Bush blamed for economy: FOX survey

Really, said O'Really !! We don't need no stinking polls to spell out the obvious !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Of course he's blamed. It is his fault. Not that John D and the other right wing wack jobs won't crawl out of the woodwork to try to spin this, and blame Obama. Just watch, but get the roach spray ready...

Of course it's Obama's fault. After all, everything was just peachy right up till the moment Bush abandoned the office of president following the elections last November. Everyone was working and no one was homeless and if you believe this, you will believe anything.
The fact is republicon leadership got us into the mess we're all in ( expect the banks and investment firms which Bush and his cronies bailed out with zero accountability The pointless wars are of course all Obama's fault, as well.
FOX panders to the party which got us into this mess in the first place, so there is no surprise to be found.

Uh oh. How will the bitter, irrelevant right try to spin this one??

Obama isn't to blame for anything wrong because, in the words of Sting, "he's sent from God," Sting met Obama recently and "found him to be very genuine, very present, clearly super-smart, and exactly what we need in the world."

Says it all, doesn't it? You'd have to be a racist to disagree....

Anyone with 1/2 a brain know to blame Obama, Bush or any one man for what transpired is idiotic. But If you had to choose a president to blame it on.... I'd say Clinton. It was under his watch that he allowed the de-regulation of the banking industry to occur, which is really the main culprit here.

The White House must be disputing this. After all, Fox isn't a "real news organization," so how can this poll be teken seriously? This must just be some PR attempt by the GOP, right?

When Bush came into office in 2001, America was in a recession. Did anyone blame Clinton? Did Bush walk around and say he inhreited a mess from Clinton? The media is doing a wonderful in the post Bush era to keep the blame focused on Bush. Naturally, the public is buying it.

Obama isn't to blame for anything wrong because, in the words of Sting, "he's sent from God," Sting met Obama recently and "found him to be very genuine, very present, clearly super-smart, and exactly what we need in the world."

Says it all, doesn't it? You'd have to be a racist to disagree....

Posted by: Obama IS God | October 30, 2009 3:06 PM
--------------------------------------------------
But when General Boykin says this about shrub...

"Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there? And I tell you this morning that he's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."

Well, all the wingnut villagers clasp their hands together and smile in the magnificent beneficence of their hero.

You can't fix hypocrisy, and you can't fix stupid.

Whaaaaat?????? This can't be. I have been reminded constantly that Bush has "left the building".

Did anyone blame Clinton? Did Bush walk around and say he inhreited a mess from Clinton?
Posted by: tim | October 30, 2009 3:18 PM

Darn skippy they did. Don't you remember Sean Vanity talking on and on about that "recession". The one that really didn't exist. The one were the GDP didn't drop in succession. The one nobody felt...but we heard about it, and I'm sure you did too as not many people even think there was one and you probably heard about it on Faux.

The results of this Fox Poll should not come as any surprise to anyone except the narrow minded Left Wing that believes that they are right on everything and all others are ignorant and uneducated racists. This Poll must be upsetting to those on the extreme Left who have been crying how biased Fox News is and how all their viewers are idiots. How wrong they are. The financial collapse occurred under George Bush's watch and when that happens the people in power always get the blame whether they were completely responsible or not. CBS Newsman Charles Osgood once said that it is all timing and leaders in power will get the "boos" or "cheers" when sometimes they were not responsible. Although I believe the seeds for the big financial meltdown were planted long before Bush the Younger became President he was in power when the collapse finally occurred and he will get the blame. Obama did inherit this financial mess we are currently in. But Obama is in a bind also. He can only blame George Bush for so long before the American public will want positive action and no more excuses. The further we get into an Obama Administration it becomes more apparent that the ball is in his court and now is the time for action.

So, Bush is to blame for the Great Recession??? No kidding.

Anyone with 1/2 a brain know to blame Obama, Bush or any one man for what transpired is idiotic. But If you had to choose a president to blame it on.... I'd say Clinton. It was under his watch that he allowed the de-regulation of the banking industry to occur, which is really the main culprit here.

Posted by: Dan | October 30, 2009 3:09 PM

Since you claim you have half a brain, I can see the reason for your mistaken claim of bank deregulation. You probably are thinking of that other ridiculous notion of CRA being the culprit. It's bogus....read the bill....

"republicon" Nice turn of phrase which is simple but it says it, writerofwrongs. lol.

The problems started with the 2006 Congress. The mainstream media fails to inform America who demanded that banks loan money to deadbeats! It was Congress! Pelosi and Reid made the banking industry lend money to people who probably couldn't pay in the long run. Socialism screwed up capitalism!

Note that Party Gal Bruce isn't doing his usual bitching about the results or questioning the credentials of the pollster. Even his bias is biased.

C'mon Tim...blame the messenger?? Surely you right-wing crazies can do better than that...so disappointing. I thought you intellectual geniuses would be feverishly coming up with something completely insane and ridiculous to lay on Obama for the economy rather than something as lame as what you came up with.

Bush inherited a budget surplus from Clinton. A couple hundred billion dollars I do believe. When the Supreme Court appointed Bush left office we had a $500,000,000,000.00 deficit, millions of Americans who lost their jobs, tens of millions more without health insurance/ care, two on going wars, 5,000 dead service personal, and an economy in shambles. Bush is absolutely to blame. This country is broke. Bush/ Cheney were also advised about impending terror attacks against the U.S. using aircraft. Those warnings were ignored.

ken posted:The problems started with the 2006 Congress. The mainstream media fails to inform America who demanded that banks loan money to deadbeats! It was Congress! Pelosi and Reid made the banking industry lend money to people who probably couldn't pay in the long run. Socialism screwed up capitalism!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Loaned money to deadbeats?
Those *deadbeats* were once employed people,many with families who had the audacity to lose their jobs. How dare they become unemployed and homeless. Typical republicon compassion.
Where was your righteous indignation when Bu$h gifted the investment bankers with over 2 trillion in credit and bailouts? Where were you when Bu$h fast-tracked a
" banking and credit reform act" which made it illegal for a person to place their home in bankrupcy protection? Do you suppose this has annything to do with the gazillion of foreclosures occuring due to job loss ?

ken posted:The problems started with the 2006 Congress. The mainstream media fails to inform America who demanded that banks loan money to deadbeats! It was Congress! Pelosi and Reid made the banking industry lend money to people who probably couldn't pay in the long run. Socialism screwed up capitalism!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Loaned money to deadbeats?
Those *deadbeats* were once employed people,many with families who had the audacity to lose their jobs. How dare they become unemployed and homeless. Typical republicon compassion.
Where was your righteous indignation when Bu$h gifted the investment bankers with over 2 trillion in credit and bailouts? Where were you when Bu$h fast-tracked a
" banking and credit reform act" which made it illegal for a person to place their home in bankrupcy protection? Do you suppose this has annything to do with the gazillion of foreclosures occuring due to job loss ?

