Forget Econ Stats, Do Americans Feel Economic Exhuberance or Malaise?

[EconChick]

Who is stopping regulation of derivatives today?

Once again, blame it on Bush. Even 2nd graders can see through that bullsheeet.

 

[Dad2three]

Bottom Line: No one feels this economy is going gang busters. Intuitively, Americans know something's wrong.

We econ geeks can spend hundreds of hours on this board throwing around economic statistics, but my guess is the average American/average reader doesn't read threads in the Economy section. It's too wonky.

Oldfart commented that my posts don't sound the way most macroeconomists talk. I can't stand how most macroeconomists talk. Most don't speak in a way that normal Americans can understand. They speak to out-geek the next geek. Just like every econ professor I ever had.

I'd like this to be a thread meant for "normal" Americans - those living out on main street, not Wall Street - who just want to know why they're not feeling optimistic about their economic situations and what can be done about it.

This thread is meant to involve people who want more "intuitive" answers about the economy.

Let's see if we can manage to do that.

Weird after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies why wasn't the US economy booming?

Bush's economy over his full 8-yr tenure was great compared to that of Obama's 5.5 years. And that's even WITH the fact that Bush had the jolt of 9/11 attacks on the economy to deal with.

After the jolt of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the highest the unemployment rate rose was 6.3% in June, 2003.

This rate seems remarkably low by today’s economic standards.

Then the economy calmed down and actually grew, dropping the unemployment rate to the mid 5% range, where it stayed for the next two years.

In fact, the rate was 5.4% in November, 2004 when Bush was reelected.

Really good news came in December, 2005 when the unemployment rate dipped to 4.9% and stayed in the 4% range straight through to November, 2007.

Then in December, 2007 it went to 5.0%, rose slowly and really shot up in August, 2008 to 6.1%. When the economy tanked, the rate blew right through the 6% range ending December, 2008 at 7.3%.

At that point, we were dealing with the financial bubble brought on by very long term conditions contributed to by both Democrats and Republicans. Both parties get blame for that crisis.

But for most of his tenure, Bush provided quality FULL TIME jobs in far greater numbers than has Obama.

Weird you leave out Jan 2009 that Dubya had 20 days hand in (all actually, as Obama's policies didn't take effect for MONTHS)

Jan 2009 Dubya had 7.8% unemployment and lost 9%+ of GDP THE PREVIOUS QUARTER!

 

[Dad2three]

Who is stopping regulation of derivatives today?

Once again, blame it on Bush. Even 2nd graders can see through that bullsheeet.

Yes, ALL of Dubya's policies stopped Jan 20th 2009 right?

NO, IT'S THOSE 'FREE MARKET' guys blocking derivative regulation, mostly the GOPers

 

[EconChick]

Waiting for the facts to show the economy is not improving and is much better than in Bush's last months.

Yet another lib that doesn't understand the meaning of gradation. Do you know what I mean by that?

It means "by what percent" or by how much change.

If I make $3,000 dollars in my business, but I have $50,000 in costs, we'd all agree that's not good, right?. Now granted, perhaps part of the 50K was 10K for an investment that will pay off in 5 years.

But if next year I now make an additional $1,000 dollars while still burning $40,000 in costs..... that IS an improvement in revenue....but it's a really pathetic, shitty, laughable improvement.

That's pretty much what liberal talking points are doing here. Technically you're not lying, but in the big scheme of things, it's baloney.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Waiting for the facts to show the economy is not improving and is much better than in Bush's last months.

Yet another lib that doesn't understand the meaning of gradation. Do you know what I mean by that?

It means "by what percent" or by how much change.

If I make $3,000 dollars in my business, but I have $50,000 in costs, we'd all agree that's not good, right?. Now granted, perhaps part of the 50K was 10K for an investment that will pay off in 5 years.

But if next year I now make an additional $1,000 dollars while still burning $40,000 in costs..... that IS an improvement in revenue....but it's a really pathetic, shitty, laughable improvement.

That's pretty much what liberal talking points are doing here. Technically you're not lying, but in the big scheme of things, it's baloney.

Yes, you are baloney and as knowledgeable as Edward Baiamonte on the forum.

