The Recovery Thread

[The Rabbi]

Tell us again how 5% unemployment and consistent GDP growth constitute "hell." I am sure many people would be happy to have it back.
The GOP screwed up by acting like Democrats. Voters tossed them out in '06. Democrats made things worse and Bush took the blame for it all.

 

[Toro]

Temp help is "humming" because no one wants to hire anyone permanently since they cannot calculate the cost of unemployment anymore.
This "recovery" will be nasty brutish and short. Job creation is unbelievably low and there are no figures out there to suggest improvement.

Temp hiring always leads permanent hiring. A million and a half jobs have been created thus far since the bottom, as cited earlier by the libertarian Cato Institute. Economic growth off the bottom has been at the fastest level since 1983.

Maybe we double dip, I don't know. I'm hearing that there has been a slowdown in business over the past few weeks. And there are serious problems in the global economy. But I have been surprised at how strong the recovery has been.

 

[editec]

I don't think the economy is recovering.

It might be some some lucky sods, but for the vast majority of us?

We're hosed.

 

[AVG-JOE]

America has two choices left.

Keep charging the China credit card or go all ******* Roman while you still can and use your military power to extort your way out of this.

That is about it at this point.

Even Bollywood will replace you in the movie bussiness.

Or Option 3: Dine and Dash leaving Canada with the bill.

You're ass-u-me-ing that Canada will ever date us again.

 

[The Rabbi]

Temp help is "humming" because no one wants to hire anyone permanently since they cannot calculate the cost of unemployment anymore.
This "recovery" will be nasty brutish and short. Job creation is unbelievably low and there are no figures out there to suggest improvement.

Temp hiring always leads permanent hiring. A million and a half jobs have been created thus far since the bottom, as cited earlier by the libertarian Cato Institute. Economic growth off the bottom has been at the fastest level since 1983.

Maybe we double dip, I don't know. I'm hearing that there has been a slowdown in business over the past few weeks. And there are serious problems in the global economy. But I have been surprised at how strong the recovery has been.

Just because something has always happened in the past does not mean it will always happen in the future. In this case, we have seen pitiful job creation, once gov't is taken out of the equation. That was last week's news or so. We can explain very well why temp help is climbing while permanent job creation is slow. I doubt much of that temp creation will translate into permanent jobs this time.

 

[Toro]

Temp help is "humming" because no one wants to hire anyone permanently since they cannot calculate the cost of unemployment anymore.
This "recovery" will be nasty brutish and short. Job creation is unbelievably low and there are no figures out there to suggest improvement.

Temp hiring always leads permanent hiring. A million and a half jobs have been created thus far since the bottom, as cited earlier by the libertarian Cato Institute. Economic growth off the bottom has been at the fastest level since 1983.

Maybe we double dip, I don't know. I'm hearing that there has been a slowdown in business over the past few weeks. And there are serious problems in the global economy. But I have been surprised at how strong the recovery has been.

Just because something has always happened in the past does not mean it will always happen in the future. In this case, we have seen pitiful job creation, once gov't is taken out of the equation. That was last week's news or so. We can explain very well why temp help is climbing while permanent job creation is slow. I doubt much of that temp creation will translate into permanent jobs this time.

Most of the jobs created thus far - about a million - have been created in the private sector.

We have companies coming out and saying that the recovery looks typical. I am skeptical that it is. I think its going to be choppy. But if this is a typical recovery, hiring is going to explode because corporations have cut to the bone. Profit margins are high, cash on balance sheets are at record levels, and productivity has exploded.

 

[Foxfyre]

So all those talking head leftists like Matthews and that dyke Maddow were just kidding when they said good things about Obama?

Nobody who wanted Obama wanted to know anything bad about him. The kool-ade drinkers still don't. I don't know if Matthews and Maddow are kool-ade drinikers, but if they are not, even numbnuts are capable of finally seeing the light and changing their mind. Look how many people started out with high hopes for George W. Bush and how many of those folks eventually turned on him.

However, for our friend to say that Obama is not a Leftist or no DNC Democrat is a Leftist is an unbelieveable display of ignorance of the term Leftist.

keep telling yourself that...fyrefox....

but the bottom line is that the majority of this country had gone through 8 years of complete HELL with the republicans and bush running the show and they wanted CHANGE from the Republicans.....and mccain/palin were republicans and Bush lite....democrats were slotted to win, no matter who was in the spot running because the republicans and Bush were absolutely irresponsible and just plain terrible.

i'm not saying some were not mesmerized by obama like the youth vote, but most just DID NOT want another lousy, republican rule imo. nor did they believe the repubs deserved to be rewarded for their crappy leadership with another chance at it.

