Income inequality: Dem vs GOP admins compared

[Todd33]

that's right. recession began in 2000. bush began term in January 2001.

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which is the private, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization charged with determining economic recessions, the U.S. economy was in recession from March 2001 to November 2001 [3], a period of eight months at the beginning of President George W. Bush's term of office. However, economic conditions did not satisfy the common shorthand definition of recession, which is "a fall of a country's real gross domestic product in two or more successive quarters," and has led to some confusion about the procedure for determining the starting and ending dates of a recession.
The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee (BCDC) uses monthly, rather than quarterly, indicators to determine peaks and troughs in business activity,[4] as can be seen by noting that starting and ending dates are given by month and year, not quarters. However, controversy over the precise dates of the recession led to the characterization of the recession as the "Clinton Recession" by Republicans, if it could be traced to the final term of President Bill Clinton. A move in the recession date in a 2004 report by the Council of Economic Advisors to several months before the one given by the NBER was seen as politically motivated.[5]

Even if Bush inherited a baby recession, he left a large one erasing all growth in those eight years, thus the rich-poor gap looking neutral. Of course we know the Bush tax cuts helped the rich immensely and they will recover much more, hence the Obama looking positive.

 

[MiniDoom]

Even if Bush inherited a baby recession, he left a large one erasing all growth in those eight years, thus the rich-poor gap looking neutral. Of course we know the Bush tax cuts helped the rich immensely and they will recover much more, hence the Obama looking positive.

good grief, you're a partisan dimwit. like arguing with a fucking wall.

 

[soundforbjt]

Doesn't matter since the middle class has been stagnant & shrinking since the 70's. Good economy now means rich are getting richer and more are becoming poorer.

 

[Acanthus]

The Gini index is intended to be a long-run measure of income inequality. It is the measure of area under a curve (integral). This data doesn't tell you much.

 

[Ausm]

Yes, it was a Republican who wrote the bill, but at the time it had bipartisan support (it passed the house 343-86), including prodding by Clinton. In fact, Clinton himself doesnt even blame the Republicans on this one and as noted here:

On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the Republicans].[/url]

I understand you want to blame the majority of all the bad things on the GOP, but you look foolish doing so.

Why the bill would never been passed in the first place if it wasn't originally authored and sponsored by the GOP.

 

[Ausm]

that was directed at someone else in this thread. And I agree with you about bush. You're also a partisan hack. 😛

Sorry Sir just stating the facts. 😉

 

[blackangst1]

Yes, it was a Republican who wrote the bill, but at the time it had bipartisan support (it passed the house 343-86), including prodding by Clinton. In fact, Clinton himself doesnt even blame the Republicans on this one and as noted here:


Why the bill would never been passed in the first place if it wasn't originally authored and sponsored by the GOP.

Really? Youre still drinking the partisan kool-aid?

OK how about this. It was written by a GOP because he was pressured by Clinton to do so. Got any evidence thats not true?

I didnt think so. I guess the GOP threatened and strong-armed the Dems into voting for it too, huh? :awe:

 

[fskimospy]

It was bipartisan failure, both democrats and Republicans voted for it. It is a good example of the failure of conservative economic principles in terms of bank deregulation, but both parties were into that at the time.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, it was a Republican who wrote the bill, but at the time it had bipartisan support (it passed the house 343-86), including prodding by Clinton. In fact, Clinton himself doesnt even blame the Republicans on this one and as noted here:

On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the Republicans].[/url]

I understand you want to blame the majority of all the bad things on the GOP, but you look foolish doing so.

Clinton has admitted to mistakes wrt deregulation-

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ce-on-derivatives-and-i-was-wrong-to-take-it/

We've seen zero such admissions by Repubs.

Of course the GINI increased during Obama's early term, although not as much as it did in the early 1930's. That's how it works in a balance sheet depression, when unemployment skyrockets, millions of working & middle class people lose their jobs. It's not like the truly wealthy actually have jobs per se, that they can get laid off, and their income may actually decline, but that's more than offset by the number of people with zero income...

 

[glenn1]

Yes, it was a Republican who wrote the bill, but at the time it had bipartisan support (it passed the house 343-86), including prodding by Clinton. In fact, Clinton himself doesnt even blame the Republicans on this one and as noted here:


Clinton has admitted to mistakes wrt deregulation-

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ce-on-derivatives-and-i-was-wrong-to-take-it/

We've seen zero such admissions by Repubs.

Of course the GINI increased during Obama's early term, although not as much as it did in the early 1930's. That's how it works in a balance sheet depression, when unemployment skyrockets, millions of working & middle class people lose their jobs. It's not like the truly wealthy actually have jobs per se, that they can get laid off, and their income may actually decline, but that's more than offset by the number of people with zero income...

So if inequality went up during the terms of FDR and Obama due to the bad economy, why did it go up during Clinton's good economy? And why did it go up less during during the bad Carter economy years?

 

[blackangst1]

Yes, it was a Republican who wrote the bill, but at the time it had bipartisan support (it passed the house 343-86), including prodding by Clinton. In fact, Clinton himself doesnt even blame the Republicans on this one and as noted here:


Clinton has admitted to mistakes wrt deregulation-

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ce-on-derivatives-and-i-was-wrong-to-take-it/

We've seen zero such admissions by Repubs.

Of course the GINI increased during Obama's early term, although not as much as it did in the early 1930's. That's how it works in a balance sheet depression, when unemployment skyrockets, millions of working & middle class people lose their jobs. It's not like the truly wealthy actually have jobs per se, that they can get laid off, and their income may actually decline, but that's more than offset by the number of people with zero income...

