Unemployment lowest since 2008 (3 Viewers)

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Bush was also blamed for Fed rate cuts.

 

[guderian]

You thought what? In the post that directly proceeds your post, I named 2 policies that play a significant role in the current mess we find ourselves in. But please, continue acting as if the folks steering the ship from 2000-2008 have clean hands while evil Obama is really at fault for our problems.

You said this:

Why would you draw that conclusion? There are a lot of factors that resulted in our economy being in the shape it is today - the RE bubble is just one of them. Bush Tax cuts and the 2 wars that were kept off budget are policies that were extremely poor decisions.

Please tell me how tax cuts and "off budget wars" led to a housing bubble and financial collapse that left Obama with a "bag full of ####" in terms of the economy and unemployment. We could debate their impact on the deficit, but I don't see how you could argue that their detrimental to employment.

 

[guderian]

The policy of not further regulating the financial system. Clinton and Obama have been guilty of the same. Specifically not placing stricter loan limits or breaking up TBTF financial institutions. Presidents are guilty of not fixing problems before #### hits the fan as well.Bush's biggest fault was increasing the debt. He cut taxes, waged two poorly managed wars, created the DHS, and increased other government spending during his terms without considering increasing revenue. I'm not giving Obama a pass here either though. His party had control of Congress for two years and even though some of the control might as well have called themselves Republicans, Obama played too nice instead of calling out the obstructionists.

So the "Bush" policies that left Obama with a "bag full of ####" according to Tgunz were continuing Clinton era deregulation (which means its partially a Clinton policy), and deficit spending? Hasn't Obama's entire Presidency been staked on deficit spending? If deficit spending is detrimental to employment, then why are we calling it a "Bush failed policy" while cheering Obama for expanding it???

 

[guderian]

Current theories about GWB causing the recession/banking crisis:Illegal immigrationIraq warPolitical advertisementsFinancial deregulation that occured under Carter, Reagan and Clinton.

The entire thread is a good read.

Definitely a great thread.

 

[jamny]

What is a recovery? What are people expecting?

Any real "rah-rah" times are probably at least 10-20 years away. There's been so much consolidation by people and corporations that everyone has learned to do more with less. I hear a lot about how corporations are hoarding money but when people do it, it's called saving. Everyone's doing it and everyone has cut back on extravagances. That's just not changing anytime soon.

It's a whole new economy. A recovery implies that you're getting back to the levels before a drop. That ain't anytime happening soon and probably shouldn't. So what will a recovery be? What's the floor and ceiling near term?

 

[jonessed]

What is a recovery? What are people expecting?Any real "rah-rah" times are probably at least 10-20 years away. There's been so much consolidation by people and corporations that everyone has learned to do more with less. I hear a lot about how corporations are hoarding money but when people do it, it's called saving. Everyone's doing it and everyone has cut back on extravagances. That's just not changing anytime soon.It's a whole new economy. A recovery implies that you're getting back to the levels before a drop. That ain't anytime happening soon and probably shouldn't. So what will a recovery be? What's the floor and ceiling near term?

We can't have unemployment anywhere near this level for another 3-5 years, much less 10-20. Even under the rosiest federal government deficit action scenarios we would not be able to save our economy under those circumstances.

 

[jamny]

What is a recovery? What are people expecting?Any real "rah-rah" times are probably at least 10-20 years away. There's been so much consolidation by people and corporations that everyone has learned to do more with less. I hear a lot about how corporations are hoarding money but when people do it, it's called saving. Everyone's doing it and everyone has cut back on extravagances. That's just not changing anytime soon.It's a whole new economy. A recovery implies that you're getting back to the levels before a drop. That ain't anytime happening soon and probably shouldn't. So what will a recovery be? What's the floor and ceiling near term?

We can't have unemployment anywhere near this level for another 3-5 years, much less 10-20. Even under the rosiest federal government deficit action scenarios we would not be able to save our economy under those circumstances.

Well yeah, that's a given. So 6% in 3-5 years?

 

[Chadstroma]

Extremely fearful that it is mostly due to the Christmas season that has retail more optimistic than they have been in a while... but I will put my thinking cap down and just enjoy the good news.

 

[jamny]

anyone know a good chart that shows historical averages comparing household savings vs. debt? Something current?

 

[jonessed]

What is a recovery? What are people expecting?Any real "rah-rah" times are probably at least 10-20 years away. There's been so much consolidation by people and corporations that everyone has learned to do more with less. I hear a lot about how corporations are hoarding money but when people do it, it's called saving. Everyone's doing it and everyone has cut back on extravagances. That's just not changing anytime soon.It's a whole new economy. A recovery implies that you're getting back to the levels before a drop. That ain't anytime happening soon and probably shouldn't. So what will a recovery be? What's the floor and ceiling near term?

We can't have unemployment anywhere near this level for another 3-5 years, much less 10-20. Even under the rosiest federal government deficit action scenarios we would not be able to save our economy under those circumstances.

Well yeah, that's a given. So 6% in 3-5 years?

I certainly hope so.That would require at least double today's "better" numbers every month though. It's a tough ask, but we have stagnated so long we really have to make it happen.

