• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Lasting Legacy of the Last Decade: A Shrinking Middle Class

Would you rather have the Bush Sr. "recession" or the Obama "not recession" of the last 4 years? That "recession" was over about as soon as it started -- after a decade of rocket-ship growth, a correction is perfectly normal, then it was back to strong growth. Believe we're still waiting for anything resembling strong growth years after the end of the "recession" that greeted Obama.

So either Clinton benefitted from a fundamentally strong economy, or Obama can't do whatever Clinton did to recover from the recession. Your choice.

I don't think unemployment doubled in an 18 month period during any of those previous recessions.
 
Would you rather have the Bush Sr. "recession" or the Obama "not recession" of the last 4 years? That "recession" was over about as soon as it started -- after a decade of rocket-ship growth, a correction is perfectly normal, then it was back to strong growth. Believe we're still waiting for anything resembling strong growth years after the end of the "recession" that greeted Obama.

So either Clinton benefitted from a fundamentally strong economy, or Obama can't do whatever Clinton did to recover from the recession. Your choice.

Reagan had a stock market crash, S&L debacle, deficits that kept growing unlike ever in history, then a recession. Giving him credit for Clinton's economy is ludicrous.

Unless Reagan is still responsible for this recession.
 
Clinton's expansion was fueled by increasing government revenues which freed hundreds of billions to be invested in the internet revolution. Reagan had nothing to to with that.

Of course, Reagan's idea to let S&Ls invest in junk bonds and other insane investments was a model for the W irrationality.
 
deficits that kept growing unlike ever in history

LOL wut? Have you been asleep since inauguration day? Reagan couldn't have spent as much as Obama if he tried. I doubt the total budgets Reagan signed add up to the amount of debt the country has incurred under Obama.

Even inflation-adjusted, it's not even close. A Obama supporter complaining about Reagan spending is just rich.
 
Clinton's expansion was fueled by increasing government revenues which freed hundreds of billions to be invested in the internet revolution. Reagan had nothing to to with that.

Of course, Reagan's idea to let S&Ls invest in junk bonds and other insane investments was a model for the W irrationality.

Your complete unawareness of how ridiculous and illogical every single thing you say is amuses me.

Insane investments sounds exactly like the late 90s. "The W irrationality" is not even a phrase that's connected to anything. It's a complete mystery to anyone reading just what in the hell you're talking about, and I damn sure don't ever want to be able to read your mind.

But let me try...Clinton's expansion was fueled by increasing government revenues freed because he didn't have to DEAL WITH THE FUCKING SOVIETS BECAUSE REAGAN BANKRUPTED THEM.
 
Last edited:
When the housing bubble was full? I guess that is a matter of perspective.

Eh not really. Clearly there were problems in the economy when Greenspan's solution to the burst Internet bubble was to create a housing bubble. Honestly I believe there were fundamental problems emerging in the late 90s that the Internet bubble masked that really were independent of who was president or what they did. Same goes for the 9/11 recession. Eventually, the economic warlocks ran out of answers because all their answers involve some kind of action on their part. They're still trying.

But it seems superobvious that the recession under Bush the Elder was much more mild, orderly, and within the greater trend than what we're experiencing now and have throughout the Obama administration. The economy that was revived under Reagan was even in the early 90s much stronger than today's. I really can't believe there's a serious disagreement on that. All you have to do is look at the recoveries to see that, unless you think Obama is an absolute incompetent when it comes to the economy. But IMO our economy hasn't really been healthy since the late 90s.
 
The real problem, which no one is addressing: too easy to make money from speculation and financial manipulation compared to investments in manufacturing and services providing products that most people use.
 
No matter how much the libs hate it, Reagan is always ALWAYS going to be held in esteem in this country because he did in the Soviets. And the first thing in the history books next to Clinton's name will be his moral turpitude and his impeachment.

And it drives the libs nuts. Fact is the last Dem president that history will/has smiled upon was JFK. Obama will be noteworthy for melanin-related reasons, but not for his performance -- unless the expansion of liberty-limiting policies eventually results in a disastrous loss of freedom, in which case W Bush will look even worse, but Obama will as well.
 
