been warning about this shit since 2001. And congress ignored them. To his credit, Bush did try.... just not hard enough. He chickened out.

Both the Dems and the GOP had a hand in this crap.

Dems and GOP are meaningless... Those are POLITICAL PARTIES.

The relevant entities at play are the Americans and the anti-Americans, OKA: The Ideological Left; the Progressive, Liberal, Socialists...

Of course, if ya weren't an idiot... you'd know that.

You and CG aren't really that far apart...Careful there eh?

You're better as allies to what we face than bickering enemies.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What I love best about these threads about economics....

1. Each side blames the other - when, in fact, both sides are equally responsible.

2. Most of you don't know as much about economics as you think you do.

Thanks for the laughs. And, if our politicians could read this shit, they'd be laughing too - at all of you. Cuz while you're busy whining about 'Obama' and 'Bush'.... they (both sides) are robbing you blind.

You're an idiot... And by that I mean that you exhibit the congitive acuity common to a young child.

Now allow me to demonstrate.

You've made the idiotic assertion that 'both sides' are equally responsible... This statement is beyond false, it is ludicrous... utterly baseless, thoroughly void of any factual basis.

• Site one Conservative Economic Principle which can even POTENTIALLY bring about economic calamity...

• Site one Conservative Economic Policy which you can correlate to economic calamity...

When you fail to sustain your position; which FTR: is a 100% certainty; you will be conceding to ME, that you are IN FACT: AN IDIOT.

Now I will be notifying you of this challenge... ignoring that notice, thus the challenge will be a default concession.

Fuck off PMing me, you freak.

So it's official...

You're conceding that you're an idiot.​

That works for me.

It wasn't a question as much as a demonstration. You did fine...

For an idiot.

 

[The T]

Damned shame this is. I tried. [Oh, Well]

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

All that is true.

Economists have been warning about this shit since 2001. And congress ignored them. To his credit, Bush did try.... just not hard enough. He chickened out.

Both the Dems and the GOP had a hand in this crap.

Dems and GOP are meaningless... Those are POLITICAL PARTIES.

The relevant entities at play are the Americans and the anti-Americans, OKA: The Ideological Left; the Progressive, Liberal, Socialists...

Of course, if ya weren't an idiot... you'd know that.

You and CG aren't really that far apart...Careful there eh?

You're better as allies to what we face than bickering enemies.

Tut tut...

She's a Progressive... I am very familiar with her 'feelings'... and when the rubber of reason meets the road of truth, she will always call for compromise.

She's incapable of reason... but hey... what idiot is?

 

[The T]

I wonder if maybe things took a turn for the worse when the Democrats took over control of Congress in 2006?

That's been the contention of many. The graphs I posted seem to support the premise.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

IS there someone who is claiming that the US Economy was not in recession when The BROWN CLOWN took office?

I've never met anyone who has... as it's a certainty. As the Recession began in the 3rd or 4th Qrtr of 2008, but the economy had been up against it, since the 1st Qrtr of 2007, the same time when the BOY King first stepped into federal office.

The US Economy began to falter after the Left forced the run on mortgages through their "FAIR HOUSING" farce; which, as predicted it would, as there was nothing else it could do... caused the price of real-estate to sky-rocket due to the run on mortgages, which resulted from a lowering of lending thresholds, due to the Progressives in the US Legislature demanding that US Mortgage providers set aside the traditional sound, sustainable lending standards.

This they demanded was only fair... in order to provide EVERYONE with the means to own a home; and by "EVERYONE" they were speaking of those who were otherwise unqualified to service a mortgage; but to make it 'safe' for lenders, the Left promised federal guarantees on higher risk loans... a policy which resulted in the above noted run on mortgages and the skyrocketing and inevitably unsustainable real-estate values; which when the market eventually reached the point where those values could not be sustained... the Mortgage and real Estate Markets crashed, taking the US Economy with it.

So while it's true that Hussein the President inherited the recession, as a Senator who came to office with the Leftist Majority of 2006, he wholly endorsed the above SOCIALIST RECESSION INDUCING POLICIES... which were wholly responsible for that recession... which it should be noted, his Presidential predecessor had repeatedly tried to oppose; albeit unsuccessfully.

 

[The T]

Dems and GOP are meaningless... Those are POLITICAL PARTIES.

The relevant entities at play are the Americans and the anti-Americans, OKA: The Ideological Left; the Progressive, Liberal, Socialists...

Of course, if ya weren't an idiot... you'd know that.

You and CG aren't really that far apart...Careful there eh?

You're better as allies to what we face than bickering enemies.

Tut tut...

She's a Progressive... I am very familiar with her 'feelings'... and when the rubber of reason meets the road of truth, she will always call for compromise.

She's incapable of reason... but hey... what idiot is?

She is progressive? Really? Can you cite chpter and verse where *you* came to this conclusion?

I've not read anything of hers that would lead me to belive such a notion.

[Please pardon US folks]? We're trying to iron out something here...sorry for the delay.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I wonder if maybe things took a turn for the worse when the Democrats took over control of Congress in 2006?

That's been the contention of many. The graphs I posted seem to support the premise.

They only support a coincidence of time. They show no cause and effect.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Whenever people complain about the spending of the Obama administration there's a good number on the left that complain " Well Bush started it" So what does that mean exactly? does that give Obama the OK to do the same thing?. Look I didn't ask this guy to run for President.If he doesn't think it's fair that he stepped into it he can either try to fix it or complain about it. It's too bad he decided to complain about it.
If he feels he's in over his head then he should resign.

What it means is, if you want to fix it, let's fix what Bush did wrong first, instead of letting the Republicans get away with having done what THEY wanted to do and now suddenly the Democrats are supposed to fix the mess by postponing or canceling their agenda, setting aside their priorities, in name of fiscal responsibility, while the Republicans just keep what they got and wait until the next time they're in power to do the same thing.