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.
The country is better off now than it was in the fall of 2008. Technically, I believe the unemployment was lower then, but that was only because the sell off on Wall St. had just started a few months before and there was a lag between the time companies first felt the effects and the time they actually reacted to them (went out of business or cut jobs). It's still not a pretty situation, but he's at least stabilized the economy and started the process of bringing us out of two very long and costly wars.
I'll just put out there what you've already suspected: yes, I'm an Obama voter, and yes I plan to vote for him again. But I have voted for Republicans in the past, and I haven't entirely ruled it out in the future either. I would at least be willing to see what a business-minded, intelligent, articulate, rational, moderate, and pragmatic GOP candidate with experience like Mitt Romney has to say and what he proposes doing about the current situation. I won't lie; I'd still be leaning toward another four years of Barry O, but as I said, I could at least give Mitt a chance and hear him out.
I cannot say the same for overwhelming majority of free market fanatics who populate the GOP of today. I'm not going to say that Democrats are entirely blameless, but what I see from Republicans just disgusts me. This whole uncompromising, mission-from-God mentality....to defend tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans, who need absolutely no help at all. It's not just bad politics; it is an outrage, and it is immoral, and if there's a judgmental God I suspect that God is preparing their train to hell as we speak.
It's bad enough that Republicans don't have their priorities in the right place, but that's not the worst of it. The absolute most unforgivable aspect to the Republicans' political strategy is their incessant tendency to disrupt the public debate on the issue, by virtue of scaremongering and dishonest demagoguery. And oh my what a surprise, it turns out that the biggest bank roller and international media advocate for conservative politics is implicated in charges of one of the greatest media scandals of all time.
"The country is better off now than it was in the fall of 2008."
Why?
"stabilized the economy"?
What in the world does "stabilized the economy" mean?
We have 1.8% GDP.
Unemployment is at 9.2%.
Inflation is increasing.
In December 1982, unemployment peaked at 10.8%. After that the unemployment rate decreased every month except one for the next three years. By January 1986, the unemployment rate was 6.7%, inflation was under 4%, the economy was growing in every sector and federal revenue, in constant 2005 dollars, had increased following Reagan's tax cuts by 6%.
Since peaking in October 2009 at 10.1%, unemployment has increased month over month five times.
In twenty months since unemployment peaked, it has declined 1%.
Under Reagan, unemployment declined 3.3% in the same amount of time.
Imagine if he would have had a Republican Congress, line-item veto or balanced budget amendment (all things he asked for).
"The country is better off now than it was in the fall of 2008."
Why?
"stabilized the economy"?
What in the world does "stabilized the economy" mean?
We have 1.8% GDP.
Unemployment is at 9.2%.
Inflation is increasing.
In December 1982, unemployment peaked at 10.8%. After that the unemployment rate decreased every month except one for the next three years. By January 1986, the unemployment rate was 6.7%, inflation was under 4%, the economy was growing in every sector and federal revenue, in constant 2005 dollars, had increased following Reagan's tax cuts by 6%.
Since peaking in October 2009 at 10.1%, unemployment has increased month over month five times.
In twenty months since unemployment peaked, it has declined 1%.
Under Reagan, unemployment declined 3.3% in the same amount of time.
Imagine if he would have had a Republican Congress, line-item veto or balanced budget amendment (all things he asked for).
You're using numbers to support your position, but the numbers by themselves don't tell the story. Carter didn't hand over Reagan an economy that had nearly experienced a complete meltdown of financial markets; Bush did. In fact, Carter didn't really hand over an economy that was all that bad. In fact, unemployment didn't really begin to rocket upward until after the passage of Reagan's fiscal policies in 1981. By contrast, the "Obama recession" was already well underway, starting in the summer of 2007, with the economy nearly imploding in the fall of 2008. Moreover, Reagan still had a much larger industrial plant to work with than Obama does now 30 years later. Obama's challenges are much greater, and unfortunately, he has one half of a congress that is determined to see him and the country fail; the other half simply has no spine.
Look, I am admittedly over-simplifying by suggesting that Bush and Bush alone is responsible for the economic collapse that occurred in 2008, but so is everyone else when they suggest that Obama's policies alone are failing. They're 'failing' because what he's trying to remedy is a problem that is going to take a long time to fix even under the best of circumstances. Can we all just move past the over-simplifications and try to fix the economy? I don't want to see 90 percent tax rates on the rich anymore than you do, but I'm sorry, Warren Buffett and those with even half his wealth paying only 20 percent in of their income in actual taxes? Worse, with Wall St.'s recovery (on the backs of the taxpayers, no less), the incomes of the rich are increasing while the laborers have nothing but unemployment. This is a situation that is economically untenable, and if it continues, it's politically explosive. Trust me when I say, we do not want to live in an America that 300 million firearms and a large percentage of the population subsisting as chronically under-employed working poor.
Reagan didn't cause the Soviet Union to stop its oppressive ways; the Soviet Union ran out of money and could no longer sustain its empire. It, and other members of the Eastern Bloc, were unable to provide a quality of life for their people that was worth defending, so people stopped defending it and started demanding something different.