I have neither praised nor defended the poor performance of the Republicans during the Bush administration and nobody has been a more serious critic of their performance than I have. I don't go all the way to say that it was 'eight years of hell'--exaggerate much?-- due to the Republicans however. For most Americans, it was eight pretty good years until the housing bubble burst in mid 2008. That does not excuse the Republicans for expanding government, buying into even more socialist programs, or for lack of oversight of critical components any more than the Democrats get a pass on that once they regained power in 2007.

But to me, it is really REALLY short sighted and silly to give Obama a pass because you don't like the Republicans any more than Bush deserved a pass because Clinton sometimes sucked. And it is absurd to say that Obama isn't the most far left President that we have ever had.

 

[Toro]

I have neither praised nor defended the poor performance of the Republicans during the Bush administration and nobody has been a more serious critic of their performance than I have. I don't go all the way to say that it was 'eight years of hell'--exaggerate much?-- due to the Republicans however. For most Americans, it was eight pretty good years until the housing bubble burst in mid 2008. That does not excuse the Republicans for expanding government, buying into even more socialist programs, or for lack of oversight of critical components any more than the Democrats get a pass on that once they regained power in 2007.

But to me, it is really REALLY short sighted and silly to give Obama a pass because you don't like the Republicans any more than Bush deserved a pass because Clinton sometimes sucked. And it is absurd to say that Obama isn't the most far left President that we have ever had.

I do not blame Bush for the economy, but for most Americans, it was not a pretty good eight years. It was good for the top 10%-20%, but not for everyone else.

For most Americans, wages were stagnant from 2001 through 2008 - even through 2006 - job growth off the bottom was the weakest on record, and nonfarm payrolls were negative for 40 of the 96 months Bush was President. Consumer and mortgage debt exploded, and a big reason was because people took on debt to sustain consumption they could not afford as incomes remained flat for the decade for most people.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

 

[Foxfyre]

I have neither praised nor defended the poor performance of the Republicans during the Bush administration and nobody has been a more serious critic of their performance than I have. I don't go all the way to say that it was 'eight years of hell'--exaggerate much?-- due to the Republicans however. For most Americans, it was eight pretty good years until the housing bubble burst in mid 2008. That does not excuse the Republicans for expanding government, buying into even more socialist programs, or for lack of oversight of critical components any more than the Democrats get a pass on that once they regained power in 2007.

But to me, it is really REALLY short sighted and silly to give Obama a pass because you don't like the Republicans any more than Bush deserved a pass because Clinton sometimes sucked. And it is absurd to say that Obama isn't the most far left President that we have ever had.

I do not blame Bush for the economy, but for most Americans, it was not a pretty good eight years. It was good for the top 10%-20%, but not for everyone else.

For most Americans, wages were stagnant from 2001 through 2008 - even through 2006 - job growth off the bottom was the weakest on record, and nonfarm payrolls were negative for 40 of the 96 months Bush was President. Consumer and mortgage debt exploded, and a big reason was because people took on debt to sustain consumption they could not afford as incomes remained flat for the decade for most people.

Bush inherited the residual recession from the tech bubble burst and 9/11 happened in the eighth month of his presidency. If you think ANY President would not have dealt with a deep and terrifying recession in the wake of that, you're nuts and it was exacerbated because we were already in a mild recession when it happened. So yes, as a result of that and due to NOTHING done by the Bush administration, we lost close to 2 million jobs in the year following the attacks and the rest of the economy was reeling.
Statistics from 9/11 and the aftermath | World news | The Observer

The Bush tax relief started kicking in by the end of his first term, however, and things were rapidly improving. Our business was going full steam during that period and I was seeing the bottom lines of businesses in New Mexico, Texas, Arizona, and Nevada and almost all were steadily gaining. I believe that was typical for most of the country.

Of course those who don't prosper during times of prosperity see it as a bad time. Those who do prosper don't. Many more were prospering than not. It was not the economy that sunk Bush and the Republicans but irresponsible spending and a willingness to embrace ever increasing socialist programs, and their base just isn't wired that way. Of course it didn't improve at all and got worse after the Democrats took over in 2007.