Honey, gradation is manipulable and can be used for far more than measuring disaster. Now forget your "examples" and give us hard data that supports gloom and doom.

Where did you take your degree: Liberty?

 

[bendog]

Actually, I think whoever wins in 16 will be the candidate who can better articulate a third-way approach. Bushii's supply side stimulus only fueled a credit debacle, and Obama, to the extent he has a policy, has failed with regulation and govt fueled subsidies to favored industries/companies.

 

[EconChick]

RIGHT WING CRAP. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you




Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."



"It's sad to say, but we really went nowhere for almost ten years, after you extract the boost provided by the housing and mortgage boom," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com, and an informal adviser to McCain's campaign. "It's almost a lost economic decade."

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush | Vanity Fair

DEC 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush | Vanity Fair




The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.

In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."

Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOW WHICH SIDE WAS CORRECT?




Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse



http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html


BOTH SIDES? LOL

Bush's Homeowner Society????????????? You mean the Barney Franks and other libs in the Congress didn't want as many Americans to have homes as possible????

That's about as incorrect and disingenuous as it gets.

Both parties went whole hog on that. And their intentions were actually honorable...problem is politicians always fail to anticipate unintended consequences.

BARNEY? Minority member of the GOP majority House 1995-Jan 2007, Barney?


June 17, 2004



NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004

Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf


In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush, wrote that Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."


DUBYA REGULATOR FAILURE. WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE FBI, SEC, F/F, HUD, ETC?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

So you dig up one thing Frank says and ignore the other 50 big-spending things he says??????????? Way to go, that's persuasive.

Please anyone out there..... raise your hand if you think Barney Frank was a financial conservative who urged as little spending, as little government subsidization, and as little handouts as Dad2three would have you think.

Nope, don't see any hands.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What is the OP looking for? Personal anecdotes?

The OP's take on Bush's economy is funny. Clearly the work of an accomplished economist.

Deary, you've got to be the most useless, clueless member on the entire board. Do you ever post ANYTHING of substance? Maybe you should go spend more time at the Macy's sales racks. We're trying to have a real discussion here.

I asked if you wanted personal anecdotes. I've got some. Why so rude? Feeling insecure?

 

[g5000]

EconChick, learn how to use the quote function. I did not ask that question.

And your "answer" is a bullshit straw man. Nice try.

 

[EconChick]

What is the OP looking for? Personal anecdotes?

The OP's take on Bush's economy is funny. Clearly the work of an accomplished economist.

Deary, you've got to be the most useless, clueless member on the entire board. Do you ever post ANYTHING of substance? Maybe you should go spend more time at the Macy's sales racks. We're trying to have a real discussion here.

I asked if you wanted personal anecdotes. I've got some. Why so rude? Feeling insecure?

Post whatever you want. You're not someone people take seriously. But it's a free country....I encourage you to do or post whatever makes you happy. Just don't be shocked if you're ignored.

 

[g5000]

Who is stopping regulation of derivatives today?

Like the man said, "Follow the money".

Party affiliation is no indicator of who is in Wall Street's pocket and who is not. Where the money flows is a great indicator, though.

 

[deltex1]

Econ chick...you are doing a great job but you might as well talk to the wall. The fault is with all the morons in DC and it continues. As Freewill's avatar says...we are so mad we are making signs...soon we will be using more violent means...and G0000 will still be placing blame and inspecting her navel.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Deary, you've got to be the most useless, clueless member on the entire board. Do you ever post ANYTHING of substance? Maybe you should go spend more time at the Macy's sales racks. We're trying to have a real discussion here.

I asked if you wanted personal anecdotes. I've got some. Why so rude? Feeling insecure?

Post whatever you want. You're not someone people take seriously. But it's a free country....I encourage you to do or post whatever makes you happy. Just don't be shocked if you're ignored.

Are you someone people take seriously? Did someone tell you that?

My business is up 30% year on year. I service the construction industry here in Central Florida. Do you know anything about the construction industry in Central Florida?

Are you aware that it is a common tactic for lame asses to accuse others of not posting "anything of substance" here? I will give you what you seek, dummy. I will pay attention to you for a few days. Have a little fun at your expense. Enjoy.

