Posted by greeny9 on 9/30/2012 10:43:00 AM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 9/28/2012 2:46:00 PM (view original):So by your definition swampy yer saviour W was the worst president of all time. After all he took over from Clinton who had a budget surplus and the economy was as hot as ever and by the time he was done the country (and world) was in the 2nd worst depression of all time.
Posted by gregos on 9/28/2012 5:25:00 AM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 9/27/2012 12:08:00 PM (view original):So is a president who gets the country to the top of the peak not as good as the next president who only makes things a little bit worse?
If you take over at the top of a peak it is hard to make things better.
If you take over at the bottom of a crash it should be easy to make things better.
The physics of the economy want to bring things to the middle.
Each President must be judged on his own record.
If you take over when things are good and you keep them good, or even lose a little you are doing ok.
If you take over at the bottom and you keep things the same and make them a little worse you are not doing ok.
Obama took over at the low point, and made things worse.
He over spent on massive programs that did little. He shut off capital to business. He allowed energy prices to skyrocket.
He doesnt understand how the system works so his solutions are illogical. The left would rather ride a dying horse than let the other guy try to fix the problem!
Refute that beeyatch!
Oh, and BTW Obamas job numbers are 2 and change pts better then when he took over. So how can you say his policies have made the situation worse?
BTW, I am still waiting for your explanation on what created this depression if it werent for de-regulation??? any answer for that too???
1 It is the opposite. If you take over at a low you should be able to make it go up. If you take over on the peak it is hard to keep it going...Yet Bush did. He kept his economy strong and people happy even after the 9/11 attacks and the huricaines. When things should have been slowing down Bush freed up Americans to allow expansion.
2 Job numbers are an artificial stat. They looked over every possible number and since the economy was so stagnant some jobs were being created. So the media started reporting a new stat no one EVER used before. The meida can scream how great Obama's job creation is. If he was really creating jobs well would unemployment be so out of control?
3 The collapse of an artificial real estate bubble caused the crash. You can claim that the government should have controlled real estate more, but that would be a hard sell. You can argue that Clinton's elimination of Glass Stegel was a problem, but that would also be a hard sell. You could argue that the fear of being accused of racial discrimination directed from the left caused banks to issue loans that were questionable, but that would also be a hard sell. It was a natural part of the economy.
You always bury these questions at the bottom of long threads. Unlike Jim I try to respond to everything.