The real problem, which no one is addressing: too easy to make money from speculation and financial manipulation compared to investments in manufacturing and services providing products that most people use.

Well, the downturn in manufacturing is one of the things that IMO started to come to a head in the 90s.
 
You're getting your Republican Partys confused. That was the other Republican Party, from 20+ years ago. That Republican Party doesn't exist anymore. This is the new & improved Republican Tea Party.

Or maybe it’s just a wiser Republican Party. Maybe 8 years of Bush with a mixed congress, and 2 years of Obama with a Democratic congress taught them that politicians on both sides are insatiable and, given the chance, will place personal and political ideology before the good of the country (please please please don’t tell me that saddling the country with debt at roughly 100% of its GDP, with no end in sight, is healthy). Maybe they are in complete agreement that a mixed bag of cuts and tax increases are needed, but want to see the freaking cuts carved in stone FIRST (since we’ve now managed to carve into stone...pending 2012‘s outcome.. another massive increase in Government spending) before committing yet more of the country’s resources to the mid-Atlantic black hole.

It’s possible.
 
Eh not really. Clearly there were problems in the economy when Greenspan's solution to the burst Internet bubble was to create a housing bubble. Honestly I believe there were fundamental problems emerging in the late 90s that the Internet bubble masked that really were independent of who was president or what they did. Same goes for the 9/11 recession. Eventually, the economic warlocks ran out of answers because all their answers involve some kind of action on their part. They're still trying.

But it seems superobvious that the recession under Bush the Elder was much more mild, orderly, and within the greater trend than what we're experiencing now and have throughout the Obama administration. The economy that was revived under Reagan was even in the early 90s much stronger than today's. I really can't believe there's a serious disagreement on that. All you have to do is look at the recoveries to see that, unless you think Obama is an absolute incompetent when it comes to the economy. But IMO our economy hasn't really been healthy since the late 90s.

I misunderstood your point. Yes, the economy has worse structural problems right now than it did during the early 90s recession. We are in absolute agreement.
 
I love how to defend the mess our current President has created the argument is often along the lines of - well others did something bad too.

Obama created the 2008 financial crisis and recession? He had that kind of power as a State and US Senator?
 
If you really believe that, I have some coastal property in Arizona to sell you.

Depends on your definition of tax increases (more revenue vs. "more fair" rates). Tell you what, though - I'll trade a few hundred shares of WAMU for your property in Arizona, and we'll call it even. Deal?
 
Your complete unawareness of how ridiculous and illogical every single thing you say is amuses me.

Insane investments sounds exactly like the late 90s. "The W irrationality" is not even a phrase that's connected to anything. It's a complete mystery to anyone reading just what in the hell you're talking about, and I damn sure don't ever want to be able to read your mind.

But let me try...Clinton's expansion was fueled by increasing government revenues freed because he didn't have to DEAL WITH THE FUCKING SOVIETS BECAUSE REAGAN BANKRUPTED THEM.

Wrong again. The Pope was the reason for the Soviet demise not Reagan.

The Cheney/Bush defense cuts eliminated tons of jobs. If not for the internet revolution unemployment would have been much higher.
 
Depends on your definition of tax increases (more revenue vs. "more fair" rates). Tell you what, though - I'll trade a few hundred shares of WAMU for your property in Arizona, and we'll call it even. Deal?

It's irrational to cut any individual taxes at a time when revenues are at an historic percentage low and the populace is aging as it is. Anyone who believes cutting individual taxes will do anything other than explode the deficit further is an absolute fool.
 
It's irrational to cut any individual taxes at a time when revenues are at an historic percentage low and the populace is aging as it is. Anyone who believes cutting individual taxes will do anything other than explode the deficit further is an absolute fool.

Are you trying to muscle in my Arizona land deal? Step back.

Just kidding - in all seriousness, I'm just trying to help BKF get through his day: he just found out Bobby Knight's handle on the Indiana board is ClintEastwoodFan.
 
Back
Top