"Since you claim you have half a brain, I can see the reason for your mistaken claim of bank deregulation. You probably are thinking of that other ridiculous notion of CRA being the culprit. It's bogus....read the bill...."

Posted by: bill r. | October 30, 2009 3:40 PM

Reading comprehension is a skill. I said:
"Anyone with 1/2 a brain knows to blame Obama, Bush or any one man for what transpired is idiotic."
So it's your contention that the deregulation had nothing to do with the mess we're in? Try again.
But regardless my point is still the same, trying to pin this on one man is idiotic.

They only polled 900 people? That is hardly significant. That's just like the Tribune polling a few hundred people and then putting the results on their front page saying "polls show _____". It's horribly unscientific and simply too small. I would imagine a poll has validity if tens of thousands of people are polled. Or, a certain percentage of the overall population, say, 10%? Maybe more?

The opinions of a mere 900 people don't really reflect the overall mood of the people.

"The one that really didn't exist. The one were the GDP didn't drop in succession. The one nobody felt...but we heard about it, and I'm sure you did too as not many people even think there was one and you probably heard about it on Faux."

Whew, bill r had too much Kool aid and hopium. Remember the tech bubble that crashed? A recession is TWO consecutive periods of negative growth. When Bush came into office we were in a recession. That's a fact. Probably the only media that covered it was Fox because all the other so-called news outlets were in full hate-Bush mode because he stole the election.

Yeah, Bush stole the election, he caused the economic collapse, he profited from the war and he conspired to fly planes in the World Trade Center. That's how Obama won the election - he ran against Bush - and he's STILL running against Bush. BTW- Congress is really responsible for economic upturns and downturns since it is THAT body that creates economic legislative policies.

I can hardly wait to see how the likes of rwilymz, and mario-streamwood-iL will be told, by their neo-con masters, how to scream about other things so this little tidbit is deflected..

Nancy Pelosi is the antichrist, she drove the home loan deruglation laws that allowed every deadbeat liberal making to $30K a year, the "right" to own a home. That's where it all started, and yes, Bush is to blame for not doing more to reverse this and letting it happen under his watch.
It's pretty hilarious how you lowbrow Dems actually take the time to complain about a news organization which you state is "not news, but a republican party mouthpiece", when they state polls showing Obama's support. What is the damn problem? Maybe if you took one minute to get down off your "green" liberal soapbox you would se that Fox may be the only station that reports the FACTS, not opinions. They are critical of Obama when deservedly so and they also make positive notions like the aforementioned poll. The problem is there are a lot of negative facts, instead of aknowledging them, you Dems would prefer to see a story about the new white house dog, and not minor issues like Obama senior thesis during law school, which he wrote about civil rights only covering legal equalities and they do not cover the need for redistribution of wealth for economic equality. But I guess that's just crazy right wing conspiracy talk, it's also a fact, but there is no point in stating facts when talking to a liberal.

Nancy Pelosi is the antichrist, she drove the home loan deruglation laws that allowed every deadbeat liberal making to $30K a year, the "right" to own a home. That's where it all started, and yes, Bush is to blame for not doing more to reverse this and letting it happen under his watch.
It's pretty hilarious how you lowbrow Dems actually take the time to complain about a news organization which you state is "not news, but a republican party mouthpiece", when they state polls showing Obama's support. What is the damn problem? Maybe if you took one minute to get down off your "green" liberal soapbox you would se that Fox may be the only station that reports the FACTS, not opinions. They are critical of Obama when deservedly so and they also make positive notions like the aforementioned poll. The problem is there are a lot of negative facts, instead of aknowledging them, you Dems would prefer to see a story about the new white house dog, and not minor issues like Obama senior thesis during law school, which he wrote about civil rights only covering legal equalities and they do not cover the need for redistribution of wealth for economic equality. But I guess that's just crazy right wing conspiracy talk, it's also a fact, but there is no point in stating facts when talking to a liberal.

Yeah, and he was responsible for the Jamestown flood, the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco, and the Chicago Cubs blowing the World Series in 1945. Get off it, its time for the Dems to stop blaming President Bush and grow up and take their lumps when things go wrong.

Naturally voters given a choice will blame the President who is not of their party, and the independents will blame the less popular one. The fact of the poll is no more news than the result.

What's interesting is that nobody is willing to blame themselves. Every one of you who is overextended is at fault. Every one of you who buys a house then borrows and borrows against it to buy stuff are at fault. Bush didn't do this to you. Neither did Obama. You did it to yourself. And the folks where were making so much money enabling you are at fault, too. So were the people who were demanding the financial products that the enablers were putting together.

Go ahead and have your partisan arguments. You're all idiots.

Ronald Reagan began the fiscal policy of borrow and spend economics. Cut taxes, borrow from the treasury to keep government running, put the debts off to future generations.

Bush 1st kept it going, Clinton slowed it down, and Bush 2nd went crazy with that policy.

Consider also that Bush/Clinton/Bush were big proponents of the free trade agreements that sucked American jobs out of the country.

You can't replace a living wage job with a minimum wage job and expect economic prosperity.

Bush 2nd, didn't help with massive tax cuts for big businesses and the wealthy during a time of war. That was just plain dumb.

Obama's now stuck holding the bag of poo left by the previous administrations. He's stuck holding the bag now, so everyone will pile on him.

If there isn't a return to an America first policy from our government forcing businesses to invest in American labor, the economy will continue to fester.

China on the other hand, is doing great thanks to American trade policies. Both political parties had a major hand in selling us out.

Of course it's Bush's fault - fools! This country has been in a dumbing down phase for the last 25 years. How else could such a "gutless nothing" be elected president? Then again, it's the over-the-top extreme liberalism that was, and is allowed to indoctrinate college students at the majority of our universities. Conservatives have nobody to blame, they allowed this to happen!

Of course Bush is blamed. And the facts show that Dodds, Frank, and the messiah have made it worse.

Not a day went by during the Bush II admin that the state run media didn't take pot-shots at him. Control the media and you control the populace. It's so simple. Government is too big, too powerful, and too expensive. When the government assures lenders that they will back the two largest mortage companies in the event of default, liberties are taken by the markets with that phantom money.

Blame Bush? Blame your own borrowing and spending habits and your inability to reign them in. Of course, you are being taught by the master, the US government.