But the evidence shows that the economics were working until the housing bubble burst.

You can see that if the housing bubble hadn't burst in 2008, we were well on our way to balancing the budget again under the Bush economy. (It was still a Republican budget up to October 2007.) That simply doesn't happen when economic times are mostly bad.

There is plenty of blame to go around here and we can spend all our times hunting for villains and venting our prejudices.

But the fact is, conservative policies are the best policies to promote prosperity and prevent unintended negative consequences when prosperity is promoted.

 

[Toro]

The problem is that something like 40% of the incremental growth in the 00s was because of the Housing Bubble. Had there been no housing bubble, then there wouldn't have been much growth at all. So its a circular argument.

I have to hop. I'll address the other stuff later.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yep, foxfyre, that's why the policies of the Bush administration prevented the Great Recession.

Progressivism is a tool used by conservatives and liberals alike, and in context progressivism certainly is not socialism anymore than conservatism is not fascism.

No one is entitled to create one's own reality with one's own definitions that fly in the face of reality, and that is exactly what you and others here attempt, and fail, to do.

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem is that something like 40% of the incremental growth in the 00s was because of the Housing Bubble. Had there been no housing bubble, then there wouldn't have been much growth at all. So its a circular argument.

I have to hop. I'll address the other stuff later.

There is something to that too. But while the Bush administration has to take its share of the blame in creating that bubble, it actually started building 30 years before. So add that plus the tech bubble that was building during the Clinton administration--at least Bush can't be blamed for THAT--and you wouldn't have had all that much growth during the Clinton administration either.

Coming out of recession, you want vigorous growth because it means people are getting back to work and back to normal. After that you don't want artificial growth--just a steady maintenance of the economy so that people can make a living and live their lives as much as possible as they choose. So long as growth keeps up with population growth and leaves room for those on the bottom to move up the ladder as they have ambition and incentive to do so, we do okay.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have neither praised nor defended the poor performance of the Republicans during the Bush administration and nobody has been a more serious critic of their performance than I have. I don't go all the way to say that it was 'eight years of hell'--exaggerate much?-- due to the Republicans however. For most Americans, it was eight pretty good years until the housing bubble burst in mid 2008. That does not excuse the Republicans for expanding government, buying into even more socialist programs, or for lack of oversight of critical components any more than the Democrats get a pass on that once they regained power in 2007.

But to me, it is really REALLY short sighted and silly to give Obama a pass because you don't like the Republicans any more than Bush deserved a pass because Clinton sometimes sucked. And it is absurd to say that Obama isn't the most far left President that we have ever had.

I do not blame Bush for the economy, but for most Americans, it was not a pretty good eight years. It was good for the top 10%-20%, but not for everyone else.

For most Americans, wages were stagnant from 2001 through 2008 - even through 2006 - job growth off the bottom was the weakest on record, and nonfarm payrolls were negative for 40 of the 96 months Bush was President. Consumer and mortgage debt exploded, and a big reason was because people took on debt to sustain consumption they could not afford as incomes remained flat for the decade for most people.

During that time the unemployment rate averaged about 5%. Tell me again how that was worse than where we are today?
And please provide a link showing the majority of job creation is in the private sector. I haven't seen it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have neither praised nor defended the poor performance of the Republicans during the Bush administration and nobody has been a more serious critic of their performance than I have. I don't go all the way to say that it was 'eight years of hell'--exaggerate much?-- due to the Republicans however. For most Americans, it was eight pretty good years until the housing bubble burst in mid 2008. That does not excuse the Republicans for expanding government, buying into even more socialist programs, or for lack of oversight of critical components any more than the Democrats get a pass on that once they regained power in 2007.

But to me, it is really REALLY short sighted and silly to give Obama a pass because you don't like the Republicans any more than Bush deserved a pass because Clinton sometimes sucked. And it is absurd to say that Obama isn't the most far left President that we have ever had.

I do not blame Bush for the economy, but for most Americans, it was not a pretty good eight years. It was good for the top 10%-20%, but not for everyone else.

For most Americans, wages were stagnant from 2001 through 2008 - even through 2006 - job growth off the bottom was the weakest on record, and nonfarm payrolls were negative for 40 of the 96 months Bush was President. Consumer and mortgage debt exploded, and a big reason was because people took on debt to sustain consumption they could not afford as incomes remained flat for the decade for most people.

