Mittens is rewriting history

[Nosmo King]

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.

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?

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!

 

[zeke]

We had a collapse in 2001 and Bush was re-elected in '04, in no small part because his policies led to low unemployment.

Really? I remember still being sold the boogie man story and how ONLY Bush could save us. I hardly remember employment being to much of an issue at that time. It was all terror all the time.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

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.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

So, you're the one who's been buying up all he aerosols!

 

[zeke]

All Repubs are now and forever more associated with the Etch A Sketch. Don't like what you see, hear or know to be fact, not a problem, shake baby shake and viola, the story you meant to tell will come out. Stripped of fact and devoid of truth, that is the version Repubs prefer.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

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!

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.

 

[zeke]

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.

A quick Google showed that disposal income in both countries are growing rapidly. Along with the number of people that are truly "middle class". And with currency differences, I don't know that the citizens of China and India can't afford things made by Apple. They sure sell more "Apples" than the 300 million Americans can buy so someone else is buying them.

But if you think the richy rich of this country are not making lots of money from investments all over the world, OK by me. They get real favorable tax treatment also.

 

[Nosmo King]

On some measures worse.
Why are you deflecting?

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!

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.

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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

1. Conn Carroll: Facts show Fannie, Freddie led mortgage market to the collapse
"We are delighted to participate in this historic event, and we are particularly proud that a substantial portion of the $8 billion commitment will directly benefit lower income Americans," Countrywide Financial President Angelo Mozilo said at a July 8, 1992, press conference.
Mozilo's almost 20-year-old quote is relevant again thanks to the uproar New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg caused last week when he criticized Occupy Wall Street's view of the financial crisis.
Bloomberg said, "it was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress, who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp. ... They were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if you will."
This we do know: Thanks to the widespread belief that the federal government would bail them out, Fannie and Freddie were able to borrow money at below-market interest rates.
This gave them a significant competitive advantage over private-sector firms which, by 1992, the two government-backed corporate entities had turned into an almost 70 percent share in the mortgage securitization market.

That same year, at the direction of the Congress, the Department of Housing and Urban Development began setting "affordable" mortgage goals for the agencies.
Countrywide was a growing force in the mortgage industry when it partnered with Fannie in 1992. But after Mozilo's firm secured a steady government buyer for their loans, business exploded. Revenues went from $92 million in 1992, to $860 million in 1996, to $2 billion in 2000. By 2004, they were the nation's largest mortgage lender.

The secret to Countrywide's success was no mystery: They shredded standard industry lending practices, giving home loans to virtually anybody who asked. Fannie Mae not only knew this, Fannie rewarded it.

From 1992 through the height of the housing bubble, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used their monopoly position in the mortgage securitization industry to reward firms like Countrywide for making bad bets in the housing market. Countrywide's success was a signal to other market participants to lower their standards as well.
Wall Street banks are not blameless for the financial crisis. But they were only responding to the incentives set up by the federal government. Ignoring this history will help no one.
Conn Carroll: Facts show Fannie, Freddie led mortgage market to the collapse | Washington Examiner


2. It was in 2005 that the GSEs—which had been acquiring increasing numbers of subprime and Alt-A loans for many years in order to meet their HUD-imposed affordable housing requirements—accelerated the purchases that led to their 2008 insolvency. If legislation along the lines of the Senate committee's bill had been enacted in that year, many if not all the losses that Fannie and Freddie have suffered, and will suffer in the future, might have been avoided.

Why was there no action in the full Senate? As most Americans know today, it takes 60 votes to cut off debate in the Senate, and the Republicans had only 55. To close debate and proceed to the enactment of the committee-passed bill, the Republicans needed five Democrats to vote with them. But in a 45 member Democratic caucus that included Barack Obama and the current Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), these votes could not be found.

Recently, President Obama has taken to accusing others of representing "special interests." In an April radio address he stated that his financial regulatory proposals were struggling in the Senate because "the financial industry and its powerful lobby have opposed modest safeguards against the kinds of reckless risks and bad practices that led to this very crisis."
He should know. As a senator, he was the third largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, behind only Sens. Chris Dodd and John Kerry.
Wallison: Fannie and Freddie Amnesia - WSJ.com


There'll be a short test....

....fold your paper, number one to five...

...............no erasing, no crossing out:

1. Which party caused the collapse?

2. Which current President resisted reforming the system so as to avoid the collaplse?

3.-5. Name any three Democrats who also are responsible for the mortgage meltdown....


Pencils down.

 

[The Rabbi]

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!

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.

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?

 

[Erand7899]

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.

There was no economic crash in 2008, and no massive downturn in the economy. Yes, the economy did take a serious hit from the housing meltdown and resultant credit crunch, but it was no where near a crash, or even a threat of a crash.




full
screen





That "crash" or "going over the cliff" scenerio is all bullcrap to keep the mushrooms in the idiot fringe of the left wing well fed.

If Bush had let the financial meltdown occur, we may well have suffered an economic crash and another full depression, but he did not. The TARP funding stopped that meltdown, and the impending disaster did not occur. Obama had little to nothing to do with saving the economy, and in fact, may be credited with keeping the economy from a normal recovery through his abject igorance of economics.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

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?

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?

 

[BlindBoo]

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 doesn’t constitute making excuses for Obama: There’s 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?

Raygun may very well get the credit but it was Carter's appointment of Volker, who put in place the measures that got us out of the recession.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Wingnuts are trying to rewrite everything, including American history.

The idiot left are the ones trying to rewrite history.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

The economy crashed under Bush
The economy crashed under Bush
The economy crashed under Bush
The economy crashed under Bush
The economy crashed under Bush

But for the die hard pseudo-conned it's will alway be President Obama's fault.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

 

[KevinWestern]

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.

Katz, that is wholly incorrect. The bubble burst in 2006, and the stock market crashed in 2008, both during The Bush Administration.

Also, this was no "normal cyclical recession".

Come on, get with it!

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

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%.

 

[KevinWestern]

And Obama has made it far worse.
Is there a point you are trying to make here?

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Not with Obama and the Democrats in charge.