Everyone knows the collapse happened before Obama took office.

Does that mean there can be no logical review of Obama's policies and how they have impacted the recovery?

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/22/2012 12:40:00 PM (view original):
Everyone knows the collapse happened before Obama took office.

Does that mean there can be no logical review of Obama's policies and how they have impacted the recovery?

No, we should absolutely examine Obama's record and hold him accountable.  But we need to make sure that we do so with context.

Looking back at the collapse, knowing now that it was far worse than we thought at the time, what should we expect the recovery to look like?  What could the president have done differently?  Would it have been possible for him to enact the most beneficial policies?  Or would that have been impossible because of the gridlock in congress?

I think the stimulus was the right move because of what was causing the recession.  Could it have been more effective? Sure.  But the alternative, according to the republican point of view, wasn't a more effective stimulus, but a nonexistent one.

I can understand the philosophical side of this (Kenseyian vs Austrian) but I cannot understand your continued defense of the stimulus.

This wasnt a plan that could have been better, this was a disaster.

And the disaster didnt even do what Obama himself said it would do.

And who said it was worse than we thought? The media was selling this as the 2nd great depression, what could be worse.

The crash came, Obama's inexperience and the left wing views of his advisors prevented any logical response, except for an agenda driven stimulus.

Your timeline is odd.  The crash came and Bush implemented a stimulus in 2008.  The recession continued and Obama implemented a stimulus in 2009.

Both were too small to effectively cause a $15 trillion economy to immediately reverse course.

I think your timeline is off.

There was a slowdown. The congress passed a small bill that helped some of the issues. Bush signed it. Then the crash. Then the Obama stimulus. About 6 times larger and about 20 times less effective.

The National Bureau of Economic Research states that the recession officially started in December 2007.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/22/2012 11:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by crackatoeha on 5/22/2012 10:17:00 AM (view original):
How about talking about the fact that there has not been a constitutionaly mandated budget put forth by this joke in over 1200 days.  Or the fact that he has added more debt than all of the other pres. combined.  Or that in 2004 he was warned by Bush that fannie and freddie were going dowm and he and his buddies Barney and Dodd said all was fine, took their 15 Mil in bonuses and let the housing market crash, on purpose and on schedule.

That is quite a paragraph.

So the president is responsible for legislating a budget?

In 2004, the current president knew enough to warn a senator about fannie and freddie, but not enough to actually do anything about it himself over the next four years?

You do know that the collapse happened before obama became president right?

This is a nice contradiction you put forth here.

The president cannot (obviously) "legislate" a budget into being.

But the president can "do something" about the impending collapse of Fannie and Freddie?

What, pray tell, should he have done, other than warn the legislative body and implore them to "do something" about it?

Posted by jrd_x on 5/22/2012 3:03:00 PM (view original):
The National Bureau of Economic Research states that the recession officially started in December 2007.

And I am sure in a very technical economic way it did.

We all remember the crash though.

BUSH LIED AMERIKA DIED

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/23/2012 12:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/22/2012 3:03:00 PM (view original):
The National Bureau of Economic Research states that the recession officially started in December 2007.

And I am sure in a very technical economic way it did.

We all remember the crash though.

Yeah in 2008.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/23/2012 11:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/23/2012 12:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/22/2012 3:03:00 PM (view original):
The National Bureau of Economic Research states that the recession officially started in December 2007.

And I am sure in a very technical economic way it did.

We all remember the crash though.

Yeah in 2008.

And lets keep the order defined.

And lets keep the scale defined.

A small bill with a specific goal might be a mistake, but it is a small mistake.

A huge bill with odd and agenda driven goals is doomed to fail in an epic way!

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/23/2012 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/23/2012 11:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/23/2012 12:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/22/2012 3:03:00 PM (view original):
The National Bureau of Economic Research states that the recession officially started in December 2007.

And I am sure in a very technical economic way it did.

We all remember the crash though.

Yeah in 2008.

And lets keep the order defined.

And lets keep the scale defined.

A small bill with a specific goal might be a mistake, but it is a small mistake.

A huge bill with odd and agenda driven goals is doomed to fail in an epic way!

Why?

If the economy is crashing because of a massive lack of demand, how does the government adding to that demand hurt anything?

every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/23/2012 12:28:00 PM (view original):
every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Exactly.  The economy was hurting because of a lack of demand.  The best course of action was to add demand.