 

[Slapdash]

anyone know a good chart that shows historical averages comparing household savings vs. debt? Something current?

This sounds up your alley. You can see each of those series to date at the St. Louis Fed's website.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Please tell me how tax cuts and "off budget wars" led to a housing bubble and financial collapse that left Obama with a "bag full of ####" in terms of the economy and unemployment. We could debate their impact on the deficit, but I don't see how you could argue that their detrimental to employment.

Lower tax rates don't make it cheaper to cash out (and flip) short term investments? Lower taxes doesn't make more capital available for speculative investments? There tends to be a speculative bubble after every tax cut. The tax on the economy of the "off budget wars" is still in the future. Since we have had close to zero percent interest rates it is hard to claim that federal deficits are creating "inflation premiums" in interest rates, but we have to assume that they will exists in the future as we borrow more and more.

 

[jamny]

anyone know a good chart that shows historical averages comparing household savings vs. debt? Something current?

This sounds up your alley. You can see each of those series to date at the St. Louis Fed's website.

Thanks. It's first quarter 2010 though. Is there a way that it's tracked on a regular basis?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Two years after the initial proclamation of an improvement in employment buoying Obama we've got yet another one (and a title change).

We're down a good 2 million jobs from when Obama was elected and population growth adds another 2 million per year, so we have a deficit of 8 million jobs times 2.5 people per household yields 20 million people living in a household where someone probably wants a job, but can't find one. Obama won the popular vote by 10 million.

People vote based on their situation, not on the minor changes in a statistic.

Contrary to the "Obama is a god" theme that I hear from you right wingers, the man can't work miracles. LOL at "Obama is down 2M jobs" when YOUR GUY handed him a paper bag full of #### after 8 years of YOUR economic policies.

And I said "We're down a good 2 million jobs from when Obama was elected" which is a fact. It's also a fact that we're having the worst recovery in modern economic history. In a little less than a year voters will get to decide if they believe the "it's all Bush's fault" theme or not.

And it's a fact that Obama has about 8% of his cabinet and advisers from the private sector when most Presidents since Teddy Roosevelt had between 40-60% of their advisers from the private sector all the way thru Bush Jr. the 2nd lowest recorded in history was none other than Jimmy Carter who had something like 20% or thereabouts. I don't pick on Obama for foreign policy stuff much, and I like some of what he proposed to do with the rebuilding of the infrastructure in this country but I don't blink when I say that Obama has very little experience when it comes to financial matters and shows poor leadership in money matters. You can disagree that's fine but most people can see that he certainly should not be the CFO of a company.

This is blatantly untrue and was debunked in a thread here.

 

[tommyGunZ]

anyone know a good chart that shows historical averages comparing household savings vs. debt? Something current?

This sounds up your alley. You can see each of those series to date at the St. Louis Fed's website.

Thanks for sharing that Slapdash. Extremely enlightening and helps to show why growth is still very sluggish. Also makes me optimistic that we may be in line for another period of strong growth when balance sheets are finally repaired.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Two years after the initial proclamation of an improvement in employment buoying Obama we've got yet another one (and a title change).

We're down a good 2 million jobs from when Obama was elected and population growth adds another 2 million per year, so we have a deficit of 8 million jobs times 2.5 people per household yields 20 million people living in a household where someone probably wants a job, but can't find one. Obama won the popular vote by 10 million.

People vote based on their situation, not on the minor changes in a statistic.

Contrary to the "Obama is a god" theme that I hear from you right wingers, the man can't work miracles. LOL at "Obama is down 2M jobs" when YOUR GUY handed him a paper bag full of #### after 8 years of YOUR economic policies.

And I said "We're down a good 2 million jobs from when Obama was elected" which is a fact. It's also a fact that we're having the worst recovery in modern economic history. In a little less than a year voters will get to decide if they believe the "it's all Bush's fault" theme or not.

And it's a fact that Obama has about 8% of his cabinet and advisers from the private sector when most Presidents since Teddy Roosevelt had between 40-60% of their advisers from the private sector all the way thru Bush Jr. the 2nd lowest recorded in history was none other than Jimmy Carter who had something like 20% or thereabouts. I don't pick on Obama for foreign policy stuff much, and I like some of what he proposed to do with the rebuilding of the infrastructure in this country but I don't blink when I say that Obama has very little experience when it comes to financial matters and shows poor leadership in money matters. You can disagree that's fine but most people can see that he certainly should not be the CFO of a company.

MOP, what blogs/new sources are you reading that provide you with this kind of inaccurate analysis? Does it upset you at all that you read/watch/hear these sources and are misled?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

You thought what? In the post that directly proceeds your post, I named 2 policies that play a significant role in the current mess we find ourselves in. But please, continue acting as if the folks steering the ship from 2000-2008 have clean hands while evil Obama is really at fault for our problems.

You said this:

Why would you draw that conclusion? There are a lot of factors that resulted in our economy being in the shape it is today - the RE bubble is just one of them. Bush Tax cuts and the 2 wars that were kept off budget are policies that were extremely poor decisions.