Love that vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

It's so racist to oppose irresponsible borrowing and lending! "Desktop underwriting & 100% loans!" Criticism of Fatty & Freebie is a "political lynching of Raines." Ha ha. What a joke. Government oversite at its finest.

Think this meltdown was bad? Just wait for the collapse of Social Security, Medicaid, Universal (FREE) health care, Gov't Motors, gov't pensions and all of the combined unfunded entitlements brought to you by the largess of the US GovernMINT. I know, FREE universal healthcare is "deficit neutral." It's going to be funded by eliminating government waste and corruption in Medicaid. And, if that's not enough money, we will just follow the rainbow!

After we're all working for the government, who pays for this mess? Do we just keep printing or squeeze the Chinese?

Next up, CAP 'N TRADE! Whoopee!

This Poll must be upsetting to those on the extreme Left who have been crying how biased Fox News is and how all their viewers are idiots.
----------------------------------------------------
Nope - it serves to underscore exactly what we have been saying all along. Shrub was the worst president in the history of the universe, everyone knows it, and now even the villagers agree. Thanks wingnuts, for validating us loony libs! We know you'd agree with us eventually.

What bill or piece of legislation did Bush sign that led to the recession? You can blame the Federal Reserve; they had a big part to play. You can blame deregulation of banks that allowed them to take on enough risk to bankrupt the system. You can blame all those MBAs who are so smart that they created a way to leverage the rotten mortgages by selling them back to Fannie and Freddie who willing bought them and became "Too BIG to fail, and now the government has bought them just for you. You can blame the democrats that insisted banks lend $500,000 to people that couldn't pay back $50,000. But, it's really hard to think, so just blame Bush.

any one alive, breathing and not crazy or brainwashed knows Bush spent more than a trillion making war in Iraq, let the banks server themselves with the big spoon during his 8 years in POWER...

Of course it is his fault!

Did Fox need to do a poll to figure this out? I believe it, as Fox reporters have their heads too far in their A%#$%S

Ya think? Ya think that a bunch of unscrupulous opportunists propping a retarded man up in the presidency may have caused some problems? Naaaa.

The President gets too much credit when things go right and too much blame when things go wrong. We need to blame Congress and vote the bums out.

You guys at the Trib need a better proofreader. I could use the work.

The problems started with the 2006 Congress. The mainstream media fails to inform America who demanded that banks loan money to deadbeats!
Posted by: ken | October 30, 2009 3:42 PM

What bunk......the bubble burst in the end of 2005. You can use the old CRA BS excuse if you want as most die hard rightwingers do. It just doesn't hold water. But keep listening to Vanity, and Beck, they are there to dish out the garbage you desire.

No, this was Obama's fault as were the bailouts that were passed in late 2008. The guy is amazing the way he can warp time and all I tell ya.

"I Heart"
In response to "the majority of Americans did not vote for him" please show me where in the Constitution that it states that the winner of the popular vote in the election wins the Presidency?

"Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there? And I tell you this morning that he's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."

Well, all the wingnut villagers clasp their hands together and smile in the magnificent beneficence of their hero.

You can't fix hypocrisy, and you can't fix stupid.

Posted by: I heart Schadenfreude | October 30, 2009 3:21 PM

tim,
What?
You guys are still blaming Clinton.

ken,
That is the weakest analysis on the subject I have seen yet. Frankly, the '06 congress gave GWB everything he asked for, from war money to TARP.

* * * * * *
Posted by: Dan | October 30, 2009 3:09 PM
.
Dan,
.
You started off on the right track by claiming it would be ‘idiotic’ to blame any President for the state of the economy. Presidents have basically no control over the economy if that power isn’t given by Congress. It is Congress that has the most federal control over the economy owing to its powers over commerce, money and taxation. The President can only share in Congress’ blameworthy behavior if he signs it into law, or by abusing that power after it is given. Neither one served as the cause of the recession.
.
Even then, the power of the federal government over the economy pales in comparison to that of the private sector. The hundreds of thousands of individual and corporate choices made in the market every single day have much more to do with the economy’s health than anything the federal government does. It is the private sector that creates or destroys private sector jobs. The federal and state governments can only influence those decisions, and not very effectively.
.
If one wants to lay blame for the downturn, it should be directed at those in the private sector who acted greedily and foolishly. Private sector lenders, in droves, gave out loans to un-creditworthy borrowers (despite FDIC regulations to the contrary). Private traders bought and sold mortgage backed securities without knowing the risks involved. Private sector construction interests kept building homes in excess of market demands. Thus, when the foreclosures started and the bubble burst on housing prices, everyone involved came tumbling down. That collapse then rippled through the rest of the market because of securities investments.
.
Bush was not to blame unless Congress acted to fix the problem and Bush didn’t go along with it. My recollection is that just the opposite occurred. Bush asked for more regulation and Congress turned him down. There was little he could do in that situation.
.
Clinton doesn’t deserve the blame either. I don’t agree that his act of signing banking deregulation into law had the destructive effect people claim. I have yet to hear or see in print a cogent argument that links the ‘90s deregulation to the lending practices of the banks or the trade of mortgage backed securities. The downturn occurred despite the existence of FDIC regulations that prohibited loans to those without means of repayment; and mortgaged backed securities had been traded for decades.
.
I suspect that the current poll numbers (from FNN) is the result of public ignorance concerning both the distribution of power within the federal government and that between the government and the private sector. This is made obvious by the fact that 18% actually blame Obama for the state of an economy that went south a whole year before he became president. Go figure. If people want to blame the government they should look at Congress and, perhaps, the Federal Reserve Bank. The latter compounded Congress’ inaction by keeping the interest rates low and refusing to exercise its power to police the sub-prime market. That just fueled the moral hazard that kept bankers lending foolishly.

Ya think? Ya think that a bunch of unscrupulous opportunists propping a retarded man up in the presidency may have caused some problems? Naaaa.

Posted by: DGS | October 30, 2009 5:17 PM
---------------------------------------------------
You stated my thoughts better than I could. You are so right on about the shrub administration.

@Gary:

What bill or piece of legislation did Bush sign that led to the recession?

---

You may indeed be dumbest wingnut out there --- which is saying much.

Your beloved murderer started two wars on the country's China Express card. He didn't even show the numbers on the budget, much less think about paying for it. Suppose the $2-3 trillion on our CHINEX had anything to do with the bad economy? You're beyond stupid, Gary. You ought to be in a sideshow.

"Ronald Reagan began the fiscal policy of borrow and spend economics. Cut taxes, borrow from the treasury to keep government running, put the debts off to future generations."