You would do yourself some good to actually research how that might have happened. I'll give you a carrot but I'm absolutely sick of repeating myself about the subject.
I don't want my leaders to be pessimists but I don't want them to be naive idealists either. I want them to be realists. I want them to have the integrity to make candid assessments about what's wrong with the country, but to also show the resolve that is needed to inspire us to confront a real challenge. Abraham Lincoln's "house divided" speech was brutally sobering; he didn't run from the truth. He knew he was leading America into its darkest hour. But he did it with his eyes wide open and he never, ever gave anyone the impression that he had anything short of success as his end game. That's what great American leadership is, not just making people feel good about themselves and ignoring the challenges that stare you in the face.
But they've lied to you and there is not going to be any turning back. Once you understand how things work you'll know things went from perfect order and end in complete chaos. There is no reversing that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
As a left-leaning guy I don't like to admit this about Republicans too often, but the reality is that Carter's job of moving the country past Watergate was really already handled by Ford. Gerry Ford may not have meant much as a president in terms of longevity, but he did do the two things he absolutely had to do: 1) ended Vietnam once and for all, and 2) he pardoned Nixon, thus saving us the dreadfully bitter spectacle of dealing with a former president on trial. I get the sense that Carter believed that he was still needed to heal the country, but Ford already did that.
Not quite the upbeat HopeNChange from 2008, is it?
Nice spin.
If I were you, I'd try dealing with the mess the GOP is in right now before anything else. If you guys can't get your act together you won't stand a chance.
Go back and re-read what I wrote: unemployment was *technically* better then because the economy had not had time to sustain the shock of the financial system's collapse. But the jobs losses were accelerating at the end of 2008 and into the first month of 2009. The economy contracted sharply to the point of record deflation not seen since 1932 (a depression year that happened to be the last year of a republican's administration...what a coincidence).
But you know all that. You don't want to analyze facts in total, just the ones you like that support your argument. I guess have these types of 'debates' for sport.
You conclude correlation is causation in one paragraph, then lecture the rest of us about analyzing facts in total in the next paragraph.
"The economy contracted sharply to the point of record deflation not seen since 1932"
Really?
It was -2.10% for one month.
How about the higher deflation rate of April-August 1939 and July-October 1949?
"a depression year that happened to be the last year of a republican's administration...what a coincidence"
Raising taxes during a recession made an economic downturn far worse than it would have been had nothing been done at all. Can you name any Republicans currently serving who are calling for increased taxes, wage and price controls, Keynesian stimulus programs, expanded government make-work programs or Smoot-Hawley-style import tariffs?
You would do yourself some good to actually research how that might have happened. I'll give you a carrot but I'm absolutely sick of repeating myself about the subject.
But they've lied to you and there is not going to be any turning back. Once you understand how things work you'll know things went from perfect order and end in complete chaos. There is no reversing that.
I agree.
Wow, a directive. White papers are good and all, but they don't actually have much impact. What happened to the Soviet Union was decades in the making; Reagan hastened the end with his defense spending...but then again, one has to ask if the cost was really worth it (considering the national debt before and after). I'll give Reagan credit for one thing, which was that he engaged the Soviets from a position of strength, recognizing the opportunity to bring the Russians to the table at a time when we and our allies were clearly superior economically, and at a time when the Russians were desperately looking for a way to end their empire while still saving some face. But you're way out there if you suggest that the empire wasn't seriously in decline until Reagan took office. Reagan saw the opportunity to take advantage, particularly given that he had a more moderate counterpart in Mikhail Gorbachev.
If anything, the real beginning of the USSR's end was Afghanistan, which began before Reagan took office. The Soviets were weakening anyway, but their losses in Afghanistan called Russian dominance and control over non-Russian territories into question, at a time when there were growing calls for separatism. The Russians were forced to the negotiating table.
Wow, a directive. White papers are good and all, but they don't actually have much impact. What happened to the Soviet Union was decades in the making; Reagan hastened the end with his defense spending...but then again, one has to ask if the cost was really worth it (considering the national debt before and after). I'll give Reagan credit for one thing, which was that he engaged the Soviets from a position of strength, recognizing the opportunity to bring the Russians to the table at a time when we and our allies were clearly superior economically, and at a time when the Russians were desperately looking for a way to end their empire while still saving some face. But you're way out there if you suggest that the empire wasn't seriously in decline until Reagan took office. Reagan saw the opportunity to take advantage, particularly given that he had a more moderate counterpart in Mikhail Gorbachev.
If anything, the real beginning of the USSR's end was Afghanistan, which began before Reagan took office. The Soviets were weakening anyway, but their losses in Afghanistan called Russian dominance and control over non-Russian territories into question, at a time when there were growing calls for separatism. The Russians were forced to the negotiating table.
Okay, one more carrot.
Quote:
William J. Casey, then director of central intelligence, visited the king in 1987. The American brought a shiny, detailed Kalashnikov rifle. Its stock featured a brass plaque saying that the weapon had been taken from the body of a Russian officer.
