Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm not deflecting. I'm incredulous! Investment firms declared bankruptcy. Governments teetered on default. Wall Street took a $700 billion dollar bailout. None of that happened in 2001. If anyone is deflecting, or feebly trying to re write history, it's you!So the recession in 2001 was just as bad as the global financial collapse of 2008? Really?We had a collapse in 2001 and Bush was re-elected in '04, in no small part because his policies led to low unemployment.
We havent seen job creation in no small part because of Obamacare and many other new regulations and laws that make hiring people very expensive. This is the worst recovery on record, despite an equal record spending by the gov't to make it better.
On some measures worse.
Why are you deflecting?
We had a collapse in 2001 and Bush was re-elected in '04, in no small part because his policies led to low unemployment.
If the consumer base in India or China had disposable income, your argument might hold water. You can't sell iPads to someone making pennies on the dollar.Does consumer spending or concentrated wealth drive the economy, and thus create jobs?
Of course the answer is; consumer spending.
However, if I am in the top 1% or so, consumer spending in the USA doesn't mean what it used to. Matter of fact, more consumers are in India and China and elsewhere. The 1% makes their money all over the world.
Us regular American consumers need to make most of our money here. And that is getting harder to do.
Will it change for the better soon? Not in my opinion. But the rich will get richer and will get more tax breaks and so on and so on.
That's the way a plutocracy works. For the richy rich. And you have to admit; our present system is working REALLY well for the richest Americans. Better than ever actually.
Romney the Liar
1. Bush, Cheney, and Rove had NOTHING to do with the economic crisis we were confronting on 20 January 2009.
2. It is 100% Barack Obama's fault that we are still in difficulty.
3. Obama gets no credit for ANYTHING positive that has happened economically.
And Mittens actually pulled the trigger that killed bin Laden.
No, he hasn't actually said that yet, but he probably will. He is the puppet of the GObP Nazis and will say whatever they tell him to say.
He must think ALL Americans are idiots. Or maybe that we just weren't here to see it for ourselves. And, definitely that there is no internet and no records.
Here's the rest of this ridiculous History According To Mittens
The Romney campaign’s Great Historical Rewrite - The Plum Line - The Washington Post
Ok. So what? We had a recession. Because of Bush's actions it was very mild and lasted only 9 months, which is only slightly shorter than average recessions. Obama's recession has lasted far longer, despite having had more money thrown at it than any other one post war.I'm not deflecting. I'm incredulous! Investment firms declared bankruptcy. Governments teetered on default. Wall Street took a $700 billion dollar bailout. None of that happened in 2001. If anyone is deflecting, or feebly trying to re write history, it's you!So the recession in 2001 was just as bad as the global financial collapse of 2008? Really?
On some measures worse.
Why are you deflecting?
If the consumer base in India or China had disposable income, your argument might hold water. You can't sell iPads to someone making pennies on the dollar.
But it seems as if you are presuming all recessions are created equal. They ain't! And the one that Bush left office under was huge! Both deep and wide.Ok. So what? We had a recession. Because of Bush's actions it was very mild and lasted only 9 months, which is only slightly shorter than average recessions. Obama's recession has lasted far longer, despite having had more money thrown at it than any other one post war.I'm not deflecting. I'm incredulous! Investment firms declared bankruptcy. Governments teetered on default. Wall Street took a $700 billion dollar bailout. None of that happened in 2001. If anyone is deflecting, or feebly trying to re write history, it's you!On some measures worse.
Why are you deflecting?
Romney the Liar
1. Bush, Cheney, and Rove had NOTHING to do with the economic crisis we were confronting on 20 January 2009.
2. It is 100% Barack Obama's fault that we are still in difficulty.
3. Obama gets no credit for ANYTHING positive that has happened economically.
And Mittens actually pulled the trigger that killed bin Laden.
No, he hasn't actually said that yet, but he probably will. He is the puppet of the GObP Nazis and will say whatever they tell him to say.
He must think ALL Americans are idiots. Or maybe that we just weren't here to see it for ourselves. And, definitely that there is no internet and no records.
Here's the rest of this ridiculous History According To Mittens
The Romney campaign’s Great Historical Rewrite - The Plum Line - The Washington Post
But it seems as if you are presuming all recessions are created equal. They ain't! And the one that Bush left office under was huge! Both deep and wide.Ok. So what? We had a recession. Because of Bush's actions it was very mild and lasted only 9 months, which is only slightly shorter than average recessions. Obama's recession has lasted far longer, despite having had more money thrown at it than any other one post war.I'm not deflecting. I'm incredulous! Investment firms declared bankruptcy. Governments teetered on default. Wall Street took a $700 billion dollar bailout. None of that happened in 2001. If anyone is deflecting, or feebly trying to re write history, it's you!
Yeah it went from "horrid" to merely terrible.
Somehow I think we can do better than terrible. And voting that leftist kook out of office is the first step.
Inotice you didnt mention that the average UE rate during Bush's 8 years was about 6%, What has it been under Obama?
Rabbi - If Obama inherits a country that's losing jobs at a pace of 700,000 per month, don't you think there's probably a good chance that his overall UE rate while in office is going to be rather high? But is this necessarily the current President's fault?