I agree with 'orwellian'. The decline of the middle class started with Reganomics. Leverage the future, make saving in a bank worthless, cut taxes on the ruling class, kill defined benefit pensions, destroy the social contract, force average people into the stock market via 401K 'saving'.(risky investing).
Remember the words of Cheney; "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

It's completely obvious that what has happened to our economy is the fault not simply of Dubya but of the backwards policies of the G0P.

None of the geniuses know when an economic cycle will peak and bottom. The Fed was changing the prime by 1/4 point up or down and everybody thought it was all that simple. We are still unprepared for the next recession or double dip to the current one.

The Conserv-o-World is spinning out of control.
They broke Churchill's law, never believe your own propaganda, and now the rhetorical chickens are coming home to roost. Looks like conservatives hate the Republicans.

They seem afraid to enter Donner Pass with them, heh heh heh.

Of course...the average American is an idiot.....look at the incompetent, no experience boob they put in last November.

Ahhh, more inane mutterings from the roadkill-brained loony left.
First of all, I love it that this is about the only time Silva has ever used a Fox poll.
Second, the recession began under Bush's watch. He deserves some blame for that.
Third, the recession has gotten worse under Obama's watch. He deserves some blame too.
Fourth, the American people spent too much money, cashed out too much equity on their homes, got too far into debt. So WE deserve some blame as well.
Fifth, some folks abused the system, both in the private AND the public sector. They deserve blame too.
Sixth, energy costs got too high. LOTS of people deserve blame there: OPEC, speculators, the people, Democrats (who fight against energy development in and around the U.S), and even the oil companies.
Finally, there are natural economic cycles that no president or Congress have much control over. Basically, the U.S. enjoyed strong econmic growth from 1983 to 2007, with basically slight recessions in 1991-1992 and 2001-2002. While the U.S. had a strong economy during those years, Japan did not do well through most of the 1990s and Europe really hasn't a strong economy for years now, with many European countries experiencing double-digit unemployment, or close to it, for more than a decade now.

First of all "duh"... let's see... Enron, Worldcom, collapse of Lehman Brothers, etc. all happened prior to 2009 when Obama took office. Big fat DUH. On a different note, what cracks me up is when Fox News lovers start up with the Obama is God stuff. The only people in the country who are claiming Obama is God are the conservatives. The liberals don't actually think he is a God. It just makes me laugh when I read those posts and there is always a few in the bunch. That's where the name calling started - Obama is a God, a Socialist, a Muslim, a Nazi - really, it's like the GOP and their spokespeople are all elementary school children. Maybe Obama should just get a t-shirt that says "I'm rubber and your glue...." It's just so desperate, pathetic and sad... that's all ya got? Really? ok...

So much stupidity, so little time.

First, slightly off topic, but to correct FITZ from a previous post, WSJ is the # 1 paper in the country.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1004030296

For you other flatliners -

Doogie - Clinton left a PROJECTED surplus (he also left behind a ticking time bomb in Islamic Terrorism). As we know, BO is giving us a PROJECTED $9,000,000,000,000 deficits.

Orwellian - get your facts straight -supply-side economics from the 1980's has nothing to do with the current recession. The problem is none of your under 50 know what a true recession is. Bush41 actually raised taxes. - slowed the economy down also. Bush43 tax cuts led to the 73 month economic expansion.

Go back to the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act of 1998. The one that passed on vote counts of 362-57 and 90-8 and signed by Clinton. Originally it was tied up in the Senate filabuster rules but the dems signed it once home mortgage rules were relaxed. As the article below shows, the consequences were inevitable. Notice when the article was written

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

As far as regulating Fannie and Freddie - it was Presdeint Bush that tried to put some regulations around them, but was defeated by mainly democrats, thanks to Fannie and Freddies lobbying money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?pagewanted=all

But there were leading Finance committee democrates that just wanted to "roll the dice"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122290574391296381.html

All you flatliners, please tell me the Bush law or regulation that led to the hosuing bubble and its collapse.

It's so heart warming to see the type of post from a Gary responded to by the type of post from a blinkin. Really.

Obama's first term is over 20% complete. Time for Obama to get some things done and stop blaming Bush and Fox news for all of the problems we face today. This is week seven of Obama saying he will have a decision about Afghanistan in a couple of weeks.

"Third, the recession has gotten worse under Obama's watch. He deserves some blame too."
John D,

The recession ended in the third quarter. Jobs to catch up in a few months.

Yes, FNC survey with similar findings up by the WSJ and Gallup. Oh noes the stars are aligning for Armageddon is approaching.
Alex,
Only? Have you missed the signs yourself? I know you will enjoy this : http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

This is ridiculous. The current president has done nothing but do all the things you would do to worsen the economy and prevent a timely recovery, and lo and behold the economy is way worse than it's been in the last 20+ years. He's been in office almost a year now. He hasn't been "cleaning up the mess" as promised. His rammed through stimulus was touted to prevent unemployment from topping 8.5%, and it's now 9.8% and climbing. Cap and trade, tax increases, and an expensive health care deform--the crux of his domestic agenda-- will only send it spiraling further downward. Obama lied, the economy died. Just because Obama's perennial bleat is that it's Bush 's fault doesn't mean it is. If all he was going to do was moan about the "mess", he should have not campaigned on the premise that he had all the answers. What he has delivered on is that there has definitely been change all right---for the worse.

Alex, another roadkill-brained Loony Lefter. For your information, the collapse of Enron and Worldcomm began in the late 1990s and into 2000, well before Bush became president. Enron collapsed in 2001 as details of shoddy accounting in the late 1990s emerged. WorldCom collapsed in 2002, when it was learned the company began shoddy accounting practices in 2000.
Anyway, the downfall of neither company had anything to do with the recession that began in 2008.

Its pretty ovious that Ex president Bush is the reason to why the economy crashed, Why are they realizing this now and not when he was running office?! Obama is doing a good job on helping the economy rise. Dont speculate before informating!

Its pretty ovious that Ex president Bush is the reason to why the economy crashed, Why are they realizing this now and not when he was running office?! Obama is doing a good job on helping the economy rise. Dont speculate before informating!

