Proof that Bill Clinton is not the reason for the balanced budgets of the 1990s

[Craig234]

We have one there now... what happened?

Actually it's a mystery. Some on the left claim there was the worst economic crash since the Great Depression - in fact one that was not only that bad, but that in the recovery 88% of the recovery's money has gone to corporations and only 1% to wages, making it a jobless recovery.

But I heard from someone in this very forum that it was actually not a big deal.

I'd feel bad for PJ having his ridiculouness thrown in his face many times, except that he *still repeats it*, here implying there's no difference between the economy late in the Clinton presidency, and the economy that Obama had when he took office. It's just such dishonesty.

One thing he does show is how hard it is for a President who merely prevents a situation from being much worse to get any credit for that.

If there is a good recovery coming in the next 5 years, if a Republican were elected in 2012 he'd inherit the credit for that, pretty much.

Clinton's good economy only translated into a small win for Gore, not enough to prevent the election being stolen - much harder when the economy is bad.

I would like to hear one reason why any Republican elected in 2012 would be expected to greatly cut our deficit, though, based on history.

I don't mean one who says they will - we have plenty of those.

 

[JSt0rm]

This is how pj spends his saturday? lol.

 

[ProfJohn]

Yet somehow balanced budgets happened despite what he said or didn't say. I'm not typically a big cheerleader of Democratic economic policies but it so happens that Clinton did better at deficit reduction than any other President during my lifetime. If you're judging on results rather than rhetoric, then Clinton beats any Republican on this.

I tried to be clear in my OP.

Clinton DOES deserve credit for making a deal with the GOP and for signing the deal and for passing those budges and for taking the political risk within his own party to do so.

BUT he is not the reason behind the balanced budget. Or perhaps a better term would be catalyst. The true catalyst would be the election of the Republican congress who did the heavy work in getting the budget balanced.

Had the GOP not won in 1994 there would NOT have been a balanced budget because Clinton had no intention of ever passing one.

 

[Craig234]

I tried to be clear in my OP.

Clinton DOES deserve credit for making a deal with the GOP and for signing the deal and for passing those budges and for taking the political risk within his own party to do so.

BUT he is not the reason behind the balanced budget. Or perhaps a better term would be catalyst. The true catalyst would be the election of the Republican congress who did the heavy work in getting the budget balanced.

Had the GOP not won in 1994 there would NOT have been a balanced budget because Clinton had no intention of ever passing one.

You keep lying.

When Democrats controlled all the branches his first two years, they took the deficit down each year by similar amounts to the reductions his last 6 years.

You like about that over, and over, and over.

There's a reason you keep ignoring this being pointed out and repeating the lies.

 

[ProfJohn]

Clinton's good economy only translated into a small win for Gore, not enough to prevent the election being stolen - much harder when the economy is bad.

The election was not stolen. If the US Supreme Court had done NOTHING and let the recount go exactly as Al Gore had asked Bush would have still won. There is absolutely NO disagreement to this fact any where.

Al Gore lost because he picked the wrong strategy. The defeat is his fault alone. And let's not forget that if he had won his own home state Florida would not have mattered.

I would like to hear one reason why any Republican elected in 2012 would be expected to greatly cut our deficit, though, based on history.

I don't mean one who says they will - we have plenty of those.

Based on history anyone will be better than Obama.

In 2008 you guys were tripping over yourselves to point out how Bush had doubled the deficit in 8 years. Well in 2012 we will be able to point out how Obama has doubled the deficit in only 4 years.

 

[ProfJohn]

You keep lying.

When Democrats controlled all the branches his first two years, they took the deficit down each year by similar amounts to the reductions his last 6 years.

You like about that over, and over, and over.

There's a reason you keep ignoring this being pointed out and repeating the lies.

Then why didn't these democrats talk about keeping up those reductions?

How come they NEVER talked about a balanced budget?

Read the NY Times link. The facts are in front of your face in Clinton's own words. $1 trillion in deficits over 5 years. $200 billion in deficits for the next 10 years. No plan to EVER balance the budget.

BTW Clinton's own budget for 1996 had a larger deficit than the 1995 budget.
"Mr. Clinton's budget request, to be submitted to Congress on Monday, shows a deficit of $196.7 billion for the 1996 fiscal year, up slightly from the $192.5 billion that he projects for this year."

 

[HendrixFan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ILIHlpJYpA&t=7m6s

 

[cliftonite]

Has he blamed the meeeeeeeeedia yet?

