tinydancer
Diamond Member
That statement itself is delusional.
From 1992 through 2000, the Federal deficit as a percentage of GDP, turned down below zero percent between 1998 and 2000. Read it and at least try to remain intellectually honest when you reply to me, please.
Here's the data:
Year, GDP-US $ billion, Federal Deficit-fed pct
1992, 6342.3, 4.58 a (Clinton)
1993, 6667.4, 3.83 a
1994, 7085.2, 2.87 a
1995, 7414.7, 2.21 a
1996, 7838.5, 1.37 a
1997, 8270.46, 0.27 a
1998, 8727.02, -0.79 a (inversion)
1999, 9286.86, -1.35 a
2000, 9884.17, -2.39 a (Bush 43)
2001, 10218, -1.25 a (rise in debt & deficit)
2002, 10572.4, 1.49 a (reversion)
2003, 11067.8, 3.41 a
2004, 11788.9, 3.50 a
2005, 12554.5, 2.54 a
2006, 13310.9, 1.87 a
2007, 13969.3, 1.15 a
2008, 14270.5, 3.21 a
2009, 14014.8, 13.14 b
2010, 14551.8, 8.65 b
Legend:
a - actual reported
b - budgeted estimate in US fy10 budget
******************************************
Clearly, the data shows that in 2000, Bush was still riding the prosperity wave that was created during the Clinton Era, and not the other way around as you incorrectly stated.
Another, delusional statement. This has always been a systemic lie told by the Right, to excuse the poor leadership performance of George W. Bush. That facts are rather surprising for under-educated Republicans to learn.
The well established economic definition of recession, is GDP growth below zero (negative) for two consecutive quarters. Not merely declining GDP growth q/q.
Annual United States GDP Rate of Growth YoY
Clearly, U.S. GDP did not turn negative until AFTER 2001, which was AFTER the election of George W. Bush, in 2000. The Bush 43 administration never saw a GDP expansion figure that at any time, was higher than during the Clinton administration. Those are the facts clearly put before you.
Fannie and Freddie, did not cause the housing crisis. That's yet another illogical and irrational lie told by Republicans, to cover for their total lack of leadership from 2000 through 2008.
The housing crisis was caused because people could no longer pay their mortgage. People could no longer pay their mortgage because people lost their respective jobs. People lost their respective jobs, because corporations moved them off-shore. Corporations were allowed to move Middle Class American jobs off-shore, because of Congressional tax loopholes and a de-regulatory environment that enabled it. Republicans, favored deregulation and corporate tax loopholes and therefore, Republicans were the primary reason why American Middle Class jobs are mostly a thing of the past.
The very thing (under-regulated industry and tax breaks for the super rich) that Republicans promised would expand our economy, is the very thing that moved American Middle Class jobs overseas. Those are the facts.
That is absolutely nonsense. The stock market went ballistic under Clinton. The stock market has never been higher, than under Clinton. There were record numbers of new millionaires being created between 2000 and 2008, than at any other time in recorded American history.
The tech-bubble, was a direct net effect of too much capital, chasing too few deals and once again. This brought too many charlatans into the market and created an IPO frenzy that eventually lost steam because the market lost faith, precisely at the same time as enterprise technology (mostly software) was reaching its product development life cycle zenith. Those things combined, set the path for the tech-bubble correction and then the collapse.
Microsoft, was not an IPO between 2000 and 2008, nor was Microsoft beholden to high-tech venture capital. So, the Justice Department -vs- Microsoft, was a non-issue relative to the tech-bubble collapse in real terms. There were many companies providing too much of the same technology at the same time and in a market that had become saturated with look-alike profiles, and there were only so many large scale corporate entities to sell into for growing tech companies.
I worked in Silicone Valley, in the enterprise software industry during the entire time and I know what took place there on the ground.
That is some of the most hyperbolic nonsense gibberish that I've ever heard for the collapse of the enterprise software industry in SV. I lived it everyday of my life - I know what took place because I was there.
Innovation ran into a brick wall, because funding dried up. Funding dried up because of too many fake/phony profit models were created that would never pan out. That was caused by GREED - pure and simple. The market needed to shake-out the greedy, before stabilizing on moving on, but the market never got that chance under Clinton, and instead, was invited to 911 as a nail in the coffin of innovation.
