Yes and his one year deficit of $400B was considered fiscal mismanagement yet Obama and the Democrats took the $161B Bush and the Republicans handed them and turned it into a $1,400B and three more years of $1,000+.
My son and his wife just moved back here after his leaving the military. Neither have college degrees. Within a matter of weeks both have jobs.
Actually Carter left the biggest one in my lifetime and Reagan took the proper actions to turn it around and produce and very long sustained period of economy growth and prosperity. Clinton left Bush with another train wreck and again due to taking the proper actions led us again into one of the longest sustained periods of growth and full employment on record. Had the Democrats in 2007 when they took over Congress taken the correct actions the next recession would not have been nearly as bad and of course Obama has taken the exact opposite approach and we have had the worst recovery in our lifetimes because of it.
Is it coincidence that the economy tanked AFTER Democrats took over both houses of Congress in late 2006, followed by Obama taking the Presidency in 2009, giving the Dems a supermajority? Democrats have been running this nation for the past seven years.....That's SEVEN YEARS of Democrat control.
no co-incidence at all. What I find amusing is that many on the right seem to ignore the fact that when a heavy weight is pushed over a cliff, it continues to fall and even picks up speed, regardless of who is "responsible" for the safe keeping of that weight. For some unfathomable reason republicans think that the economy is re-set every time there is an election. If only that were true, there wouldn't have been such a deep recession.
Creating demand usually does that; all it may require is a petty cash fund for that purpose. And, it is about correcting for laissez-fare's laziness at creating full employment (of resources) in the market for labor.
It still doesn't explain why the wealthiest are not investing their record profits to create jobs that create better products at lower cost.
Ahh actually that is the left who believe in the reset as in Bush was responsible for the recession of 2001 even though he had been a governor of Texas in 2000. Or that Clinton was responsible for the growth in the early 90's even though that started two years before.
Wow, you will have to go without food to pay for your health insurance, have you even looked for work? - - - Updated - - - Or that Bush was responsible for the financial collapse when he had barely been president for 7 1/2 years......
Funnily, I can't think of any Democrat giving the last Bush administration credit for anything positive today. Similarly, Dems take no responsibility for anything wrong at any time, past or present.
really? so the post I was responding to was an outlier? just can't bring yourself to admit that some republican political messaging is bullcrap that relies on the ignorance of its parrots? I agree that leftists can be equally as guilty, but it seems to me that they are slightly less prone to blatant ignorance than the righties. Of course centerists of both persuasions are a lot less prone.
The massive housing bubble that eventually destroyed the economy peaked and burst under Republican had complete control. Economists saw it coming a mile away. From 2006: http://www.oftwominds.com/blogmay06/housing-global-recession.html Your attempts to blame Democrats, who only passed their first budget months before the recession began in Dec 2007, are comical.
An acquaintance of mine up in Fort Wayne was telling folks about the bubble in 2001. I was smart enough to know that he knew what he was talking about, so I paid off one house, squirreled a bit back, and bought a place out in the sticks, away from the insanity in 2009. Front half of '08 I was debt free. by the end of '09, I owned two properties outright, and three cars.
I think everyone gives him credit for "rallying the troops" after 9/11. And I think most give him credit for TARP. (although most republicans blame Obama for that little bit of government market intervention). Its about balance I suppose. there are a number of very postive things that bush accomplished, but they are vastly outweighed by the negative things that he and his neo-con backers were responsible for. A litany of negatives that far outweight the negatives that anyone can ascribe to Obama's administration (to date that is).
Are YOU feeling the recovery, yet? Are you better off than you were 15 years ago ? Wall St. numbers are a farce as far as our recovery. Over the last several days both the Dow and Gold have gone up. What does that say. It takes more dollars to buy an ounce of gold or a share of stock. That is called "inflation", not recovery. A real recovery would see the Dow go up and Gold go down. The worst is coming. The Federally inflated stock market and economy will tumble, bad. You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet. Moi No
And he was responsible because.............the ground work for it was laid during the Clinton administration and all attempts by Bush to mitigate it were twarted by Democrats protecting their pet agencies Fannie and Freddie.
Can we blame his for becoming ensnared in the vice of Capitalists asking for (socialized) bailouts instead of more efficient Infrastructure with which to compete in our global political-economy.
I don't see the Republicans adopting the "everything resets with the new President" mentality. Then why do they make such fallacious claims about Bush and the deficits and give Clinton credit for the surplus?
I remember the surpluses because I realized our friends on the right could no longer complain about illegal immigration being a financial burden.
Well, then, my apologies. I have been high-strung lately, and that's the truth. Maybe on January 1st, when it's legal to buy marijuana here in Colorado I can really unwind a bit. I need to. I don't enjoy being pissed off all the time, but with a deceitful, lying bastard in the White House like Comrade Obama, and with a regime of Socialists doing his bidding, it's hard to be very happy about it.
Moi is right. Asset prices are being inflated by Fed money printing - $85B per month. All that loose cash winds up invested. The Fed is trapped: stop printing money and the bubble it's created will burst in a bad crash; continue printing money, and asset prices will continue to inflate until they become unsustainable, and the bubble will burst in an even worse crash because the problem went untreated. The Fed and the government chose political expediency and kicked the can down the road. They'd prefer ruin tomorrow to trouble today. Janet Yellen (Bernanke's replacement at the Fed) committed herself to continue printing money, which is what the pols want.
We looked around 2005/2006 and the prices were just insane. We had about 50% equity in our house at that point so would have had a lot of cash to put down but I told the wife that when this bubble burst we would lose all that and even face being upside down. We held off and just continued paying off our current house which we will own outright in a couple of years and kept plying money into retirement accounts. We've never held a lot of debt other than the our house and at this time is the ONLY debt we have. That is the thing about the bubble and people claiming that that is the only reason the economy was good during the 2000's. The Democrat scheme was bringing in lots of unqualified buyers which drove up housing prices and qualified buyers like us stayed out of it. Prices would have gone up but not into a bubble and when prices did fall a little during a down cycle people wouldn't have been thrown out their homes because they would have had equity in them. - - - Updated - - - Just like with housing when the government injected itself into the market.