What the Hell! Dan you are really reaching when you accuse President Clinton in creating the mess on Wall Street! When he left we had a surplus. The Thiefs on wall street, and Christopher Cox from the SEC, were in co-hoots on the buying and selling of derivatives. Where in the hell do derivatives come from? From the "high tech" mortgages they started to sell in 2003. NO INTEREST, NO MONEY DOWN, DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TO QUALIFY TO A MINIMUM STANDARD! Christopher Cox ignored the crooks on wall street and let them run without regulation! Didn't pay attention until the crooks got caught when the market collapsed. Remember the republicans never do anything for this country, they only do things to this country. whiteagle38

C Morris, sorry, but the economy has worsened under Obama and the prognosis is not good.
1. While the GDP did grow in the third quarter, which allegedly ends the recession because recessions are counted as GDP drops, these problems continue:
- consumer spending dropped .5 in September.
- Unemployment claims continue to be strong.
- Government spending continue to outpace revenue.
- Government printing money to make up for spending, which continues to devalue the dollar and could lead to hyperinflation in a year or two.
- Consumer confidence fell in September too.
- Many economists fear a double-dip recession, which a recession ends for a couple of quarters and a new one begins.
2. Trillion-dollar deficits for the next 10 years do not bode well for the long-term security of the country and the economy.
3. Most economists and politicians, including the Obama White House, say high unemployment will continue even into 2012. So, if the Obama administration says unemployment will remain in the 9 percent range two to three years from now, where will those jobs be that you say will follow?
4. Foreclosures running at a record pace. That does not bode well for an economic recovery.

Sorry to burst your bubble there, C Morris.

I'm old enought remember Reagan taking over from the abysmal, disasterous Carter administration in 1981. All the media did was brand him and criticize him....he's a warmonger...he's too old....he's aloof and not all "there". They said nothing bad about Carter's 21% interest rates, 16% inflation and 14% unemployment, failed attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages, which were freed 30 minutes after Reagan was inaugurated, and long lines at the gas pump. That was ok. The media didn't blamed Carter for that deep recession, but the voters did at the poll in 1980.

Reagan mopped up the mess. It took awhile...'82 and '83 were a disaster, but the economy boomed, the stock market boomed, despite the '87 crash, people made money, and the USSR collapsed and the Iron Curtain came down.

Bottom line....of course their going to blame Bush...will the media ever not? I agree with the writer that said Clinton is to blame for loosening banking standards which Bush loosened as well. They both are responsible for causing the housing disater.

Owebama, however is setting up this country for a catastrophe in 2 years or so with massive deficit spending that will explode, the dollar will collapse, nflation will take off...all coupled with weak foreign policy without any recognition that terrorism exists.

It's Jimmy Carter all over again only worse!

Even at its peak, the US economy in Bush's second term never again reached the employment levels attained by the end of the Clinton presidency. Even by the miserable standards of Republican presidents, George W Bush set new standards for lameness, wrecking the government's finances and aggravating the troubles in the private sector. Bush senior and Clinton deserve a share of the blame too, for letting China into the WTO without any real conditions and kicking off the process of deregulating banks -- showed we'd learned nothing from Reagan's mistakes with the S&L industry.

It's a poll, you morons! Just because the public blames Bush for the economic mess doesn't mean that he is the cause of it. If Obama and the Dems who control both houses of Congress had enacted pro-growth policies, our economy would be much stronger than it currently is. Remember when we were told that the stimulus bill had to be passed or unemployment would surpass 8%? Well, Reid and Pelosi passed that monster, which added $800 billion to an already huge deficit and unemployment is now at almost 10%. Let's blame Bush for that too!

O. My. Bush.

Double whammy.

GDP up and Replicans down in a Foxxx poll.

Maybe they could stage a "national security incident" and blame it on Obama.

Short of that, get ready for 7 lean years, GOP

Your friends on Wall St. will all convert.

You will be left to the tender mercies of televangelists and the Olin Floundation.

For $$$ I mean.

Who'll pay the trollish scriveners of the right?

As far as regulating Fannie and Freddie - it was Presdeint Bush that tried to put some regulations around them, but was defeated by mainly democrats, thanks to Fannie and Freddies lobbying money.

Posted by: Terry | October 30, 2009 8:06 PM

Terry, your selective memory and continuous blame on the Democrats for The Bush Administration and Republiucan blunders is laughable. What you fail to mention is that these regulations didnt pass because of many Republicans as well!!

WHile Bush did push for significantly increased regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003,and after two years, the regulations passed the House but died in the Senate. Many Republican senators, as well as influential members of the Bush Administration, feared that the agency created by these regulations would merely be mimicking the private sector’s risky practices.

The fact of the matter is BOTH parties are to blame and the perspective of Bush's effect on the economy is significantly affected by partisanship obviously but Most economists and world governments determined that his policies led to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression!!

In 2007, the US entered the longest post-World War II recession,which included a housing market correction, a subprime mortgage crisis, SOARING oil prices, and a declining dollar value. 63,000 jobs were lost, a five-year record.To aid the situation, Bush signed the $170 billion economic stimulus package which was intended to improve the economic situation by sending tax rebate checks to many Americans and providing tax breaks for struggling businesses. Obviously it DID NOT WORK!

In 2008, over 500,000 jobs were lost - the largest loss of jobs in in 34 years.The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in the last four months of 2008, 1.9 million jobs were lost.By the end of 2008, the U.S. had lost a total of 2.6 million jobs!! Great expansion for some but not most buddy!

The real GDP grew at an average annual rate of 2.5%,considerably below the average for business cycles from 1949 to 2000.Bush entered office with the Dow Jones Industrial Average at 10,587, and the average peaked in October 2007 at over 14,000. When Bush left office, the average was at 7,949, one of the lowest levels of his presidency!!!

Adjusted for inflation, median household income dropped by $1,175 between 2000 and 2007!!

The poverty rate increased from 11.3% in 2000 to 12.3% in 2006 after peaking at 12.7% in 2004.

By October 2008, due to increases in domestic and foreign spending, the national debt had risen to $11.3 trillion, an increase of over 100% from the start of the year 2000 when the debt was $5.6 trillion.

So that ''Expansion'' you love to boast about led us into the biggest debt and economic mess ever to be inherited by a new Administration. Just as this FOX poll suggests, the majority of the Ameircan people know this already!

Your sopa box is used up buddy.
Have a good day

Bobb,

And what did Carter inherit? Who backed the Shah so vehemently? If you don't remember, ask Dr. Kissinger. And what was the Ford administration's answer to the financial problems of the day? W-I-N buttons, as in Whip Inflation Now. Drove Betty to drink.

Of course it's Bush's fault, someone should tell his holines hannity.

terry: (snipped)

All you flatliners, please tell me the Bush law or regulation that led to the hosuing bubble and its collapse. (snipped)

By "flatliners" I presume thats anybody who disagrees with you. Name calling is pointless, childish and counter-productive to whatever point you are trying to make.

Nevertheless, here is what Bu$h did not do when presented with the housing bubble-meltdown. This is from the Washington Post:

In the Spitzer article, published shortly before he was taken down in the prostitution scandal, he said this (from the Washington Post, February 14, 2008): [In the face of predatory lending] "Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye."