Obama, in reality, has either delivered or attempted to deliver on campaign promises made at at time when there was NO economic meltdown. You seem to have amnesia on WHY Obama had to alter course in both his message and his focus during the campaign. The country was hit with the worse economic retracement since 1929/32. That forced a shift in Obama rhetoric and Obama actions/behavior with respect to the economy and his purposed pre-election agenda.
Safety of his armchair? Is that where Vice President Dick "Five Time Deferment" Cheney, sat when he was scamming CIA intelligence behind the scenes to place American Troops into harms way? Is the armchair, were Bush 43 himself sat, after he want AWOL at the TANG, only later in life and without a a conscious, set out to become a Commander In Chief? We STILL don't have an official copy of Bush 43's DD-214, do we?
I have my DD-214 and it shows precisely what I did in the military. Why can't we get a copy of Bush 43's DD-214? Or, did his Daddy, clean that up for him too?
Merely stating that it would be wrong to vote for someone to the U.S. Supreme Court based on purely ideological reasons, and then not voting for any one individual in particular, is NOT a demonstration of failed principles.
To put this out as some kind of indictment on Obama, is irrational at best. Should one declare that they would not refuse to purchase chocolate ice cream, merely because of the way it tastes when compared to vanilla ice cream, and then going out that Friday night to Basking Robbins and buying vanilla ice cream, does NOT demonstrate some kind of warped problem with personal principle.
He can say that people should not make decisions based on pure ideology, rather the issues at hand, but still decide to vote against any particular individual for the Supreme Court. That in no way reduces his principles and concluding as much is illogical on its face.
Yet, you've failed miserably here to delineate one iota of truth about what you just claimed - as I have shown with data, charts and facts. You can sit back and throw stones from a glass house if you wish - it will only come back to haunt both you and the country down the road.
If your disdain for the President is predicated on irrational talking points and hyper-political dogma based in hate and woefully lacking in supportive data or facts, then the least of your concerns would be those who do support Obama, based on the very inverse of the same.
Now, you were saying something about how Obama has failed?
Two comments:
It did go ballistic, and then he slammed on the brakes when against DOJ's recommendations he decided he needed to rub Gates' nose in some poo. It dropped suddenly right after he rejected DOJ's recommendations. Sure, it recovered some, but not enough to avoid the recession.
Obama, in reality, has either delivered or attempted to deliver on campaign promises made at at time when there was NO economic meltdown. You seem to have amnesia on WHY Obama had to alter course in both his message and his focus during the campaign. The country was hit with the worse economic retracement since 1929/32. That forced a shift in Obama rhetoric and Obama actions/behavior with respect to the economy and his purposed pre-election agenda.
That would sure be noble and admirable if it were true that Obama did shift gears in response to the economic crisis. But he didn't. He kept on with his vanity healthcare legislation instead of paying attention to the efficacy of his stimulus and programs such as HAMP.
He failed in keeping many promises which had he honored them could have kept America on board with him.
His most egregious failure was when he explicitly promised the Hispanic community that there would be a comprehensive immigration bill in the congress within his first year and he would put his weight behind it. What made that most egregious is how he explicitly said that he was aware of how many times the Hispanic community had been given empty promises just for purposes of garnering their votes and he stated quite firmly that the promise he was making that day would not be one of those empty promises.
He was elected on the illusion that he would be a different kind of politician. But he is as much of a liar if not worse than any inhabitant of the oval office in my lifetime.
I reserve any further comments until I have time to read your essay in greater detail.
do us all a favor
keep it simple
The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog
W added about 2.5-3 trillion to the debt if you split 09 with Obama. Closer to 2.5 trillion with
2 wars
Enron
& major hurricanes
adding homeland security
2 recessions
Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The "economic meltdown" has nothing to do with spending 4 trillion dollars we do not have and getting 0 in return
That is the issue we have with Obama
he has locked down the fossil fuel business when we are allowing Canada and mexico to make money off of us, and create millions of jobs we could create right here
Nuclear power
what else?
Out of curiosity, did you know Ken first suggested the trading of carbon credits?