There's no 'quick turnaround' or easily solution to getting the economy back on track after the massive downturn it experienced 2006-2008. It's going to take decades. Just reversing the economy out of its catastrophic free-fall is an accomplishment in itself.
No.
When recovery comes growth is strong. that's been the experience in every recession/recovery since WW2. This one is the exception. And yes, it is his fault.
The point is: the recession under Bush's watch proved to be far more dangerous, far more difficult to resolve than previous economic downturns. Millions of American jobs were lost. Banks failed. Houses were foreclosed. Millions were left holding the bag. It takes strong policy decisions to kick start the economy after such a disaster. I don't think enacting the same policies that cause the disaster will prove to be a wise decision, do you?But it seems as if you are presuming all recessions are created equal. They ain't! And the one that Bush left office under was huge! Both deep and wide.Ok. So what? We had a recession. Because of Bush's actions it was very mild and lasted only 9 months, which is only slightly shorter than average recessions. Obama's recession has lasted far longer, despite having had more money thrown at it than any other one post war.
And Obama has made it far worse.
Is there a point you are trying to make here?
Once again, Luddly...you amuse.
Did you even read the blog you cite? After going on about Mitt Romney's camp "rewriting" history when claiming that Barack Obama's policies hadn't helped with job creation, the author of that blog admits the following:
"And no, that doesnt constitute making excuses for Obama: Theres no quibbling with the fact that his policies have not created jobs at the pace we would have hoped."
The fundamental problem for even the most ardent Obama supporter still remains that Barry's policies HAVEN'T created jobs. You don't come up with a new economic statistic "jobs saved" if your policies HAVE created jobs. You come up with that statistic if you've FAILED to create jobs and want to obscure that fact with a number that can't be verified...which is exactly what the Obama camp did. THEY are the ones who are really trying to rewrite history.
Reagan got reelected with high unemployment, but he had more "TV show" appeal than Obama; it is too late to blame Bush for high unemployment, a lot of the extra debt is his, but NOT 8.0%+ jobless.
Reagan got reelected because he'd done the work to get us out of the economic funk that Jimmy Carter had left the country in. He tightened up the money supply and got the rampant stagflation under control (which led to higher unemployment) and then he cut taxes and the economy was starting to grow noticably by this time in his first term. People reelected Reagan because they could SEE that he had a plan and that it was working.
Contrast that with Barry's approach...
They've kept interest rates at nearly zero trying desperately to stimulate job growth but their policies like ObamaCare and the threats of EPA crackdowns and Cap & Trade costs have kept private capital on the sidelines while the economy continues to grind away at around 2% a year growth with very little growth beyond that forecast in the next few years. What you have to ask yourself is this...what IS Obama's economic plan going forward and if it's no different than his failed plans from the first three years, why should anyone expect them to fare differently this time around?
The idiot left are the ones trying to rewrite history.Wingnuts are trying to rewrite everything, including American history.
You can't fix 30 years of Reaganomics in 3 years.
Eight years of Bill CLinton was, what?
Obama has fixed 7 years of Bush prosperity, but good.
The economy crashed under Bush, the only people to prosper under Bush were the rich.
No matter how many times you say it, the economy did not crash under Bush. obama took a normal cyclical recession and turned it into a full blown depression.
The point is: the recession under Bush's watch proved to be far more dangerous, far more difficult to resolve than previous economic downturns. Millions of American jobs were lost. Banks failed. Houses were foreclosed. Millions were left holding the bag. It takes strong policy decisions to kick start the economy after such a disaster. I don't think enacting the same policies that cause the disaster will prove to be a wise decision, do you?But it seems as if you are presuming all recessions are created equal. They ain't! And the one that Bush left office under was huge! Both deep and wide.
And Obama has made it far worse.
Is there a point you are trying to make here?
If smoking in the powder magazine made the powder blow up, should we still permit smoking at the powder magazine?
The point is: the recession under Bush's watch proved to be far more dangerous, far more difficult to resolve than previous economic downturns. Millions of American jobs were lost. Banks failed. Houses were foreclosed. Millions were left holding the bag. It takes strong policy decisions to kick start the economy after such a disaster. I don't think enacting the same policies that cause the disaster will prove to be a wise decision, do you?And Obama has made it far worse.
Is there a point you are trying to make here?
If smoking in the powder magazine made the powder blow up, should we still permit smoking at the powder magazine?
And it was largely over by the time obama was sworn in. How many banks went under after Jan 2009?
Had he done nothing but play golf we would have seen a normal strong recovery with unemployment back to about 6%.
The point is: the recession under Bush's watch proved to be far more dangerous, far more difficult to resolve than previous economic downturns. Millions of American jobs were lost. Banks failed. Houses were foreclosed. Millions were left holding the bag. It takes strong policy decisions to kick start the economy after such a disaster. I don't think enacting the same policies that cause the disaster will prove to be a wise decision, do you?
If smoking in the powder magazine made the powder blow up, should we still permit smoking at the powder magazine?
And it was largely over by the time obama was sworn in. How many banks went under after Jan 2009?
Had he done nothing but play golf we would have seen a normal strong recovery with unemployment back to about 6%.
Lol, Rabbi - is that right now?
Are you some sort of Harvard economist or something?
Our economy was way overextended in 2006, and it retracted. Some of the jobs that were lost simply are not coming back. There's no speedy recovery for this one, I assure you.