During that time the unemployment rate averaged about 5%. Tell me again how that was worse than where we are today?
And please provide a link showing the majority of job creation is in the private sector. I haven't seen it.

False herring, Rab, you statist, because 5% means (1) jobs were available, but (2) not that jobs paid well. Offer some purchasing power stats of the worker for every decade from 1950 to now. If you do, you will sink your argument.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have neither praised nor defended the poor performance of the Republicans during the Bush administration and nobody has been a more serious critic of their performance than I have. I don't go all the way to say that it was 'eight years of hell'--exaggerate much?-- due to the Republicans however. For most Americans, it was eight pretty good years until the housing bubble burst in mid 2008. That does not excuse the Republicans for expanding government, buying into even more socialist programs, or for lack of oversight of critical components any more than the Democrats get a pass on that once they regained power in 2007.

But to me, it is really REALLY short sighted and silly to give Obama a pass because you don't like the Republicans any more than Bush deserved a pass because Clinton sometimes sucked. And it is absurd to say that Obama isn't the most far left President that we have ever had.

I do not blame Bush for the economy, but for most Americans, it was not a pretty good eight years. It was good for the top 10%-20%, but not for everyone else.

For most Americans, wages were stagnant from 2001 through 2008 - even through 2006 - job growth off the bottom was the weakest on record, and nonfarm payrolls were negative for 40 of the 96 months Bush was President. Consumer and mortgage debt exploded, and a big reason was because people took on debt to sustain consumption they could not afford as incomes remained flat for the decade for most people.

During that time the unemployment rate averaged about 5%. Tell me again how that was worse than where we are today?
And please provide a link showing the majority of job creation is in the private sector. I haven't seen it.

Toro's statistics are pretty much on target though. But you know that old saw that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Statistics can be very useful in demonstrating raw numbers. They are usually less useful in explaining those same numbers.

What Toro left out of the equation is WHY 40 months of the Bush administartion were so abysmal, and anybody with a brain knows that it was mostly because of 9/11 plus the housing bubble burst. It would be as unfair to blame the 2009 recession on Obama.

But an honest analysis of the situation includes evaluation of whether policies are helping or hurting recovery from recession. Bush policies obviously helped. Obama policies obviously have not.

For me, it's as simple as that.

 

[Care4all]

I do not blame Bush for the economy, but for most Americans, it was not a pretty good eight years. It was good for the top 10%-20%, but not for everyone else.

For most Americans, wages were stagnant from 2001 through 2008 - even through 2006 - job growth off the bottom was the weakest on record, and nonfarm payrolls were negative for 40 of the 96 months Bush was President. Consumer and mortgage debt exploded, and a big reason was because people took on debt to sustain consumption they could not afford as incomes remained flat for the decade for most people.

During that time the unemployment rate averaged about 5%. Tell me again how that was worse than where we are today?
And please provide a link showing the majority of job creation is in the private sector. I haven't seen it.

Toro's statistics are pretty much on target though. But you know that old saw that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Statistics can be very useful in demonstrating raw numbers. They are usually less useful in explaining those same numbers.

What Toro left out of the equation is WHY 40 months of the Bush administartion were so abysmal, and anybody with a brain knows that it was mostly because of 9/11 plus the housing bubble burst. It would be as unfair to blame the 2009 recession on Obama.

But an honest analysis of the situation includes evaluation of whether policies are helping or hurting recovery from recession. Bush policies obviously helped. Obama policies obviously have not.

For me, it's as simple as that.

But the Bush recession was only from March of 2001 to November of 2001....

Are you really suggesting that the $300 dollar rebate we got in aug/September got us out of a recession in one month or so?

I don't think that is feasible....?

 

[antagon]

Tell us again how 5% unemployment and consistent GDP growth constitute "hell." I am sure many people would be happy to have it back.
The GOP screwed up by acting like Democrats. Voters tossed them out in '06. Democrats made things worse and Bush took the blame for it all.

wipe your chin, rabbi. borrownomics wasn't so consistent with production in the end. full employment circa 2007 wasn't anything like before, either. your partisanship betrays, as usual, your cluelessness.