 

[g5000]

Econ chick...you are doing a great job but you might as well talk to the wall. The fault is with all the morons in DC and it continues. As Freewill's avatar says...we are so mad we are making signs...soon we will be using more violent means...and G0000 will still be placing blame and inspecting her navel.

If we need your expertise on how to threaten to shoot up the place when you don't get your way, we'll ask. But when it comes to economics, you would be better off letting the grownups talk.

 

[EconChick]

EconChick, learn how to use the quote function. I did not ask that question.

And your "answer" is a bullshit straw man. Nice try.

Yep, you did not ask that question. That's my poor cut and paste skills. That was response to Dad.

As for the answer, I haven't seen Dad2 three blame anything on Obama...........that's even HAPPENING UNDER OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY AT THAT. If you didn't see him yet again blaming Bush, then you have reading comprehension issues.

 

[g5000]

As for the answer, I haven't seen Dad2 three blame anything on Obama...........that's even HAPPENING UNDER OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY AT THAT. If you didn't see him yet again blaming Bush, then you have reading comprehension issues.

I have seen a lot of people blame Obama for shit that happened to the economy before January 2009.

When I bring some truth to the discussion, they mistake the truth for liberalism.

 

[Siete]

Deary, you've got to be the most useless, clueless member on the entire board. Do you ever post ANYTHING of substance? Maybe you should go spend more time at the Macy's sales racks. We're trying to have a real discussion here.

I asked if you wanted personal anecdotes. I've got some. Why so rude? Feeling insecure?

Post whatever you want. You're not someone people take seriously. But it's a free country....I encourage you to do or post whatever makes you happy. Just don't be shocked if you're ignored.

Ignore the facts ... what's shocking when a RW'r does that ?

( and this is from 2013)

Had Bush left office one year earlier, in January 2008, his performance would have looked quite good, with 5.6 million jobs created during his tenure. But the economy tanked in 2008, hemorrhaging 4.5 million jobs during Bush's last year in office. That left total job growth during his eight years of just 1.1 million jobs—a figure the Obama ought to eclipse by this summer, if the economy keeps growing.

If the economy adds an average of 150,000 jobs per month during Obama's entire second term, which is plausible, then it will have created about 7.7 million jobs by the time Obama leaves office. Many presidents have done better, but not the one Obama replaced
.


Questions LiarChick

 

[deltex1]

Econ chick...you are doing a great job but you might as well talk to the wall. The fault is with all the morons in DC and it continues. As Freewill's avatar says...we are so mad we are making signs...soon we will be using more violent means...and G0000 will still be placing blame and inspecting her navel.

If we need your expertise on how to threaten to shoot up the place when you don't get your way, we'll ask. But when it comes to economics, you would be better off letting the grownups talk.

I am getting/have gotten my way all my life though luck and hard work...I want it to continue for my grandkids...I leave the pontificating and hack analysis to useless people such as yourself.

 

[g5000]

Econ chick...you are doing a great job but you might as well talk to the wall. The fault is with all the morons in DC and it continues. As Freewill's avatar says...we are so mad we are making signs...soon we will be using more violent means...and G0000 will still be placing blame and inspecting her navel.

If we need your expertise on how to threaten to shoot up the place when you don't get your way, we'll ask. But when it comes to economics, you would be better off letting the grownups talk.

I am getting/have gotten my way all my life though luck and hard work...I want it to continue for my grandkids...I leave the pontificating and hack analysis to useless people such as yourself.

Any success you have has been made much harder to achieve by the financial services sector. And your grandkids are going to have an even tougher time. Your pockets are being robbed and you don't even know it.

 

[Siete]

Econ chick...you are doing a great job but you might as well talk to the wall. The fault is with all the morons in DC and it continues. As Freewill's avatar says...we are so mad we are making signs...soon we will be using more violent means...and G0000 will still be placing blame and inspecting her navel.

If we need your expertise on how to threaten to shoot up the place when you don't get your way, we'll ask. But when it comes to economics, you would be better off letting the grownups talk.

I am getting/have gotten my way all my life though luck and hard work...I want it to continue for my grandkids...I leave the pontificating and hack analysis to useless people such as yourself.

then by your own admission you're lucky facts never caught up with you.