Oh OK. So an apology makes it better. 🙄

And his...uh...admission to mistakes was only in regards to derivatives. Not everything else he started.

So you'd feel less contempt for GWB is he said in an interview "It was a mistake to invade Iraq"? Yeah. I didnt think so. Damage is already done, right?

 

[Jhhnn]

So if inequality went up during the terms of FDR and Obama due to the bad economy, why did it go up during Clinton's good economy? And why did it go up less during during the bad Carter economy years?

During the Clinton years, it went up, I suspect, because of offshoring & financial flimflams around the .com boom.

The Carter years weren't bad years until the FRB jacked interest rates through the roof... They weren't great, either.

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh OK. So an apology makes it better. 🙄

And his...uh...admission to mistakes was only in regards to derivatives. Not everything else he started.

So you'd feel less contempt for GWB is he said in an interview "It was a mistake to invade Iraq"? Yeah. I didnt think so. Damage is already done, right?

Oh, please. I'd feel a lot better about our economic future if Repubs could re-evaluate their position, actually admit to some error on their part. They're still preaching the same deregulated trickledown sermon as before the crash, still advocating the same tax & military spending policy, still taking the Neocon line on the international level.

Those are all failed policies with very negative effects on our country.

 

[Matt1970]

It was bipartisan failure, both democrats and Republicans voted for it. It is a good example of the failure of conservative economic principles in terms of bank deregulation, but both parties were into that at the time.

Yep, both sides gobbled up that bill at the time.

 

[Ausm]

Really? Youre still drinking the partisan kool-aid?

OK how about this. It was written by a GOP because he was pressured by Clinton to do so. Got any evidence thats not true?

I didnt think so. I guess the GOP threatened and strong-armed the Dems into voting for it too, huh? :awe:

So what you are saying is if the Republicon think tank who authored Legislation pushing for deregulation of the banking industry by repealing Glass-Steigal was not introduced by the Republicans then a Democratic think tank had this type of Legislation in the works already and it would have inevitably happened anyway? 😱D:

Please list some credible evidence on your assertion.

 

[Acanthus]

And no one listens 😛

 

[blackangst1]

So what you are saying is if the Republicon think tank who authored Legislation pushing for deregulation of the banking industry by repealing Glass-Steigal was not introduced by the Republicans then a Democratic think tank had this type of Legislation in the works already and it would have inevitably happened anyway? 😱D:

Please list some credible evidence on your assertion.

Based on the passage votes of the repeal both in the house and senate, yes. It would've been. If youre looking for a quote from Democratic leadership saying explicitly "If they didnt write it we would have" I dont believe such a quote exists. But then, I dont believe such a quote exists in ANY bill thats passed so overwhelmingly.

If you want to continue denying Democratic support for deregulation, thats your choice. But youre just as partisan and blind as you accuse the right of being. No evidence whatsoever will satisfy you. Thats your M.O. And by taking that stance, essentially what youre doing is getting into a "Yes he did" "No he didnt" argument, of which I wont partake. If you cant be an adult and look at things clearly, thats your problem, not mine. But, to repeat, if you want to deny Democratic support for deregulation up to and including POTUS, thats your choice.

Add to that, who signed it into law again? Right. The highest ranking Democrat in office, POTUS.

Churchill said it best: The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.

 

[Atreus21]

Wikipedia:

Others have argued that the activities linked to the financial crisis were not prohibited (or, in most cases, even regulated) by the Glass–Steagall Act.[11]

Is this true or false?

Commentators, including former President Clinton in 2008 and the American Bankers Association in January 2010, have also argued that the ability of commercial banking firms to acquire securities firms (and of securities firms to convert into bank holding companies) helped mitigate the financial crisis.[12]

Is this true or false?

 

[Ausm]

Based on the passage votes of the repeal both in the house and senate, yes. It would've been. If youre looking for a quote from Democratic leadership saying explicitly "If they didnt write it we would have" I dont believe such a quote exists. But then, I dont believe such a quote exists in ANY bill thats passed so overwhelmingly.

If you want to continue denying Democratic support for deregulation, thats your choice. But youre just as partisan and blind as you accuse the right of being. No evidence whatsoever will satisfy you. Thats your M.O. And by taking that stance, essentially what youre doing is getting into a "Yes he did" "No he didnt" argument, of which I wont partake. If you cant be an adult and look at things clearly, thats your problem, not mine. But, to repeat, if you want to deny Democratic support for deregulation up to and including POTUS, thats your choice.

Add to that, who signed it into law again? Right. The highest ranking Democrat in office, POTUS.

Churchill said it best: The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.

I personally never gave him a pass on this either and it is a true statement. I never did deny there was any support by the Dems who were stupid enough to buy into this insane Legislation but my point is this Legislation would have never came into fruition if the Republicans didn't start the ball rolling. Until I see evidence that the Dems were going to write Legislation like this if the Republicans didn't come up with it first, I am sticking to my conclusions.

 

[blackangst1]

I personally never gave him a pass on this either and it is a true statement. I never did deny there was any support by the Dems who were stupid enough to buy into this insane Legislation but my point is this Legislation would have never came into fruition if the Republicans didn't start the ball rolling. Until I see evidence that the Dems were going to write Legislation like this if the Republicans didn't come up with it first, I am sticking to my conclusions.

Thats fine. Youre certainly entitled to your opinions 🙂