 

[Craig234]

Then why didn't these democrats talk about keeping up those reductions?

How come they NEVER talked about a balanced budget?

Read the NY Times link. The facts are in front of your face in Clinton's own words. $1 trillion in deficits over 5 years. $200 billion in deficits for the next 10 years. No plan to EVER balance the budget.

BTW Clinton's own budget for 1996 had a larger deficit than the 1995 budget.
"Mr. Clinton's budget request, to be submitted to Congress on Monday, shows a deficit of $196.7 billion for the 1996 fiscal year, up slightly from the $192.5 billion that he projects for this year."

"The President SUCKS! The estimates how good his policies would do only made his policies good, but the economy did better and they were even better. HE SUCKS! Waaaaah!"

PJ has been trying for years to try to argue that the *estimates* of the economy earlier nullify any credit for Clinton's policies. He's been corrected for years. He's lying.

 

[Craig234]

The election was not stolen.

Yes it was.

If the US Supreme Court had done NOTHING and let the recount go exactly as Al Gore had asked Bush would have still won. There is absolutely NO disagreement to this fact any where.

If the Supreme Court had done nothing, then the *statewide* recount, as required under Florida law, then underway - not the 4 counties Gore sued for - would have complete and found the same thing the media-sponsored recount concluded several months later - by any standard the state would use, Gore won.

I can't say there is no disagreement anywhere because there are liars. Cough, cough.

Al Gore lost because he picked the wrong strategy. The defeat is his fault alone.

No, he lost for a variety of reasons, none of which were his fault. Of course, if he had done even better, it could have overcome that, but it doesn't change that he won.

Everything from the setting of voter machines different in black counties than other counties to the brother of the president illegall disqualifying thousands of black voters for having felonies in *other* states, who had the legal right to vote in Florida, to a scheme that disqualified tens of thousands more black legal voters by hyper-aggressive mismatching of even vaguely similar names in a 'felon voter list' to an innocent mistaken design causing thousands of Gore voters to accidentally vote for Pat Buchanan and much more cost Gore the election. And the Republicans - who flew their staffers down to Florida secretly to form mobs and disrupt the recount - did not want an honest election.

And let's not forget that if he had won his own home state Florida would not have mattered.

Just the sort of irrelevant and irrational point you based your argument on.

Non-answer.

That's not a reason to think a Republican will reduce the deficit in 2012 based on history.

 

[Anarchist420]

Actually it's a mystery. Some on the left claim there was the worst economic crash since the Great Depression - in fact one that was not only that bad, but that in the recovery 88% of the recovery's money has gone to corporations and only 1% to wages, making it a jobless recovery.

But I heard from someone in this very forum that it was actually not a big deal.

I'd feel bad for PJ having his ridiculouness thrown in his face many times, except that he *still repeats it*, here implying there's no difference between the economy late in the Clinton presidency, and the economy that Obama had when he took office. It's just such dishonesty.

One thing he does show is how hard it is for a President who merely prevents a situation from being much worse to get any credit for that.

If there is a good recovery coming in the next 5 years, if a Republican were elected in 2012 he'd inherit the credit for that, pretty much.

Clinton's good economy only translated into a small win for Gore, not enough to prevent the election being stolen - much harder when the economy is bad.

I would like to hear one reason why any Republican elected in 2012 would be expected to greatly cut our deficit, though, based on history.

I don't mean one who says they will - we have plenty of those.

Harry Browne got robbed, not Al Gore.

I tried to be clear in my OP.

Clinton DOES deserve credit for making a deal with the GOP and for signing the deal and for passing those budges and for taking the political risk within his own party to do so.

BUT he is not the reason behind the balanced budget. Or perhaps a better term would be catalyst. The true catalyst would be the election of the Republican congress who did the heavy work in getting the budget balanced.

Had the GOP not won in 1994 there would NOT have been a balanced budget because Clinton had no intention of ever passing one.

Dude, there was NEVER a balanced budget.

Yes it was.



If the Supreme Court had done nothing, then the *statewide* recount, as required under Florida law, then underway - not the 4 counties Gore sued for - would have complete and found the same thing the media-sponsored recount concluded several months later - by any standard the state would use, Gore won.

I can't say there is no disagreement anywhere because there are liars. Cough, cough.



No, he lost for a variety of reasons, none of which were his fault. Of course, if he had done even better, it could have overcome that, but it doesn't change that he won.