Please tell me how tax cuts and "off budget wars" led to a housing bubble and financial collapse that left Obama with a "bag full of ####" in terms of the economy and unemployment. We could debate their impact on the deficit, but I don't see how you could argue that their detrimental to employment.

Wait, seriously? You can't see how plowing money into 2 value-destroying wars would dampen economic growth? Are you just being naively partisan here?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

So the "Bush" policies that left Obama with a "bag full of ####" according to Tgunz were continuing Clinton era deregulation (which means its partially a Clinton policy), and deficit spending? Hasn't Obama's entire Presidency been staked on deficit spending? If deficit spending is detrimental to employment, then why are we calling it a "Bush failed policy" while cheering Obama for expanding it???

Because you gotta save some time. And the times of lean ain't it. The problem with Bush's deficit spending wasn't that deficit spending is per se bad but rather it was deficit spending over a period of prosperity. Hell, you just need to watch Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat to know that much.

 

[SacramentoBob]

So the "Bush" policies that left Obama with a "bag full of ####" according to Tgunz were continuing Clinton era deregulation (which means its partially a Clinton policy), and deficit spending? Hasn't Obama's entire Presidency been staked on deficit spending? If deficit spending is detrimental to employment, then why are we calling it a "Bush failed policy" while cheering Obama for expanding it???

Because you gotta save some time. And the times of lean ain't it. The problem with Bush's deficit spending wasn't that deficit spending is per se bad but rather it was deficit spending over a period of prosperity. Hell, you just need to watch Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat to know that much.

So you're saying the times of Bush were prosperous?

 

[humpback]

anyone know a good chart that shows historical averages comparing household savings vs. debt? Something current?

This sounds up your alley. You can see each of those series to date at the St. Louis Fed's website.

Thanks for sharing that Slapdash. Extremely enlightening and helps to show why growth is still very sluggish. Also makes me optimistic that we may be in line for another period of strong growth when balance sheets are finally repaired.

It shows me that the boom was fueled by excess leverage, and we were basically at all time high levels right at the peak of the bubble. We're closer to average levels now, which I suspect is largely due to artificially low interest rates, and we have little growth. I'm not nearly as optimistic that we're in line for another period of strong growth anytime soon.

 

[jon_mx]

Until the housing markets start to recover, we will not see a very strong recovery. Still a couple years away.

 

[Slapdash]

anyone know a good chart that shows historical averages comparing household savings vs. debt? Something current?

This sounds up your alley. You can see each of those series to date at the St. Louis Fed's website.

Thanks. It's first quarter 2010 though. Is there a way that it's tracked on a regular basis?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/search?st=Consumer+debthttp://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PSAVERT

 

[Snickers]

Unemployment is around 4.5% for folks with college degrees. The job market for skilled, white collar labor is actually pretty good. The ditch diggers are SOL but that isn't going to change soon regardless of who is in the White House.

I run a recruiting company and there are a ton of people unemployed that are lazy and not all that motivated. They refuse to take a temp job because they can make roughly the same by collecting. Granted, there are also some skilled, motivated folks out there that just can't find something in their field but they are definitely the minority.

 

[jamny]

anyone know a good chart that shows historical averages comparing household savings vs. debt? Something current?

This sounds up your alley. You can see each of those series to date at the St. Louis Fed's website.

Thanks. It's first quarter 2010 though. Is there a way that it's tracked on a regular basis?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/search?st=Consumer+debthttp://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PSAVERT

Thanks!

 

[bagger]

Unemployment is around 4.5% for folks with college degrees.

lol no

 

[Snickers]

Unemployment is around 4.5% for folks with college degrees.

lol no

4.3% according to the BLShttp://www.ibtimes.com/articles/214426/20110915/unemployment-jobs-economy-college-graduate.htm

 

[guderian]

Please tell me how tax cuts and "off budget wars" led to a housing bubble and financial collapse that left Obama with a "bag full of ####" in terms of the economy and unemployment. We could debate their impact on the deficit, but I don't see how you could argue that their detrimental to employment.

Lower tax rates don't make it cheaper to cash out (and flip) short term investments? Lower taxes doesn't make more capital available for speculative investments? There tends to be a speculative bubble after every tax cut. The tax on the economy of the "off budget wars" is still in the future. Since we have had close to zero percent interest rates it is hard to claim that federal deficits are creating "inflation premiums" in interest rates, but we have to assume that they will exists in the future as we borrow more and more.

I thought that tax cuts didn't change behavior?

 

[guderian]

So the "Bush" policies that left Obama with a "bag full of ####" according to Tgunz were continuing Clinton era deregulation (which means its partially a Clinton policy), and deficit spending? Hasn't Obama's entire Presidency been staked on deficit spending? If deficit spending is detrimental to employment, then why are we calling it a "Bush failed policy" while cheering Obama for expanding it???

Because you gotta save some time. And the times of lean ain't it. The problem with Bush's deficit spending wasn't that deficit spending is per se bad but rather it was deficit spending over a period of prosperity. Hell, you just need to watch Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat to know that much.

