U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-29-2011, 01:24 PM
 
5,114 posts, read 4,754,373 times
Reputation: 4380

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
And what would other presidents have done when interest rates were still going up, Inflation was still high and unemployment still high.

Would they:

A. Spend $1 trillion dollars trying to stimulate the economy

or

B. Sit back and let it work its own way out.


(I can assure you most presidents couldn't stand Laissze-Faire ideas and to just sit back and allow someone not elected by the people purposefully put on the austerity measures, hard. But, of course, that was Reagan's mantra.)
John, you forgot the option that Reagan actually took:

C. Spend one trillion dollars building up the military to fight the Soviets - and all on borrowed dollars to boot!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-29-2011, 02:43 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
69,752 posts, read 35,601,566 times
Reputation: 15161
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
Let me play Devils advocate: from September of 1982 to June of 1983 unemployment was above 10 percent. That was longer than under Obama. Yes, unemployment among college graduates is much worse today.

Look how they calculated unemployment back then and how they do now.

That is the whole reason government changed the way unemployment was figured. So it didn't look as bad as it really is.
If it were calculated now, like it was in 1930-1980's, we would be seeing close to 20%, easy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2011, 03:45 PM
 
27,889 posts, read 35,009,538 times
Reputation: 4035
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post
John, you forgot the option that Reagan actually took:

C. Spend one trillion dollars building up the military to fight the Soviets - and all on borrowed dollars to boot!
Umm.. no it wasn't. The budget request was for a little more than $1.5 trillion over 5 years. It wasn't all borrowed, not even most of it was borrowed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2011, 03:49 PM
 
27,889 posts, read 35,009,538 times
Reputation: 4035
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
He then served as Chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers before President Bush appointed him to be Chairman of the United StatesFederal Bernanke was confirmed for a second term as Chairman on January 28, 2010, after being nominated by President Barack Obama.

Ben Bernanke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, the Chariman for the Fed answers to the President.
Yes, I understand that. That's not how it worked out in the 80's when Reagan brought us back from the typical tax and spend Republicans and Democrats of the previous decades. In other words, Reagan stood by his mantra, "Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority, and don't interfere as long as the policy you've decided upon is being carried out."

Of course even in that quote Reagan still held the ultimate authority and was thew one ultimately responsible for the economic downturn. He did one of the very few rarities in politics, he sacrificed his own public image for a better cause. He took a bet and it paid off. He could have easily lost in 1984 but he knew his bet was sure and the reason being is because he bet on the individual to do what's right for themselves and their families. That's common sense to most conservatives and something that needs to be written law with sever punishments for liberals, go figure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2011, 03:54 PM
 
Location: Austin
29,815 posts, read 17,020,327 times
Reputation: 8232
Meanwhile, the useless deaths and spending in Obama's Afghanistan war continue... with no end in sight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2011, 04:02 PM
 
588 posts, read 886,019 times
Reputation: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
Obama's Afghanistan war
???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2011, 04:17 PM
 
2,490 posts, read 3,818,225 times
Reputation: 2879
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Really?

Google

Yes, really. Ended in June of 2009, just about what the CBO predicted.

Why don't you know this?

U.S. recession ended June 2009, NBER says Economic Report - MarketWatch
Dude, are aware that the GDP only "grew" because of excessive govt. spending? Yes, we've seen GDP growth, but it's artificial growth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2011, 07:39 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,313 posts, read 40,217,610 times
Reputation: 7107
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90sman View Post
Dude, are aware that the GDP only "grew" because of excessive govt. spending? Yes, we've seen GDP growth, but it's artificial growth.
I know of the Fed's meddling. That is beside the point that the so-called "experts", who have been calling such things for a while now, determined the recession officially, technically ended in June 2009. CBO predicted the same late 2009/early 2010 WITHOUT government intervention (aka The Failed obama Stimulus).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2011, 07:46 PM
 
69,360 posts, read 56,586,093 times
Reputation: 9370
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
Yes, I understand that. That's not how it worked out in the 80's when Reagan brought us back from the typical tax and spend Republicans and Democrats of the previous decades. In other words, Reagan stood by his mantra, "Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority, and don't interfere as long as the policy you've decided upon is being carried out."

Of course even in that quote Reagan still held the ultimate authority and was thew one ultimately responsible for the economic downturn. He did one of the very few rarities in politics, he sacrificed his own public image for a better cause. He took a bet and it paid off. He could have easily lost in 1984 but he knew his bet was sure and the reason being is because he bet on the individual to do what's right for themselves and their families. That's common sense to most conservatives and something that needs to be written law with sever punishments for liberals, go figure.
Yes it did.. Reagan nominated Alan Greenspan to run the Federal Reserve June 2, 1987

The federal reserve then also answered to the President.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2011, 09:45 PM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC (in my mind)
7,946 posts, read 15,283,404 times
Reputation: 4528
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90sman View Post
2009? Thats when the Great Recession ended, two years ago? I find that hard to believe.
No, things have been getting steadily worse since then. Maybe 2009 is when the "recession" ended and the "depression" began. There is very little to be hopeful for in America right now. There will be no quick fix, and this thing will not be over in the matter of just a few years.

If gas prices go any higher, the consumer economy will completely collapse and take the broader economy with it. I strongly believe we will end the year with unemployment north of 12%, possibly even 15% (U3 rate). Its laughable that the Dow continues to rise which there is zero, I mean ZERO good news in this economy. Obama inherited the worst economy since Jimmy Carter, and he has turned it into an economic catastrophe rivaling the Great Depression.

2011 so far reminds me a lot of 1928. The US economy was in recession in 1928 and there was very little in the way of positive news, yet the stock market kept soaring to new heights.

The true state of today's economy could support a Dow maximum of maybe 6000, and even that I think is a little high. Dow 4000 is a little more realistic.

I wish I could find one glimmer of hope in this economy, but I am just not finding it. Thanks Obama, for ruining my life, as well as so many people in my generation too drunk off the koolaid to realize it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top