Everything from the setting of voter machines different in black counties than other counties to the brother of the president illegall disqualifying thousands of black voters for having felonies in *other* states, who had the legal right to vote in Florida, to a scheme that disqualified tens of thousands more black legal voters by hyper-aggressive mismatching of even vaguely similar names in a 'felon voter list' to an innocent mistaken design causing thousands of Gore voters to accidentally vote for Pat Buchanan and much more cost Gore the election. And the Republicans - who flew their staffers down to Florida secretly to form mobs and disrupt the recount - did not want an honest election.



Just the sort of irrelevant and irrational point you based your argument on.



That's not a reason to think a Republican will reduce the deficit in 2012 based on history.

While I agree with your last point, I don't understand your loyalty to the Democratic Party. What's wrong with Ralph Nader? True and principled progressives voted for Ralph Nader.

Al Gore was and is a pro-war corporatist. He was a self-centered asshole. Lieberman was his running mate and Governor Bush was against nation building, after all. Things would have been no different had Gore been President. In fact, they probably would've been even worse, because a GoreLieberman Admin would've started nationbuilding first.

Hell, Lieberman would've had the CIA corrupt Al Gore and would've had him assassinated, and we wouldn't be the democracy that you cherish so much.

 

[brencat]

Harry Browne got robbed, not Al Gore.

Dude, there was NEVER a balanced budget.

While I agree with your last point, I don't understand your loyalty to the Democratic Party. What's wrong with Ralph Nader? True and principled progressives voted for Ralph Nader.

Al Gore was and is a pro-war corporatist. He was a self-centered asshole. Lieberman was his running mate and Governor Bush was against nation building, after all. Things would have been no different had Gore been President. In fact, they probably would've been even worse, because a GoreLieberman Admin would've started nationbuilding first.

Hell, Lieberman would've had the CIA corrupt Al Gore and would've had him assassinated, and we wouldn't be the democracy that you cherish so much.

Here are my observations from someone who is slightly center-right in philosophy:

Clinton + the Repub Congress was the best combination this country ever had in terms of balancing budgets, helped of course by a massive internet bubble which started in 1995-1996 and lasted until March 2000 creating massive capital gains derived tax receipts for the government.

Clinton was a much more forceful personality than Obama who appears weak to me. Do you think Clinton would have extended the Bush tax cuts another 2 years like Obama did? Not a chance. Regardless, Obama's weakness or suckiness at playing Chess is a net NEGATIVE for this country, and it may cost him next year's election.

Government in the hands of all-Dem or all-Repub has been proven to be an epic disaster. We've had recent reminders of this, when the fringes of both parties get to go hog wild with their agendas. No thanks. I'll take divided govt in some form come 2012.

Neither party will accept reality on the appropriate level of taxes vis-a-vi taxing earned income vs unearned income. Some of the Repub candidates' views (Pawlenty) wanting to cut or eliminate capital gains or inheritance taxes are completely wrong and would worsen the concentration of wealth among the top 0.1%. But Obama's desire to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the 'wealthiest Americans' earning $250k+(earned income) is also wrong. Earned income is taxed enough. Unearned income is what needs to be taxed more -- repeal that carried interest shit and raise capital gains taxes to 25-28%. If you want to add an earned income component to this, then make the threshold start at $650-$750k, NOT $250k. Lower the deduction for mortgage interest from $1mm to $500k too. Seriously, we can't even have a fvcking intelligent discussion about this stuff anymore.

/rant

 

[Jhhnn]

Government in the hands of all-Dem or all-Repub has been proven to be an epic disaster. We've had recent reminders of this, when the fringes of both parties get to go hog wild with their agendas. No thanks. I'll take divided govt in some form come 2012.

As if Dems have gone hog wild at all. Repubs have stymied their agenda at every turn. The political pendulum has hardly swung at all, from looney right to center right on account of Obama's lack of spunk, with most of the elements of looney right govt still in place.

Dems should have retired all the Bush tax cuts rather than caving, forced Repubs to own the consequences of their own actions. We'd be having a different fight today, not one of Repubs playing hero to cut spending, but rather one of them attempting to justify the economic suffering & unemployment created by their own policy. As it is, they get to obfuscate, blame Dems.

 

[fskimospy]

Here are my observations from someone who is slightly center-right in philosophy:

Clinton + the Repub Congress was the best combination this country ever had in terms of balancing budgets, helped of course by a massive internet bubble which started in 1995-1996 and lasted until March 2000 creating massive capital gains derived tax receipts for the government.