Using a law dating from the civil war, the Bush administration derailed efforts by many state attorneys general and several state legislatures to protect consumers from predatory lending. The article is short, but stunning. I mean, I knew the Bushies didn't do anything to help, and I knew their lax policies had helped the crisis grow. I just didn't know that they actively prevented consumer protection. It's enough to make you sick to your stomach. Is this why Spitzer was taken down?

The whole article is here:
Washington Post article by Eliot Spitzer
Project Censored article: Bush's Real Problem with Eliot Spitzer

If I were a betting person, I would bet that you will not bother to educate yoourself, opting rather to parrot whatever fox news or rush says.

Scottie,

My quote "but was defeated by mainly democrats" - I used the word "mainly" not "exclusively". Mainly would imply that yes the democrats had support in defeating the proposed increased regulations.

We agree, both parties, as in the Senators, but the Bush adminsitration was behind stricter regulation of Fannie and Freddie.

The expansion of 2001 -2007 did not lead us to the current recession, the bursting of the housing bubble caused by the events in the timeline I laid out above, caused the current recession.

The biggest debt is ocurring now. The Bush adminstration had the record, but it is being left in the dust by BO. Just a reminder what that looks like

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Writeer of (or just plain) wrong,

By Feb, 2008 (month three of the recession), the horse had left the barn, but I believe Barney Frank was still willing to roll the dice on Fannie and Freddie.

If the dems had not shoved the legislation into the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act of 1998, we never would have had all the predatory lending in the first place.

Parroting what Fox or Rush says - I believe I quoted the NYTimes, not once, but twice. No reference to Fox or Rush in my post.

Nice try, your consolation prize awaits you.

BTW - Flatliners are liberals - since they have no brain activity.

quote snipped:
Writeer of (or just plain) wrong,

By Feb, 2008 (month three of the recession), the horse had left the barn, but I believe Barney Frank was still willing to roll the dice on Fannie and Freddie.

If the dems had not shoved the legislation into the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act of 1998, we never would have had all the predatory lending in the first place.

Parroting what Fox or Rush says - I believe I quoted the NYTimes, not once, but twice. No reference to Fox or Rush in my post.

Nice try, your consolation prize awaits you.

BTW - Flatliners are liberals - since they have no brain activity.

Posted by: Terry | October 31, 2009 5:21 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps Terry would like to see " House Of Cards " which has been shown many times on CNBS cable. This excellent
documentary presents 2 hours of right on target reporting however another 2+ hours is needed to fill in some blanks.
The seeds for this implosion begain with the deregulation of the banking industry which Gramm played a key role. Risky mortgage *products* packaged and sold to investors and a cozy relationship fueled by greed, along with cash-strapped governmental bodies billing homeowners for their expenses via property taxes and the motherlode of job loss created this perfect storm but as long as the money kept flowing, this can of worms could be kicked down the street to the next year or administration. This incompetence crossed all party lines and Barney is a dirty as the rest of them.
Job loss, foreclosure, homelessness and the lack of medical access are impacting people of all political affiliations. Throw in a hefty dose of bigotry and intolerance and it all becomes Obama's fault. Nonsense. He inherited this mess and I am not sure if he can fix whats so terribly wrong with this entire picture.
FYI I was once a republican and now an independent.

If the dems had not shoved the legislation into the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act of 1998, we never would have had all the predatory lending in the first place.
Posted by: Terry | October 31, 2009 5:21 PM

Your broad strocks of misinformation is weak. The 3 republicans wrote the deregulation of the banking institutions and the dems added medical and financial privacy and to end redlining. You can twist it anyway you want, but Gramm was the architect of the disaster. You own it!

BillyR,

The vote on Gramm-Leach -Billey ACT was 90 - 8 and 362- 57. That is bipartisanship. Also, signed by the democratic President - Clinton.

In addition what was added by the dems was a protion to the bill that if a banking merger was to take place wanted to go ahead the institutions, or their affiliates, must pass its most recent CRA exam. That would be loans to people that couldn't afford them, thus starting the house of cards.

Just Plain Wrong,

Where did those "risk mortgages" come from? Why would a bank or mortgage company enter into such a contract? Sure banks and mortgages packages these risky loans and peddled them to others. If I owned the bank/mortgage company and was coerced by law into making these lemon loans, I would try and bundle them into something that resembled lemonade and sell them to get them off by books.

You do have one thing right about the cash strapped gov't bodies. They got use to those nice tax levies caused by higher real estate demand which was propped up by a gov't creating a demand for mortgage loans and thus housing. I remember all these gov't bodies telling mortgage companies to renegotiate the mortgages and give people a little leeway on late payments, but try getting behind on your real estate tax payments and you can kiss your house good-bye.

Terry.......The bill by these republicans was to replace the Glass-Steagall Act which allowed high risk wall street into our banks and financial institutions. Glass-Steagall was a firewall which protected Americans savings from exactly what happened, high risk wall street losing their money. The bill did not pass when brought to the floor. Only after they added privacy on medical and financial institutions did they pass it, and yes they added wording to stop the redlining. In the CRA bill you speak of, the first paragragh states that banks are to maintain current sound and safe banking practices. Letting the fox (wall street)into the hen house was the problem, not stopping a practice of redlining.

terry:Just Plain Wrong,

Where did those "risk mortgages" come from? Why would a bank or mortgage company enter into such a contract? Sure banks and mortgages packages these risky loans and peddled them to others. If I owned the bank/mortgage company and was coerced by law into making these lemon loans, I would try and bundle them into something that resembled lemonade and sell them to get them off by books. (end snip)

Posted by: Terry | November 1, 2009 8:12 PM

Most people are not aware that mortgages are considered assets on bank statements. The banks created risky *products* requiring private mortgage insurance (AIG ?) promptly sold these risky *products* and made a bundle and when the mortgage went into foreclosure, the bank made a claim on the private mortgage insurance (AIG ?) and kept the house ! Hows that for double-dipping. Bailout AIG and the banks and keep the house as a bank "asset" thus qualifying for more bailout and TARP funds. What a scam and it's still going on.
IMO any elected official of any party affiliation who accepted lobbying money needs to be outed and that includes Barney Frank. There are clear winners and losers here. The winners are the banks and investment firms and the losers are the Amarican people.
Terry: your attempts at revisionist history are in conflict with the facts.

It would sure be nice if folks could quit playing the blame game. It escalates and gets you nowhere and ends up sounding like a pack of 4th graders in the middle of the playground standing in a circle yelling at each other while Rome burns. So. We have a mess. So. Let's fix it and act like adults while we're doing it.

Just Plain Wrong,

What exactly is the "risky product" that the banks created?