Ahhh, the mystical Keynes loophole. You can't disprove Keynes wrong unless a government runs a substantial surplus during good time and since there aren't enough examples of developed, non-resource heavy governments ever running huge surpluses then you can never prove Keynes wrong. You gotta love theories that can't be disproven and allow you to blame your reckless spending on someone else's lack of savings. Nice to see you saying that the Bush years were largely a period of prosperity.

 

[guderian]

You thought what? In the post that directly proceeds your post, I named 2 policies that play a significant role in the current mess we find ourselves in. But please, continue acting as if the folks steering the ship from 2000-2008 have clean hands while evil Obama is really at fault for our problems.

You said this:

Why would you draw that conclusion? There are a lot of factors that resulted in our economy being in the shape it is today - the RE bubble is just one of them. Bush Tax cuts and the 2 wars that were kept off budget are policies that were extremely poor decisions.

Please tell me how tax cuts and "off budget wars" led to a housing bubble and financial collapse that left Obama with a "bag full of ####" in terms of the economy and unemployment. We could debate their impact on the deficit, but I don't see how you could argue that their detrimental to employment.

Wait, seriously? You can't see how plowing money into 2 value-destroying wars would dampen economic growth? Are you just being naively partisan here?

Wait, you really believe that the wars were a significant contributor to the 2008 recession and the resulting collapse in employment??? I also thought that most everyone considered one of the wars as justifiable and that Bush hadn't invested enough in it?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Please tell me how tax cuts and "off budget wars" led to a housing bubble and financial collapse that left Obama with a "bag full of ####" in terms of the economy and unemployment. We could debate their impact on the deficit, but I don't see how you could argue that their detrimental to employment.

Lower tax rates don't make it cheaper to cash out (and flip) short term investments? Lower taxes doesn't make more capital available for speculative investments? There tends to be a speculative bubble after every tax cut. The tax on the economy of the "off budget wars" is still in the future. Since we have had close to zero percent interest rates it is hard to claim that federal deficits are creating "inflation premiums" in interest rates, but we have to assume that they will exists in the future as we borrow more and more.

I thought that tax cuts didn't change behavior?

I don't believe I have ever posted that. Tax cuts in a deficit situation has trivial value in stimulating the economy, but that doesn't mean behaviors don't change. Cutting taxes doesn't usually lead to more jobs, at least in the short term if that is what you are getting at.

 

[Sand]

What is a recovery? What are people expecting?Any real "rah-rah" times are probably at least 10-20 years away. There's been so much consolidation by people and corporations that everyone has learned to do more with less. I hear a lot about how corporations are hoarding money but when people do it, it's called saving. Everyone's doing it and everyone has cut back on extravagances. That's just not changing anytime soon.It's a whole new economy. A recovery implies that you're getting back to the levels before a drop. That ain't anytime happening soon and probably shouldn't. So what will a recovery be? What's the floor and ceiling near term?

We can't have unemployment anywhere near this level for another 3-5 years, much less 10-20. Even under the rosiest federal government deficit action scenarios we would not be able to save our economy under those circumstances.

Well yeah, that's a given. So 6% in 3-5 years?

At the rate we're going that will just mean more people dropping out of the labor force. That's how we got the latest drop.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Unemployment is around 4.5% for folks with college degrees.

lol no

4.3% according to the BLShttp://www.ibtimes.com/articles/214426/20110915/unemployment-jobs-economy-college-graduate.htm

Not according to the OWS hippies.

 

[guderian]

I don't believe I have ever posted that. Tax cuts in a deficit situation has trivial value in stimulating the economy, but that doesn't mean behaviors don't change. Cutting taxes doesn't usually lead to more jobs, at least in the short term if that is what you are getting at.

I was asking for clarification on which "Bush policies" created the collapse and handed Obama a ####ty economy and employment situation. I've had 3 answers:1. Essentially that Bush didn't reverse Clinton era deregulation.2. "Bush Tax Cuts". I don't see how tax cuts would cause an economic collapse nearly a decade later. Even if you're going to argue that the deficits limited Obama's options, both sides seems to favor renewing the tax cuts for the middle class--it's the tax cuts for the "wealthy" that draws the ire of one side. The CBO scored that at about $150B/year and they usually over-estimate the cost of tax cuts. That hardly seems noteworthy if we're willing to run $1.5 trillion in deficits.3. The "wars". However, it seems that even Obama has been in favor of the Afghanistan war and he even amped it up implying that Bush wasn't spending enough on it. So, that leaves the Iraq war. Yet, I still don't see how that would cause a recession of the scope that we had in 2008. So the conclusion here is that the Bush Policies that handed Obama a ####ty economy were not reversing Clinton, $150B in annual tax cuts and the Iraq war. Only the first one even hits on any of the primary issues that most people associate with the 2008 recession, but what do I know?

 

[Slapdash]

Unemployment is around 4.5% for folks with college degrees.

lol no

4.3% according to the BLShttp://www.ibtimes.com/articles/214426/20110915/unemployment-jobs-economy-college-graduate.htm

Not according to the OWS hippies.

Maybe that is because the 4.5% figure applies to those 25 and over while for the more recent grads It is over 20%.