Clinton was a much more forceful personality than Obama who appears weak to me. Do you think Clinton would have extended the Bush tax cuts another 2 years like Obama did? Not a chance. Regardless, Obama's weakness or suckiness at playing Chess is a net NEGATIVE for this country, and it may cost him next year's election.

Government in the hands of all-Dem or all-Repub has been proven to be an epic disaster. We've had recent reminders of this, when the fringes of both parties get to go hog wild with their agendas. No thanks. I'll take divided govt in some form come 2012.

Neither party will accept reality on the appropriate level of taxes vis-a-vi taxing earned income vs unearned income. Some of the Repub candidates' views (Pawlenty) wanting to cut or eliminate capital gains or inheritance taxes are completely wrong and would worsen the concentration of wealth among the top 0.1%. But Obama's desire to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the 'wealthiest Americans' earning $250k+(earned income) is also wrong. Earned income is taxed enough. Unearned income is what needs to be taxed more -- repeal that carried interest shit and raise capital gains taxes to 25-28%. If you want to add an earned income component to this, then make the threshold start at $650-$750k, NOT $250k. Lower the deduction for mortgage interest from $1mm to $500k too. Seriously, we can't even have a fvcking intelligent discussion about this stuff anymore.

/rant

Yeah, exactly how have the Democrats' fringe gone 'hog wild' in the last few years? Do you consider passing what amounts to a 1990's era Republican health care plan 'hog wild'? Financial regulation? What?

I also think you are viewing Clinton through rose tinted glasses. He rolled over on any number of Republican initiatives, he just tried to co-opt them as his own ideas to make them look less bad.

 

[Anarchist420]

Here are my observations from someone who is slightly center-right in philosophy:

Clinton + the Repub Congress was the best combination this country ever had in terms of balancing budgets, helped of course by a massive internet bubble which started in 1995-1996 and lasted until March 2000 creating massive capital gains derived tax receipts for the government.

Clinton was a much more forceful personality than Obama who appears weak to me. Do you think Clinton would have extended the Bush tax cuts another 2 years like Obama did? Not a chance. Regardless, Obama's weakness or suckiness at playing Chess is a net NEGATIVE for this country, and it may cost him next year's election.

Government in the hands of all-Dem or all-Repub has been proven to be an epic disaster. We've had recent reminders of this, when the fringes of both parties get to go hog wild with their agendas. No thanks. I'll take divided govt in some form come 2012.

Neither party will accept reality on the appropriate level of taxes vis-a-vi taxing earned income vs unearned income. Some of the Repub candidates' views (Pawlenty) wanting to cut or eliminate capital gains or inheritance taxes are completely wrong and would worsen the concentration of wealth among the top 0.1%. But Obama's desire to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the 'wealthiest Americans' earning $250k+(earned income) is also wrong. Earned income is taxed enough. Unearned income is what needs to be taxed more -- repeal that carried interest shit and raise capital gains taxes to 25-28%. If you want to add an earned income component to this, then make the threshold start at $650-$750k, NOT $250k. Lower the deduction for mortgage interest from $1mm to $500k too. Seriously, we can't even have a fvcking intelligent discussion about this stuff anymore.

/rant

I agree with most of what you posted above, although I don't know that it's possible to increase revenues much at all, even though unearned income should be taxed at the same rate as earned income.

I don't know that the congressional GOP was completely serious about balancing the budget as they never did, but you're right, it still beats having a GOP congress and a GOP President, unless the GOP President is Dr. Paul.

 

[Engineer]

Clinton had a nice technology/stock market bubble that made for a nice economy and he/congress kept spending in check.

Hell, even you think Clinton is the way to model after...

Since Clinton is worshipped by the Democrats it sounds like we should follow his lead when it comes to spending.

 

[ProfJohn]

If the Supreme Court had done nothing, then the *statewide* recount, as required under Florida law, then underway - not the 4 counties Gore sued for - would have complete and found the same thing the media-sponsored recount concluded several months later - by any standard the state would use, Gore won.

As you like to say...

You Lie!

1. There was never a statewide recount. The Florida Supreme Court had ordered "counting of the legal votes contained within the undervotes in all counties where the undervote has not been subjected to a manual tabulation." If that vote had been completed Bush would have still won.

Even the Washington Post admits that:

n all likelihood, George W. Bush still would have won Florida and the presidency last year if either of two limited recounts -- one requested by Al Gore, the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court -- had been completed, according to a study commissioned by The Washington Post and other news organizations.

