No doubt that it will take time to get out of the recession, but these numbers still suck. I mean it's improvement and we'll see if it's a trend that continues, but I'm not going get all excited or anticipate something good happening. I want to see consistency in the right direction.
Yeah, those 28 quarters of positive growth were just terrible under President Bush. Also, a lot of people were getting all stressed out with those sub-5% unemployment rates--working is hard! As for stimulus spending having anything to do with unemployment rates lessening (and only an idiot says it's a good thing we've only lost a quarter million jobs in a month), check how much of the "stimulus" was actually spent. Economies are self-correcting and there's little the Federal Government can do about it.
self correcting? maybe in an economic textbook, not in real life. if i was obama- i would modernize the antiquated regulation on wall street that hasnt changed since the depression.
Umm, did you miss the repeal of Glass-Steagall? And it's not just in an economic textbook. How do you think this country emerged from the deep recession of the early 1980s?
Nope, but Obama's solution seems to be putting that silver bullet in a gun, sticking it in America's mouth and pulling the trigger.
I'm still baffled why republicans still defend Bush. Every party has terrible Presidents and great ones. There isn't one way to be a good President in my view. You deal with what you got and you go from there. Bush was bad, but Reagan was solid. The republicans will have a bad President again, but they'll probably have a great one again. Same goes for the Dems. Obama may very well lead us out of this recession. In fact he will and when he does, his popularity will soar. It's that simple. At what cost though? The deficit is going to be awful for I assume the next decade and someone is going to have to raise taxes eventually because of this. Everyone will just pay more. Then it'll probably happen all over again in the 2020's.
I'm not defending President Bush. Heck, I never even voted for him. That being said, you have to recognize the economic reality of his Presidency. His economic record would have even been better without the profligate spending under his Administration. What angers me about this spending is that I'm not going to pay for it. My son is going to have to pay for it. When you're a parent, you would do almost anything to ease the burden on your progeny. What's happening is the exact opposite. To try to avoid short term pain, we're putting a huge burden on future generations. What's most shameful is this spending isn't to stimulate the economy at all. If it were, it would have all been spent this year. Instead, the majority is going to be spent in 2010, which is...wait for it...an election year! The economy will improve, but because the economy is resilient, not because of these spending policies. Then it'll probably happen all over again in the 2020's. [/QUOTE]
and americans were back in recession mode at the end of bush sr. tenure. then clinton showed up with his socialist policies and america enjoyed a surplus as well as breakneck growth where fast food joints where using signing bonuses to lure candidates.
Yeah, you have to hate those 10 year prosperity runs. And you're misinformed about Clinton. It was only after he limited Welfare and cut taxes did the economy improve. It's one of the reasons I liked him as a President. He put effectiveness over ideology.
The press is reporting that Obama walked on water over the weekend. They wouldn't report otherwise, because they don't want to be called un-american and put on an enemies list.
do u watch cnn? they have been unrelenting in recent weeks in their attacks from the gates thing to the healthcare debate. in fact, all they do is air those attack ads funded by the kleptocrats
The most watched 24/7 news network is FOX and all they're still using Bush talking points so I think the bias is about 50-50. Each network has their own agenda. Personally, CNN has done a respectable job I think so far. Of course compared to the other two all you have to do is be somewhat objective and you'll win out. maxiep, The downfall of the economy under Bush was that he didn't raise taxes during wartime. Even Ronald Reagan raised taxes a few times I believe. Bush just gave into the oil tycoons and all the other corporate businessman that helped get him elected. He was a terrible President no doubt and I don't think history is going to benefit him like it had Truman. I hope we're not starting a trend where the country elects bad President after bad President. I believe after Lincoln there were some pretty bad ones for quite a while. Perhaps history is repeating itself. I think the spending helped to some extent, but the problem is the spending that was needed was also used to get through a bunch of projects that are BS. That extra pork or whatever they call it was the problem. That 2nd spending bill was a complete joke and I'm surprised it's not talked about as much as it is.
The downfall of this economy was the idea that everyone--regardless of ability to pay--had the right to own a home. MBS was supposed to be a quiet financial backwater. Sub-prime mortgages changed all that. No one cared about the risks because the portfolio was going to be sold off. And if they went belly up, the GSE's had the implied backing of the Federal Government. The rating agencies were played off each other to secure great ratings for crap product. Derivatives were created that only the physicists and financial engineers on the trading floors truly understood. The traders and those responsible for asset allocation at the banks didn't understand these products at all. I think rather than raising taxes after 9/11, what should have occurred was a contraction of the Federal Government. Use the spending on the war to curtail some of the programs that had ballooned out of control. Instead, the Bush Administration allowed it to mushroom. So, you had massive consumer debt AND massive government debt. People were taking their increasing equity in their houses and swapping it for debt and flat screen TVs. Eventually, we were going to run out of money or we'd lose the ability to pay. As for residential real estate, values could only go so high as income growth. When it becomes impossible to buy a home and pay the mortgage, then values collapse. It was a classic recipe for a structural recession. I hope we're not starting a trend where the country elects bad President after bad President. I believe after Lincoln there were some pretty bad ones for quite a while. Perhaps history is repeating itself. I think the spending helped to some extent, but the problem is the spending that was needed was also used to get through a bunch of projects that are BS. That extra pork or whatever they call it was the problem. That 2nd spending bill was a complete joke and I'm surprised it's not talked about as much as it is.[/QUOTE]
FOX is a machine. It's on all day. The others on basic cable are half hour programs. Newspapers are falling fast in favor of the internet and you can find anything to agree with your point on the net. I think most people are ignorant and go to sites that agree with their views anyways. The only way to get actual news is to get it yourself, but your kidding yourself if you think Obama doesn't have his critics as well as people kissing his ass. It works both ways.
I think Obama came into office with a lot of support and he's lost much of it. The polling data shows his negatives are rapidly increasing while his support is below what it was on election day. It's easy enough to chalk it up to politics as usual, but this guy ran on changing the politics as usual. And I think it's quite clear that it is his actions that have led to this decline in popularity.