 

[jon_mx]

I don't believe I have ever posted that. Tax cuts in a deficit situation has trivial value in stimulating the economy, but that doesn't mean behaviors don't change. Cutting taxes doesn't usually lead to more jobs, at least in the short term if that is what you are getting at.

I was asking for clarification on which "Bush policies" created the collapse and handed Obama a ####ty economy and employment situation. I've had 3 answers:1. Essentially that Bush didn't reverse Clinton era deregulation.2. "Bush Tax Cuts". I don't see how tax cuts would cause an economic collapse nearly a decade later. Even if you're going to argue that the deficits limited Obama's options, both sides seems to favor renewing the tax cuts for the middle class--it's the tax cuts for the "wealthy" that draws the ire of one side. The CBO scored that at about $150B/year and they usually over-estimate the cost of tax cuts. That hardly seems noteworthy if we're willing to run $1.5 trillion in deficits.3. The "wars". However, it seems that even Obama has been in favor of the Afghanistan war and he even amped it up implying that Bush wasn't spending enough on it. So, that leaves the Iraq war. Yet, I still don't see how that would cause a recession of the scope that we had in 2008. So the conclusion here is that the Bush Policies that handed Obama a ####ty economy were not reversing Clinton, $150B in annual tax cuts and the Iraq war. Only the first one even hits on any of the primary issues that most people associate with the 2008 recession, but what do I know?

There are no Bush policies which can be pointed to. The economic collapse was mostly housing and the resulting panic in the financial sector. These had zero to do with the wars or any tax policy. It was all driven by the housing bubble which both parties contributed to for the last few decades.

 

[DrJ]

Sounds like something is a bit off in these numbers. The payroll report is only showing 125K jobs added, yet the unemployment rate went down significantly and the number of people that weren't looking because they didn't think there was work for them also decreased significantly? Either this is a hiccup in the CPS numbers, which are less accurate than the payroll numbers by nature, or we have a massive surge of people retire or something?

 

[DrJ]

I don't believe I have ever posted that. Tax cuts in a deficit situation has trivial value in stimulating the economy, but that doesn't mean behaviors don't change. Cutting taxes doesn't usually lead to more jobs, at least in the short term if that is what you are getting at.

I was asking for clarification on which "Bush policies" created the collapse and handed Obama a ####ty economy and employment situation. I've had 3 answers:1. Essentially that Bush didn't reverse Clinton era deregulation.2. "Bush Tax Cuts". I don't see how tax cuts would cause an economic collapse nearly a decade later. Even if you're going to argue that the deficits limited Obama's options, both sides seems to favor renewing the tax cuts for the middle class--it's the tax cuts for the "wealthy" that draws the ire of one side. The CBO scored that at about $150B/year and they usually over-estimate the cost of tax cuts. That hardly seems noteworthy if we're willing to run $1.5 trillion in deficits.3. The "wars". However, it seems that even Obama has been in favor of the Afghanistan war and he even amped it up implying that Bush wasn't spending enough on it. So, that leaves the Iraq war. Yet, I still don't see how that would cause a recession of the scope that we had in 2008. So the conclusion here is that the Bush Policies that handed Obama a ####ty economy were not reversing Clinton, $150B in annual tax cuts and the Iraq war. Only the first one even hits on any of the primary issues that most people associate with the 2008 recession, but what do I know?

There are no Bush policies which can be pointed to. The economic collapse was mostly housing and the resulting panic in the financial sector. These had zero to do with the wars or any tax policy. It was all driven by the housing bubble which both parties contributed to for the last few decades.

The massive spending increases and tax cuts under Bush are the biggest issue. The tax cuts were supposed to come from what was projected to be surplus. They should have been pared back when it became obvious that the economy wasn't going to continue growing as it did in the 90's and there wasn't going to be that projected surplus. He also jump started the spending again after promising a smaller, smarter government. Government spending was only increasing a couple percent under Clinton and the GOP congress. When Bush got in, it started approaching double digit increases in spending every year. The GOP congress awarded all of their buddies a pile of cash, and Bush didn't veto a single thing. Which in turn raised the baseline on spending - which Obama and the D's just continued to add to. He also helped the housing bubble by promoting home ownership to people that couldn't afford it and keeping interest rates artificially low. Those weren't policies he started, but they were bad policies that he continued for 8 years. Pretending that Bush didn't have anything to do with our current financial situation while railing on Obama for spending is pretty damaging to one's credibility.

 

[greenroom]

So the conclusion from the right wing is it was caused by the housing bubble and it is going to take time to recover from. yet it is all on Obama? If it was a housing bubble it did not matter who the President was were going to take a hit. And no matter who is elected in the next presidential term, it will recover!

 

[guderian]

The massive spending increases and tax cuts under Bush are the biggest issue. The tax cuts were supposed to come from what was projected to be surplus. They should have been pared back when it became obvious that the economy wasn't going to continue growing as it did in the 90's and there wasn't going to be that projected surplus. He also jump started the spending again after promising a smaller, smarter government. Government spending was only increasing a couple percent under Clinton and the GOP congress. When Bush got in, it started approaching double digit increases in spending every year. The GOP congress awarded all of their buddies a pile of cash, and Bush didn't veto a single thing. Which in turn raised the baseline on spending - which Obama and the D's just continued to add to.