2. Gore might have won if there was a statewide recount, but no one ever seriously talked about one and Florida does not even have a mechanism for one to happen.

 

[ProfJohn]

As if Dems have gone hog wild at all. Repubs have stymied their agenda at every turn. The political pendulum has hardly swung at all, from looney right to center right on account of Obama's lack of spunk, with most of the elements of looney right govt still in place.

Dems should have retired all the Bush tax cuts rather than caving, forced Repubs to own the consequences of their own actions. We'd be having a different fight today, not one of Repubs playing hero to cut spending, but rather one of them attempting to justify the economic suffering & unemployment created by their own policy. As it is, they get to obfuscate, blame Dems.

Talk about living in a liberal fantasy land.

1. Dems passed Obamacare despite the fact that the a huge majority of Americans opposed the bill.

2. You under estimate the power the looney left possess just by controlling the White House. Read up on government regulations being pushed by the ERA or what they have done to the drug companies via over regulation, or what the NLRB is doing to Boeing etc etc.

3. The Democrats didn't even have enough votes in their own party to end the tax cuts.

4. Unemployment under Obama has gone UP and stayed up. Unemployment has been above 8% for 28 straight months. That is the longest period of +8% unemployment we have had since WW 2. And if you look at +9% it is worse. Reagan had 19 months of +9% unemployment Obama has had 23 months of +9% unemployment, and we are still above 9%.

Also, our peak unemployment rate was Oct 2009 at 10.1% that was 19 months ago. Reagan's peak was Dec 82 at 10.8% and 19 months later it was 7.5% over 3 points lower.

Obama's record on unemployment is awful. He might not have caused the problem, but he has done nothing to fix it either.


And before someone says "But all the jobs were off shored" or "We lost jobs due to the bubble" let's look at unemployment in the years directly prior to taking office.

During Carter's term unemployment was above 6% for all but 13 months.
During Bush's last term unemployment was only above 6% for the last 5 months and prior to that it was BELOW 5% for almost 3 straight years.

So Reagan took an economy where there hadn't been jobs for 6 straight years and some how created millions of them.
Obama took an economy that had jobs for almost two decades and yet he can't seem to create any new ones.

Obama is a total failure on the job front. History proves it.

 

[fskimospy]

Talk about living in a liberal fantasy land.

1. Dems passed Obamacare despite the fact that the a huge majority of Americans opposed the bill.

2. You under estimate the power the looney left possess just by controlling the White House. Read up on government regulations being pushed by the ERA or what they have done to the drug companies via over regulation, or what the NLRB is doing to Boeing etc etc.

3. The Democrats didn't even have enough votes in their own party to end the tax cuts.

4. Unemployment under Obama has gone UP and stayed up. Unemployment has been above 8% for 28 straight months. That is the longest period of +8% unemployment we have had since WW 2. And if you look at +9% it is worse. Reagan had 19 months of +9% unemployment Obama has had 23 months of +9% unemployment, and we are still above 9%.

Also, our peak unemployment rate was Oct 2009 at 10.1% that was 19 months ago. Reagan's peak was Dec 82 at 10.8% and 19 months later it was 7.5% over 3 points lower.

Obama's record on unemployment is awful. He might not have caused the problem, but he has done nothing to fix it either.


And before someone says "But all the jobs were off shored" or "We lost jobs due to the bubble" let's look at unemployment in the years directly prior to taking office.

During Carter's term unemployment was above 6% for all but 13 months.
During Bush's last term unemployment was only above 6% for the last 5 months and prior to that it was BELOW 5% for almost 3 straight years.

So Reagan took an economy where there hadn't been jobs for 6 straight years and some how created millions of them.
Obama took an economy that had jobs for almost two decades and yet he can't seem to create any new ones.

Obama is a total failure on the job front. History proves it.

Pro-Jo, you've made a full fledged ascent into fantasyland.

The only way you can slam Obama on jobs is by blaming him for the first few months of his presidency when the US was shedding jobs at the rate of half a million a month or more. Bush is very lucky he bowed out of office in January of 2009, because had inauguration day been on its original date in March of 2009 Bush would have presided over a net LOSS in jobs over eight years. (and it's not like those first few months don't really belong to Bush anyway)

The 2000's are credited as being the weakest decade for job growth in more than 70 years. Real median incomes declined in the US for the first time on record, etc, etc. Yet, during this period of stagnant wages, horrendous job production, etc, etc, you faithfully pulled the lever for the man pushing that agenda not once, but twice. (assuming you were 18 in 2000) Then you have the balls to come out and complain about Obama's economic performance? Seriously? Christ, you hack.