''Mr. Casey might as well have been giving the keys to the Kingdom of God itself,'' Mr. Horan wrote. ''The king rose, flourished the weapon, and struck a martial pose.''
Casey, who was well versed in economic warfare, traveled over to Saudi Arabia and made a deal with King Fahd to triple oil production. Casey's part was to make sure the Soviets lost in Afghanistan.
The Urengoy – Pomary – Uzhgorod Pipeline was a critical element of Soviet energy plans for the 1980s, allowing the USSR to export an additional 40 Bcm/a of gas to western Europe, effectively tripling export levels at the time.
You're using numbers to support your position, but the numbers by themselves don't tell the story. Carter didn't hand over Reagan an economy that had nearly experienced a complete meltdown of financial markets; Bush did. In fact, Carter didn't really hand over an economy that was all that bad. In fact, unemployment didn't really begin to rocket upward until after the passage of Reagan's fiscal policies in 1981. By contrast, the "Obama recession" was already well underway, starting in the summer of 2007, with the economy nearly imploding in the fall of 2008. Moreover, Reagan still had a much larger industrial plant to work with than Obama does now 30 years later. Obama's challenges are much greater, and unfortunately, he has one half of a congress that is determined to see him and the country fail; the other half simply has no spine.
Look, I am admittedly over-simplifying by suggesting that Bush and Bush alone is responsible for the economic collapse that occurred in 2008, but so is everyone else when they suggest that Obama's policies alone are failing. They're 'failing' because what he's trying to remedy is a problem that is going to take a long time to fix even under the best of circumstances. Can we all just move past the over-simplifications and try to fix the economy? I don't want to see 90 percent tax rates on the rich anymore than you do, but I'm sorry, Warren Buffett and those with even half his wealth paying only 20 percent in of their income in actual taxes? Worse, with Wall St.'s recovery (on the backs of the taxpayers, no less), the incomes of the rich are increasing while the laborers have nothing but unemployment. This is a situation that is economically untenable, and if it continues, it's politically explosive. Trust me when I say, we do not want to live in an America that 300 million firearms and a large percentage of the population subsisting as chronically under-employed working poor.
Someone in this conversation is too young to remember what life was like in 1979-82.
Obama didn't inherit double-digit inflation (11.83%), but Reagan did.
Obama's was 0.03%.
Obama didn't inherit an economy shrinking at 7.9%, but Reagan did.
Obama's was shrinking at 6.8%.
"In fact, Carter didn't really hand over an economy that was all that bad"
What wasn't bad?
Double-digit inflation, double-digit prime interest rates, negative GDP, 7.5% unemployment, inflation adjusted price of gasoline was $3.80/gal,...
"In fact, unemployment didn't really begin to rocket upward until after the passage of Reagan's fiscal policies in 1981."
Please provide a list of those fiscal policies which caused rocketing unemployment.
"Look, I am admittedly over-simplifying by suggesting that Bush and Bush alone is responsible for the economic collapse that occurred in 2008, but so is everyone else when they suggest that Obama's policies alone are failing."
Actually, Clinton, Summers, Rubin, Raines (see working group), Mudd and Gramm are the people most responsible for the financial collapse of 2008. It was Clinton, on the expressed advice of Rubin and Summers, along with Raines' working group, who believed it unwise to allow regulation of credit default swaps. Bush, on his part, attempted to rein in the GSEs in 2003 when he sent Snow to Capital Hill to lobby Congress for a new and effective regulator. At the time they were bundling sub-prime mortgages into CDOs and passing these sub-par investments off as AAA paper. The Democrats were heavily funded by both Freddie and Fannie, not to mention the building industry and their unions, so they had no interest in replacing OFHEO and opposed all reforms.
Perhaps you could list some of the legislative initiatives put forward by Bush II which resulted in the 2008 crisis.
That would probably have to do with the fact that when Obama took over there was as much, if not more, concern over deflation than there was about inflation. Prices dropped in the 4th quarter of 2008 at a rate not seen since 1932.
Quote:
Obama didn't inherit an economy shrinking at 7.9%, but Reagan did.
You pulled this statistic out of your rectum. The peak-trough drop was nowhere near that close for the 1980 recession, which by the way was considered a separate recession from the one that occurred under Reagan in 1981/1982. The peak-trough GDP drop occurred mostly under Bush's watch, but it was a 12 percent drop -- 12. The worst since the Great Depression. They're not calling this the Great Recession for nothing.
Quote:
Actually, Clinton, Summers, Rubin, Raines (see working group), Mudd and Gramm are the people most responsible for the financial collapse of 2008.
I would not entirely disagree with this. But it does need to be pointed out there were warnings given to the Bush administration (Paulson, in particular) that the subprime crisis was about to explode. He chose to do nothing about it. He went Hoover on us, and we paid the price. It is documented that Paulson was a free-market, non-interventionist who would have preferred little or no government involvement in response to the crisis. However, even he, even Bush, even Cheney acknowledged that without significant and immediate government intervention, the economy would completely collapse -- completely.
Not quite the upbeat HopeNChange from 2008, is it?
Wow - that's pretty weird.
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.
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.