He also helped the housing bubble by promoting home ownership to people that couldn't afford it and keeping interest rates artificially low. Those weren't policies he started, but they were bad policies that he continued for 8 years.

Pretending that Bush didn't have anything to do with our current financial situation while railing on Obama for spending is pretty damaging to one's credibility.

This is about the recession and lack of employment. I agree with you 100% on spending, but the policies of the current administration as well as the arguments by many on this board is that we still aren't spending enough to revive the economy and spur employment. That line of argument would imply that the spending hikes under Bush certainly shouldn't have caused the 2008 recession.

I also agree with you on his efforts to continue Clinton era policies to increase home ownership. However, President's don't have much of an impact on interest rates--that's the Fed's job.

The left-wing hacks have been taught to hate everything Bush--particularly the tax cuts, the wars and 'deregulation'. And they quickly blame those three things for every ill of the past few years, but once they're ire confronts logic they're left to back track their arguments from "Bush's policies created the ####ty economy" to straw men like "well, uh, you're a fool if you think that Bush didn't have anything to do with it..."

 

[guderian]

So the conclusion from the right wing is it was caused by the housing bubble and it is going to take time to recover from. yet it is all on Obama? If it was a housing bubble it did not matter who the President was were going to take a hit. And no matter who is elected in the next presidential term, it will recover!

No. The recession is largely due to the sub-prime mess. The worst recovery in recent economic history is on Obama and the Dem policies from their dominance of the executive and legislative branches.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

You thought what? In the post that directly proceeds your post, I named 2 policies that play a significant role in the current mess we find ourselves in. But please, continue acting as if the folks steering the ship from 2000-2008 have clean hands while evil Obama is really at fault for our problems.

You said this:

Why would you draw that conclusion? There are a lot of factors that resulted in our economy being in the shape it is today - the RE bubble is just one of them. Bush Tax cuts and the 2 wars that were kept off budget are policies that were extremely poor decisions.

Please tell me how tax cuts and "off budget wars" led to a housing bubble and financial collapse that left Obama with a "bag full of ####" in terms of the economy and unemployment. We could debate their impact on the deficit, but I don't see how you could argue that their detrimental to employment.

Wait, seriously? You can't see how plowing money into 2 value-destroying wars would dampen economic growth? Are you just being naively partisan here?

Wait, you really believe that the wars were a significant contributor to the 2008 recession and the resulting collapse in employment??? I also thought that most everyone considered one of the wars as justifiable and that Bush hadn't invested enough in it?

1. I'm not everyone.2. No, I don't think the wars were a significant contributor to the recession. The collapse of a leverage-based quasi-ponzi scheme caused the recession.3. HOWEVER, when you've blown a ton of money on 1 (or 2) stupid wars, it means your economy won't recover as well as if you had wisely invested the same sum of money in smarter stuff. Seems irrefutable.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

The massive spending increases and tax cuts under Bush are the biggest issue. The tax cuts were supposed to come from what was projected to be surplus. They should have been pared back when it became obvious that the economy wasn't going to continue growing as it did in the 90's and there wasn't going to be that projected surplus. He also jump started the spending again after promising a smaller, smarter government. Government spending was only increasing a couple percent under Clinton and the GOP congress. When Bush got in, it started approaching double digit increases in spending every year. The GOP congress awarded all of their buddies a pile of cash, and Bush didn't veto a single thing. Which in turn raised the baseline on spending - which Obama and the D's just continued to add to.

He also helped the housing bubble by promoting home ownership to people that couldn't afford it and keeping interest rates artificially low. Those weren't policies he started, but they were bad policies that he continued for 8 years.

Pretending that Bush didn't have anything to do with our current financial situation while railing on Obama for spending is pretty damaging to one's credibility.

This is about the recession and lack of employment. I agree with you 100% on spending, but the policies of the current administration as well as the arguments by many on this board is that we still aren't spending enough to revive the economy and spur employment. That line of argument would imply that the spending hikes under Bush certainly shouldn't have caused the 2008 recession.

I also agree with you on his efforts to continue Clinton era policies to increase home ownership. However, President's don't have much of an impact on interest rates--that's the Fed's job.

The left-wing hacks have been taught to hate everything Bush--particularly the tax cuts, the wars and 'deregulation'. And they quickly blame those three things for every ill of the past few years, but once they're ire confronts logic they're left to back track their arguments from "Bush's policies created the ####ty economy" to straw men like "well, uh, you're a fool if you think that Bush didn't have anything to do with it..."

The left-wing folks on this board arguing for greater govt spending to "turn the economy" don't understand basic economics. They are delusional on this issue.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I don't believe I have ever posted that. Tax cuts in a deficit situation has trivial value in stimulating the economy, but that doesn't mean behaviors don't change. Cutting taxes doesn't usually lead to more jobs, at least in the short term if that is what you are getting at.