 

[ProfJohn]

Pro-Jo, you've made a full fledged ascent into fantasyland.

The only way you can slam Obama on jobs is by blaming him for the first few months of his presidency when the US was shedding jobs at the rate of half a million a month or more. Bush is very lucky he bowed out of office in January of 2009, because had inauguration day been on its original date in March of 2009 Bush would have presided over a net LOSS in jobs over eight years. (and it's not like those first few months don't really belong to Bush anyway)

The 2000's are credited as being the weakest decade for job growth in more than 70 years. Real median incomes declined in the US for the first time on record, etc, etc. Yet, during this period of stagnant wages, horrendous job production, etc, etc, you faithfully pulled the lever for the man pushing that agenda not once, but twice. (assuming you were 18 in 2000) Then you have the balls to come out and complain about Obama's economic performance? Seriously? Christ, you hack.

The fact that Bush sucked does not excuse Obama's performance.

And technically the 2000s was the best employment period of the past 40 years. But that is only evident if you look at broad trends between the decades instead of looking at the start and finish lines. Unemployment in 2000 was below 4% in 2009 it was 9%. Makes the decade look awful on the surface. But if you dig into the numbers you see that during the 2000's we had 9 years with unemployment below 6%. That actually makes the 2000s the longest period of sub 6% unemployment since the Vietnam war.

And I am not claiming that Bush gets any credit for that or that Bush's record on jobs was good just pointing out that the unemployment rate through the 2000s was very low, until the end.

 

[fskimospy]

The fact that Bush sucked does not excuse Obama's performance.

And technically the 2000s was the best employment period of the past 40 years. But that is only evident if you look at broad trends between the decades instead of looking at the start and finish lines. Unemployment in 2000 was below 4% in 2009 it was 9%. Makes the decade look awful on the surface. But if you dig into the numbers you see that during the 2000's we had 9 years with unemployment below 6%. That actually makes the 2000s the longest period of sub 6% unemployment since the Vietnam war.

And I am not claiming that Bush gets any credit for that or that Bush's record on jobs was good just pointing out that the unemployment rate through the 2000s was very low, until the end.

Who said anything about excusing Obama's performance? Obama's main failure has been insufficient stimulus, etc, but that's because he's been borrowing too much from the GOP playbook.

You missed the point of my post. You shriek about Obama being some miserable failure at creating jobs, but you pulled the lever twice for the president that was possibly the largest economic failure this country has ever seen. Not only did you pull the lever for him twice, but you vigorously defended his catastrophically bad policies over and over and over again. (remember your famous WHAT RECESSION!? thread?)

Then you want to come in here and lecture us on how bad Obama's been? After a record like that? Maybe you should lay off the economics, they clearly aren't your strong suit.

 

[ProfJohn]

Who said anything about excusing Obama's performance? Obama's main failure has been insufficient stimulus, etc, but that's because he's been borrowing too much from the GOP playbook.

You missed the point of my post. You shriek about Obama being some miserable failure at creating jobs, but you pulled the lever twice for the president that was possibly the largest economic failure this country has ever seen. Not only did you pull the lever for him twice, but you vigorously defended his catastrophically bad policies over and over and over again. (remember your famous WHAT RECESSION!? thread?)

Then you want to come in here and lecture us on how bad Obama's been? After a record like that? Maybe you should lay off the economics, they clearly aren't your strong suit.

Let me see if I can understand what you are saying.

What happened under Bush is his fault.

What is happening under Obama is NOT his fault?

Good luck using that strategy in 2012.

 

[senseamp]

Let me see if I can understand what you are saying.

What happened under Bush is his fault.

What is happening under Obama is NOT his fault?

Good luck using that strategy in 2012.

Are you saying the recession is Obama's fault?

 

[fskimospy]

Let me see if I can understand what you are saying.

What happened under Bush is his fault.

What is happening under Obama is NOT his fault?

Good luck using that strategy in 2012.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Like I said before, economics isn't your strong suit, you should probably just stop.

I'm also not at all impressed by your ability to predict elections, as shown by most of your previous efforts in that realm as well. (Hint: always predicting Republican victory isn't the best strategy)

 

[ProfJohn]

Are you saying the recession is Obama's fault?

Nope, I am saying the failure of the recovery is Obama's fault.

We have had 11 recoveries since 1949 and this recovery trails the average recovery in terms of GDP growth, unemployment and wage growth.