As far as private mortgage insurance, the Mrs and I had to have that on our first loan in the 80's since we put less than 20% down. PMI has been around a long time.

Please be specific when you state I am trying to revise history. What I have stated are facts.

Irene,

Yes we have a mess, but history needs to be told correctly. The fact is the mortgage mess was caused by the federal gov't putting too much of its nose into private business and determine social outcomes.

You liberals keep crying about the trillion spent by Bush over 8 years. You must just in uncontrollable tears over the 4 trillion and counting that Obama and the democrats have spent in 9 months with nothing to show for it but higher unemployment and the debt imprisonment of the future generation. Keep up that loser of an argument liberals.

terry:terry:
Just Plain Wrong,

What exactly is the "risky product" that the banks created?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
here are a few:

2/1 buydown loans
no doc loans
stated income loans
0 down loans
100% LTV
seller assistance with downpayment via Ameridream
0 down with all loan expenses inc. points & app. fee paid by sellers

shall I continue?

Companies such as AIG provided private mortgage insurance to the banks when foreclosure occured, so either way, the banks won and the citizens lost.
GWB was warned about this and not only did he ignore the dire warnings, he went after the very people who warned about this collapse on the horizon. Bush was very good to his bank pals when he was occupying the office of prez.

Still Just Plain Wrong,

Put yourself in the banks shoes. You have pressure from the federal gov't in the 90's to start increasing loans - From my link above from the NYT on 9-30-99 "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits". So how do you do that when many of these people will not qualify for these loans under standard methods? You change the rules and relax the standards for qualifying for a loan.

Now once you have made these loans, do you as a bank want them on your balance sheet? NO. So you bundle the loans and peddle them to others that are willing to accept that risk, and yes potential returns.

Many of these loans had the backing of Fannie and Freddie and therefore the federal gov't. Look who has been on the board of Fannie and Freddie while this whole mortgage crisis played, while reaping millions in bonuses - none other than Rahm Emmanual. As far as outing any official that was involved in this, do you think Rahm should go?

Like I said before, PMI has been around long before the mortgage crisis, so please throw out that red herring.

As I stated before, it was GWB that tried to rein this in with increased regulation of Fannie and Freddie - see 9-11-03 NYT article I linked to above, while it was Congress - primarily democrats that wanted to roll the dice.

terry:Still Just Plain Wrong,

Put yourself in the banks shoes. You have pressure from the federal gov't in the 90's to start increasing loans - From my link above from the NYT on 9-30-99 "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits". So how do you do that when many of these people will not qualify for these loans under standard methods? You change the rules and relax the standards for qualifying for a loan.

Now once you have made these loans, do you as a bank want them on your balance sheet? NO. So you bundle the loans and peddle them to others that are willing to accept that risk, and yes potential returns.

(snipped)

Sorry, this " big banks as victims " mentality just doesn't fly. Why aren't the bankers jumping out windows like they did in days gone by ?
Follow the money trail,Terry.

Stll wrong (and may never be right),

Bankers aren't jumping out of windows like the old days because they were bailed out by TARP - you know the bill BO voted for and Bush signed. The money trail ends with us taxpayers holding the bag thanks to dumb legislation enacted a decade ago.

Posted by: John D, still right-wing, as usual | October 30, 2009 11:34 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/opinion/02krugman.html?ref=opinion

Let's see; John D or Paul Krugman??
Hmmmmmm, who should I believe??
Hmmmmmmm.

CM,

Let's borrow or print another $800 billion that we don't have - Krugman has the answers.

He reminds us of the 3.7% economic growth during the Clinton administration, but fails to remind people that during that time gov't spending was restrained.

One of teh problmes with the spendulus was that most of jobs "saved" were gov't jobs - which don't generate long-term economic growth. There is no incentive to generate private sectors jobs, which still are the engine of this economy - at least for now.

Let's add the stimulus on top of Obamacare and BO can start talking about $10,000,000,000,000 deficits.

Here's a reminder of why we don't need another $800 billion thrown down the sewer.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

terry:
Put yourself in the banks shoes. You have pressure from the federal gov't in the 90's to start increasing loans - From my link above from the NYT on 9-30-99 "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits". So how do you do that when many of these people will not qualify for these loans under standard methods? You change the rules and relax the standards for qualifying for a loan.

Now once you have made these loans, do you as a bank want them on your balance sheet? NO. So you bundle the loans and peddle them to others that are willing to accept that risk, and yes potential returns.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and I suppose the banks were under pressure to send out as many " pre-approved credit card" notices to unsuspecting people, too? One month, I received 60 such pre-approvals. Is this Obama's fault, too?
Terry: why you have chosen to be an apologist and blame-assigner for banks is curious. The simple fact is this: debt is big business, to be packaged and sold as " assets " and the banks with their friends in high places knew they would get bailed out for their recklessness. According to you, the banks are blameless and victims of low income families and Obama.
Such nonsense.

Always wrong,

Where I have said anything with the economy going into recession was BO's fault? Getting back to the originial discussion - who or what caused the economy to go into recession. I have not heard about getting 60 pre-approved credit cards per month being a cause of the recession, but I'm sure you have a reliable source. Since, you brought up those 60 pre-apporved credit cards, how many did you sign-up for?

Never did say the banks were blameless. The originating banks were just making the best of a bad situation by passing along those loans - quite often to other banks. The banking industry was not a victim of low income and families and BO, but this country's financial system was the victim of the unintentional consequences of a bunch a liberal do-gooders.

terry posted:
(snipped)

Never did say the banks were blameless. The originating banks were just making the best of a bad situation by passing along those loans - quite often to other banks.
(snipped)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
what the banks were making was cold hard cash. Debt is big business and their friends on Wall Street helped this along. Lots of money being made and bailouts on top of all this plus they made claims on PMI companies and kept the houses. Meanwhile, families lost everything.
Where is their " thousand points of light " ? Where is their bailout ? Poor pitiful banks and investment firms? I don't think so.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
terry:
The banking industry was not a victim of low income and families and BO, but this country's financial system was the victim of the unintentional consequences of a bunch a liberal do-gooders.
(end snip)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Our economy is consumer-driven and most consumers are completely tapped out at this point. The economy has been running on credit and enertia for quite some time and anyone with half a brain could see the storm looming on the horizon. Americans are spending upwards 70% of their income on housing when the rule of thumb was 27%. Food and energy costs, job losses and the
lack of medical access is what has ruined our economy and hurt millions of Americans and those are the issues which need addressing, not finger pointing or championing the " no bank left behind " mentailty.

Still wrong,

Since you didn't answer the question about the 60 pre-approved credit card applications, I'll assume you didn't apply for any of them. I'll assume you were personally responsible for your own financial condition. Am I correct?