I was asking for clarification on which "Bush policies" created the collapse and handed Obama a ####ty economy and employment situation. I've had 3 answers:::2. "Bush Tax Cuts". I don't see how tax cuts would cause an economic collapse nearly a decade later. Even if you're going to argue that the deficits limited Obama's options, both sides seems to favor renewing the tax cuts for the middle class--it's the tax cuts for the "wealthy" that draws the ire of one side. The CBO scored that at about $150B/year and they usually over-estimate the cost of tax cuts. That hardly seems noteworthy if we're willing to run $1.5 trillion in deficits.::

There are no Bush policies which can be pointed to. The economic collapse was mostly housing and the resulting panic in the financial sector. These had zero to do with the wars or any tax policy. It was all driven by the housing bubble which both parties contributed to for the last few decades.

Lower tax rates don't make it cheaper to cash out (and flip) short term investments? Lower taxes doesn't make more capital available for speculative investments? There tends to be a speculative bubble after every tax cut.

::He also helped the housing bubble by promoting home ownership to people that couldn't afford it and keeping interest rates artificially low. Those weren't policies he started, but they were bad policies that he continued for 8 years. Pretending that Bush didn't have anything to do with our current financial situation while railing on Obama for spending is pretty damaging to one's credibility.

Interest rates certainly looked to have a partisan component at times last decade, but the president doesn't really set interest rates - at least not directly. But the near zero cost of money did allow the extra bits of capital floating around get leveraged to the ever larger proportions until the bubble had no choice but to collapse.And transitioning from a "welfare state" where your neighbor destroys your property's value by neglecting the one the rent to an "ownership society" where your neighbor has some skin in the game predates Bush (and Clinton). Also don't underestimate the impact of the Supreme Court decision in '79 that eliminated a lot of state consumer credit regulations. The real sin of the Bush administration was to believe that the economy was doing well during their term so they kicked the problems down the road. Every where you looked you could see the problems of today already existed. It was ultimately the housing bubble that caused the house of cards to collapse, but it could have just as well have been unfunded pensions (both public and private), energy prices, states replacing tax revenue with user fees, or even nothing happened until we had trillion dollar deficits from SS and Medicare. INow I'm not a big fan of Obama's fiscal policies. Wasn't before the election in 2008, but for changing reasons. My disappointment with Obama is not that he claims he inherited a mess that were created by the failed policies of the previous administration because he did, but that he has done little to change those policies. He has only had a few opportunities, but each time he has "allowed a good crisis go to waste".

 

[guderian]

You thought what? In the post that directly proceeds your post, I named 2 policies that play a significant role in the current mess we find ourselves in. But please, continue acting as if the folks steering the ship from 2000-2008 have clean hands while evil Obama is really at fault for our problems.

You said this:

Why would you draw that conclusion? There are a lot of factors that resulted in our economy being in the shape it is today - the RE bubble is just one of them. Bush Tax cuts and the 2 wars that were kept off budget are policies that were extremely poor decisions.

Please tell me how tax cuts and "off budget wars" led to a housing bubble and financial collapse that left Obama with a "bag full of ####" in terms of the economy and unemployment. We could debate their impact on the deficit, but I don't see how you could argue that their detrimental to employment.

Wait, seriously? You can't see how plowing money into 2 value-destroying wars would dampen economic growth? Are you just being naively partisan here?

Wait, you really believe that the wars were a significant contributor to the 2008 recession and the resulting collapse in employment??? I also thought that most everyone considered one of the wars as justifiable and that Bush hadn't invested enough in it?

1. I'm not everyone.2. No, I don't think the wars were a significant contributor to the recession. The collapse of a leverage-based quasi-ponzi scheme caused the recession.3. HOWEVER, when you've blown a ton of money on 1 (or 2) stupid wars, it means your economy won't recover as well as if you had wisely invested the same sum of money in smarter stuff. Seems irrefutable.

Fair enough, but we were discussing the employment situation and the causes of the recession. Without debating the merits of the Iraq war, I doubt the incremental debt from the war hamstrung Obama and the Dems much since our annual deficits have run about 2x the cost of the war.

 

[guderian]

The massive spending increases and tax cuts under Bush are the biggest issue. The tax cuts were supposed to come from what was projected to be surplus. They should have been pared back when it became obvious that the economy wasn't going to continue growing as it did in the 90's and there wasn't going to be that projected surplus. He also jump started the spending again after promising a smaller, smarter government. Government spending was only increasing a couple percent under Clinton and the GOP congress. When Bush got in, it started approaching double digit increases in spending every year. The GOP congress awarded all of their buddies a pile of cash, and Bush didn't veto a single thing. Which in turn raised the baseline on spending - which Obama and the D's just continued to add to.

He also helped the housing bubble by promoting home ownership to people that couldn't afford it and keeping interest rates artificially low. Those weren't policies he started, but they were bad policies that he continued for 8 years.

Pretending that Bush didn't have anything to do with our current financial situation while railing on Obama for spending is pretty damaging to one's credibility.