 

[antagon]

During that time the unemployment rate averaged about 5%. Tell me again how that was worse than where we are today?
And please provide a link showing the majority of job creation is in the private sector. I haven't seen it.

Toro's statistics are pretty much on target though. But you know that old saw that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Statistics can be very useful in demonstrating raw numbers. They are usually less useful in explaining those same numbers.

What Toro left out of the equation is WHY 40 months of the Bush administartion were so abysmal, and anybody with a brain knows that it was mostly because of 9/11 plus the housing bubble burst. It would be as unfair to blame the 2009 recession on Obama.

But an honest analysis of the situation includes evaluation of whether policies are helping or hurting recovery from recession. Bush policies obviously helped. Obama policies obviously have not.

For me, it's as simple as that.

But the Bush recession was only from March of 2001 to November of 2001....

Are you really suggesting that the $300 dollar rebate we got in aug/September got us out of a recession in one month or so?

I don't think that is feasible....?

not feasible by my measure. i think fox has totally lost it with the 'honest' policy evaluation, too.

 

[Foxfyre]

During that time the unemployment rate averaged about 5%. Tell me again how that was worse than where we are today?
And please provide a link showing the majority of job creation is in the private sector. I haven't seen it.

Toro's statistics are pretty much on target though. But you know that old saw that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Statistics can be very useful in demonstrating raw numbers. They are usually less useful in explaining those same numbers.

What Toro left out of the equation is WHY 40 months of the Bush administartion were so abysmal, and anybody with a brain knows that it was mostly because of 9/11 plus the housing bubble burst. It would be as unfair to blame the 2009 recession on Obama.

But an honest analysis of the situation includes evaluation of whether policies are helping or hurting recovery from recession. Bush policies obviously helped. Obama policies obviously have not.

For me, it's as simple as that.

But the Bush recession was only from March of 2001 to November of 2001....

Are you really suggesting that the $300 dollar rebate we got in aug/September got us out of a recession in one month or so?

I don't think that is feasible....?

Care, 9/11 happened September 2001. Are you really believing that the deep recession in the wake of that was over by November 2001? The worst job losses came in January and February 2002. By March and April 2002, with a steady hand by Homeland Securities and subsiding fears, we were beginning to recover but things were shaky the remainder of 2002. The tax reform in 2003 did give a good push to the economy beginning in 2004though and it rocked along quite decently until mid 2008.

That $300 rebate was absurd and symbolic and in no way was a practical economic stimulus. I don't ever object, however, when the government allows me to keep more of my own money as I believe I will generally use it for my benefit better than the government will use it on my behalf.

 

[The Rabbi]

Toro's statistics are pretty much on target though. But you know that old saw that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Statistics can be very useful in demonstrating raw numbers. They are usually less useful in explaining those same numbers.

What Toro left out of the equation is WHY 40 months of the Bush administartion were so abysmal, and anybody with a brain knows that it was mostly because of 9/11 plus the housing bubble burst. It would be as unfair to blame the 2009 recession on Obama.

But an honest analysis of the situation includes evaluation of whether policies are helping or hurting recovery from recession. Bush policies obviously helped. Obama policies obviously have not.

For me, it's as simple as that.

But the Bush recession was only from March of 2001 to November of 2001....

Are you really suggesting that the $300 dollar rebate we got in aug/September got us out of a recession in one month or so?

I don't think that is feasible....?

Care, 9/11 happened September 2001. Are you really believing that the deep recession in the wake of that was over by November 2001? The worst job losses came in January and February 2002. By March and April 2002, with a steady hand by Homeland Securities and subsiding fears, we were beginning to recover but things were shaky the remainder of 2002. The tax reform in 2003 did give a good push to the economy beginning in 2004though and it rocked along quite decently until mid 2008.

That $300 rebate was absurd and symbolic and in no way was a practical economic stimulus. I don't ever object, however, when the government allows me to keep more of my own money as I believe I will generally use it for my benefit better than the government will use it on my behalf.

The recession began before Bush took office. Yes, his tax cuts were primarily responsible for the recovery we saw. But even though more jobs were lost in that recession, the unemployment rate did not go anywhere near where we see it today. The simple reason is that job creation was much higher than today.
The $300 checks were a sop to teh Democrats to pass the legislation. They stank as anything other than a bribe.
I predict Care will exit this thread, as she does everytime she is shown to be dead wrong.