Point is - no one forced anyone into signing any of these no-money down mortgages or accepting the pre-approved credit card applications. If folks would have been a little more personally responsible, this probably wouldn't have happened.

Maybe they just didn't know better? I guess that 13 years of free gov't education didn't teach them how to think.

Personal responsibility would have solved all of this.

The crash of 08/09 was the final act of Reaganomics.
Cheap consumer debt, don't save, service economy, de-unionize, borrow to cover your debts. What you have is America as a 'payday loan' nation.

terry, champion of the " no bank left behind " mentality posted:
Still wrong,

Since you didn't answer the question about the 60 pre-approved credit card applications, I'll assume you didn't apply for any of them. I'll assume you were personally responsible for your own financial condition. Am I correct?

Point is - no one forced anyone into signing any of these no-money down mortgages or accepting the pre-approved credit card applications. If folks would have been a little more personally responsible, this probably wouldn't have happened.

Maybe they just didn't know better? I guess that 13 years of free gov't education didn't teach them how to think.

Personal responsibility would have solved all of this.

Posted by: Terry | November 4, 2009 8:29 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Personal responsibility for everyone except Wall Street and the banks. E'nuf said.

cmorris:The crash of 08/09 was the final act of Reaganomics.
Cheap consumer debt, don't save, service economy, de-unionize, borrow to cover your debts. What you have is America as a 'payday loan' nation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Don't forget the tried and failed
" trickle down economics" and RR's stating that the churches should take care of the poor.
Now that America has millions upon millions of poor and working poor, brought on by out of control COL, medical bills and unemployment, not to mention corporate greed, do you suppose a " trickle up" theory makes a lot more sense?
If you think this idea is not without merit, try finding a parking spot in Walmart's lot.

CM,

We knew you flatliners would finally pin this on Reagan. Save you statement for the spring when the fields need fertilizing.

Still Wrong,

I was among the first in line that Wall Street shouldn't have been bailed out. I understood how it would work, but it sent the wrong message.

Supply-side economics worked well for the past 25 years. Two minor recessions since 1983.

Everytime the highest incremental tax rates have been cut, the economy has grown. Supply-side economics has produced the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th longest economic expansions in American history.

"Trickle-UP" doesn't work - evidence is the tax rebate checks that various presidents have tried - especially Bush43 - see 2008 as an example.

terry: (snip)
"Trickle-UP" doesn't work - evidence is the tax rebate checks that various presidents have tried - especially Bush43 - see 2008 as an example.

that's the best explanation you can come up with ?
Some tax rebate checks that never went to the people who needed it the most and would have spent it rather than save it, as most of the reciepients did and, thus, "stimulated the market " like it was supposed to do.
Because so many American consumers have less disposable income or credit available, they are simply not spending or they're watching every dime. The latest market to crash is the commercial real estate market, which depends on consumers and which in turn, employs people who, in turn buy houses and cars and assorted junk, which, in turn, fuels the trades and on and on. This is not trickle down economics but trickle up and that is what works, not the other way around.

Still and Always will be wrong,

I've given three instances in which supply-side works.

As far as trickle-up, its hard to trickle-up to people that don't pay income taxes.

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

Try an econ class at your local JC, it will do you good.

terry, champion of the " no bank left behind " movement:
Still and Always will be wrong,

I've given three instances in which supply-side works.

As far as trickle-up, its hard to trickle-up to people that don't pay income taxes.

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

Try an econ class at your local JC, it will do you good.

Posted by: Terry | November 6, 2009 9:43 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
message to Terry: if supply side economics worked, then why pray tell is America's economy in shambles?

Perhaps you need to get out into the real world where families struggle just to put a roof over their head. As Obama pointed out and many agree, we do not have 2 Americas. While people like you whine and moan and drone on and on about your entitlements and the evils of a nanny state and socialism, your kind are the first in line with your hand out because you think you earned it or deserve it and the heck with everybody else.

terry, champion of the " no bank left behind " movement:
Still and Always will be wrong,

I've given three instances in which supply-side works.

As far as trickle-up, its hard to trickle-up to people that don't pay income taxes.

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

Try an econ class at your local JC, it will do you good.

Posted by: Terry | November 6, 2009 9:43 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
message to Terry: if supply side economics worked, then why pray tell is America's economy in shambles?

Perhaps you need to get out into the real world where families struggle just to put a roof over their head. As Obama pointed out and many agree, we do not have 2 Americas. While people like you whine and moan and drone on and on about your entitlements and the evils of a nanny state and socialism, your kind are the first in line with your hand out because you think you earned it or deserve it and the heck with everybody else.

Always wrong,

Supply-side economics gave us a 73 month economic expansion - 5th longest in American history. The recession was caused by the hosuing bubble - unrelated to the Tax Cuts of 2001 & 2003. The recession occurred at the very end of 2007. Economic cycles do not go on forever.

I am in the real world litle boy. I know what it means to earn my pay every day. I don't have a union backing me up, I have to prove my worth on a daily basis.

"your kind are the first in line with your hand out because you think you earned it or deserve it and the heck with everybody else." Just what kind is "your kind"? can you site evidence where I have had my hand out?

There's an old saying, when in a hole, put down the shovel and quit digging. You are way over your head now.

terry from teabagistan posted:

Supply-side economics gave us a 73 month economic expansion - 5th longest in American history. The recession was caused by the hosuing bubble - unrelated to the Tax Cuts of 2001 & 2003. The recession occurred at the very end of 2007. Economic cycles do not go on forever.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

here's some news for you:
America is in a depression and it's the result of job losses, COL , the various wars we had no business being involved in, greed and incompetency. This did not start at the end of 2007 but rather the doo doo began hitting the fan around 2004. Can you think of any other *events* which occured around that time frame which may have contributed to this economic free-fall ? I can.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
teabagistan Terry continued..

I am in the real world litle boy. I know what it means to earn my pay every day.(end snip)

Little boy ? You presume me to be a male. You know nothing about me; my age or gender or what I do for a living.
That's the beauty of anonymous blogging.
~~~~~~~

terry from teabagistan goes on
:
I don't have a union backing me up, I have to prove my worth on a daily basis. (snip)

And you are complaining about what exactly ? You should be quietly grateful for even having a job, union or otherwise.

I

Always Wrong,

Put the shovel down.

Cause of the current recession

http://recession.org/history

Doesn't mention anything about the cost of the war on terror. What is the "doo-doo" from 2004 you are talking about other than your 4th grade report card?

The reason I have a job is because I prove my worth to my employer. Luck has nothing to do with it - its hard work.

Quit whining and grow up and grow a pair.