This is about the recession and lack of employment. I agree with you 100% on spending, but the policies of the current administration as well as the arguments by many on this board is that we still aren't spending enough to revive the economy and spur employment. That line of argument would imply that the spending hikes under Bush certainly shouldn't have caused the 2008 recession.

I also agree with you on his efforts to continue Clinton era policies to increase home ownership. However, President's don't have much of an impact on interest rates--that's the Fed's job.

The left-wing hacks have been taught to hate everything Bush--particularly the tax cuts, the wars and 'deregulation'. And they quickly blame those three things for every ill of the past few years, but once they're ire confronts logic they're left to back track their arguments from "Bush's policies created the ####ty economy" to straw men like "well, uh, you're a fool if you think that Bush didn't have anything to do with it..."

The left-wing folks on this board arguing for greater govt spending to "turn the economy" don't understand basic economics. They are delusional on this issue.

I agree 100%. I'm just trying to highlight that they're hypocritical about criticizing Bush's spending while arguing that yet more spending is needed to revive the economy. I also think it's quite illogical to look at the substantial growth in government spending in the years leading to the recession and argue that government spending is what will get us out of one.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

You thought what? In the post that directly proceeds your post, I named 2 policies that play a significant role in the current mess we find ourselves in. But please, continue acting as if the folks steering the ship from 2000-2008 have clean hands while evil Obama is really at fault for our problems.

You said this:

Why would you draw that conclusion? There are a lot of factors that resulted in our economy being in the shape it is today - the RE bubble is just one of them. Bush Tax cuts and the 2 wars that were kept off budget are policies that were extremely poor decisions.

Please tell me how tax cuts and "off budget wars" led to a housing bubble and financial collapse that left Obama with a "bag full of ####" in terms of the economy and unemployment. We could debate their impact on the deficit, but I don't see how you could argue that their detrimental to employment.

Wait, seriously? You can't see how plowing money into 2 value-destroying wars would dampen economic growth? Are you just being naively partisan here?

Wait, you really believe that the wars were a significant contributor to the 2008 recession and the resulting collapse in employment??? I also thought that most everyone considered one of the wars as justifiable and that Bush hadn't invested enough in it?

1. I'm not everyone.2. No, I don't think the wars were a significant contributor to the recession. The collapse of a leverage-based quasi-ponzi scheme caused the recession.3. HOWEVER, when you've blown a ton of money on 1 (or 2) stupid wars, it means your economy won't recover as well as if you had wisely invested the same sum of money in smarter stuff. Seems irrefutable.

Fair enough, but we were discussing the employment situation and the causes of the recession. Without debating the merits of the Iraq war, I doubt the incremental debt from the war hamstrung Obama and the Dems much since our annual deficits have run about 2x the cost of the war.

Point taken. I'm not one to blame Bush for everything bad in the world. Even if the war is only 1/3 of the deficit, it's still a huge cost, particularly the cumulative spending since 2003. Then again, we could also add the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and Medicare Part D to the list of dumb spending from Bush.

 

[jon_mx]

So the conclusion from the right wing is it was caused by the housing bubble and it is going to take time to recover from. yet it is all on Obama? If it was a housing bubble it did not matter who the President was were going to take a hit. And no matter who is elected in the next presidential term, it will recover!

1. The current economic situation was caused by the housing bubble and the resultant crash of the financial markets. Not sure who could disagree with that from the left or right.2. Nobody is blaming Obama for the crash, but it is silly that Obama got away with blaming Bush for it without any hard questions from the media. 3. What Obama can be criticized for is his wasteful stimulus package which did not deliver on the promises, but did put money into the pockets of his voting base (teacher unions, green companies, auto workers). 4. If you really want to give credit to a government policy which helped bring back the stock market, it would have to go to the highly unpopular bailout. 5. Yes, the economy would have recovered if Daffy Duck were president, assuming Daffy did not do anything too radical.6. The economic recovery will not be strong until the housing market really starts to bounce back and government spending gets under control.

 

[Snickers]

Unemployment is around 4.5% for folks with college degrees.

lol no

4.3% according to the BLShttp://www.ibtimes.com/articles/214426/20110915/unemployment-jobs-economy-college-graduate.htm

Not according to the OWS hippies.

Maybe that is because the 4.5% figure applies to those 25 and over while for the more recent grads It is over 20%.

Link?

 

[SacramentoBob]

Unemployment is around 4.5% for folks with college degrees.

lol no

4.3% according to the BLShttp://www.ibtimes.com/articles/214426/20110915/unemployment-jobs-economy-college-graduate.htm

Not according to the OWS hippies.

Maybe that is because the 4.5% figure applies to those 25 and over while for the more recent grads It is over 20%.

So what is that, 1% of all college grads then?

 

[SacramentoBob]

Unemployment is around 4.5% for folks with college degrees.

lol no

4.3% according to the BLShttp://www.ibtimes.com/articles/214426/20110915/unemployment-jobs-economy-college-graduate.htm

Not according to the OWS hippies.

Maybe that is because the 4.5% figure applies to those 25 and over while for the more recent grads It is over 20%.

Link?

He's pretty reliable, I would take him at his word.