Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Are You Better Off?

Here is a fantastic excerpt from a great post at the Ostroy Report:

"So here's a little test for our Republican friends to help them decide the status of the nation's economy. I dare them to answer these questions truthfully, as Americans first, and not as transparent partisan stooges:

1. Is the stock market stronger today than when Bush left office?
2. Is the banking industry stronger than when Bush left office?
3. Are Wall Street companies (JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, etc) doing better today than when Bush left office?
4. Are the credit markets doing better than when Bush left office?
5. Is the auto industry doing better than when Bush left office?
6. Are the housing markets doing better than when Bush left office?
7. Are retailers doing better than when Bush left office?
8. Is the technology industry doing better than when Bush left office?
0. Are monthly jobless claims lower than when Bush left office?
10. Is consumer confidence higher than when Bush left office?

Of course, the answer to every single one of these black and white questions is yes."

The whole article is well worth a read. And with the endless Republican whining about the miserable job that Obama is supposedly doing, it's nice to remember the truth for a minute.

9 comments:

TRUTH 101 said...

I was looking at the stocks in my IRA and was thinking the same thing Green Eagle. Now I'm pissed at myself because you came up with the post about it and I didn't.

But yes. I may be angry, but I'm still better off now than when Bush left office.

Green Eagle said...

Sure, we are never going to be totally satisfied with what Obama is able to accomplish. But we can't let ourselves lose sight of the fact that, every day, something is happening to move the country in the right direction.

All the Republicans have left is their attempt to stampede the American people into panic. Barring that, I really think the guy can handle the job.

Derek said...

1. Yep.
2. Lol, you mean the government?
3. Yep, but note how Chase refused bailout money.
4. Not all that much better. There is still very little credit flowing, the banks aren't lending.
5. Government motors? Hell no. Note how when Bush left office, GM wasn't going bankrupt. That happened during the Obama presidency, even though he gave them billions upon billions of dollars.
6. Yep.
7. A bit.
8. They were never hit that hard, but rather just swung with the recession, but they are doing a bit better.
0? No.
10. Yes.

They aren't so black and white, and it is false dichotomy to say so. And there were a couple no's.

Are we out of the thicket yet? No, we aren't. Unemployment is still going up, and the economy is still struggling to regain its base. Also, we have to look at the cost. Over $10 trillion has been spent on this recession thus far, and to what avail?

Obama pushed the stimulus package, but we ended up having lost more than a million more jobs than he said we would lose if we DIDN'T pass the bill. October 2008 estimates put the economy recovering in mid to late 2009. When is the WH saying we will be out of the recession? Hopefully by late 2009, early 2010.

Having nearly doubled our money supply, we will be having to deal with rapid inflation over the next few years as well, while dumping the national debt and soon to be $3.5 trillion deficit onto the backs of our children.

Is it worth it, to spend all of this money, just to expand government power and end up with worse than expected economic stats?

The answer to that question is no. The economy will get better, any idiot will tell you that. It is the policy that takes you there as well as how efficient the policies were that are important.

My personal rebuttals of this malarkey:

http://www.myuncommonsense.com/?p=257

http://www.myuncommonsense.com/?p=199

http://www.myuncommonsense.com/?p=131

Obama = worst failure ever

Don't take my word for it, just google it.

Green Eagle said...

And by the way, Truth 101, if you get this far, I don't own the truth. We're both trying to accomplish something here besides hearing our own voices. If you think something is important enough to post about, please go ahead. It only makes me happier to see these things mentioned in other places- the stories don't belong to me.

Green Eagle said...

Derek,

Of course things are not black and white, and of course we are not out of the woods yet- the hole dug for us by conservative ideology is not going to be filled in for a long time yet.

In fact, it is your associates that present the world as black and white, and have been declaring Obama an unmitigated failure since he took office. All I am trying to say, is that progress is being made. That's all we can hope for.

Derek said...

"the hole dug for us by conservative ideology is not going to be filled in for a long time yet.
"

Do you mean federal regulations that force banks to make bad loans under the community reinvestment act or the artificial interest rates set by the Fed? Oh wait, both Liberal, both the causes.

"it is your associates that present the world as black and white"

Proof please. I say this far too often. Or at the very least some reasoning.

"is that progress is being made."

Not by Obama's doing however. You elude that Obama isn't doing a miserable job, yet you neglect that his policies, at least by his count, have set us back, not progressed us forward. Not to mention they have wasted trillions of dollars that don't even exist yet.

Green Eagle said...

Derek,

The preposterous story that the Bush depression was caused by the Community Reinvestment Act is a LIE. Please stop telling it here.

The Bush Depression was caused by the same things that caused the last Republican depression: Vast tax giveaways to the rich, concurrent with a total refusal to deal with real economic problems in segments of our economy, coupled with near total deregulation of our financial sector, allowing greed to overwhelm the capacity of the markets to respond.

That's enough of a response for now.

Derek said...

"Vast tax giveaways to the rich"

Actually, these pulled us out of the last recession back in 2002, and gave us the longest economic expansion in the history of the U.S.

If you are going to make a statement as radical as this one, go ahead and give some reasoning as to how tax cuts for businesses somehow hurt the economy. Taxing the rich is always considered a negative economic impact.

"concurrent with a total refusal to deal with real economic problems in segments of our econom"

Such as? Subprime loans? Try the 2005 Regulator housing act. Fannie and Freddie? Bush cited them as possible ticking time-bombs as early as 2002. Note how the Democrats were in office before and during this recession.

"coupled with near total deregulation of our financial sector"

Examples? If you are talking about the breaking down of the walls between banking and investment industries, that helped the economy and actually lessened the impact of this recession because it enabled big banks to buy up smaller financial groups.

"The preposterous story that the Bush depression was caused by the Community Reinvestment Act is a LIE. Please stop telling it here."

No, I will not shut up. You need to show how it is a lie and explain how your examples are correct. The community reinvestment act forced banks to make bad loans. Couple that with a number of other bills that set quotas for banks to fill to give to low low income citizens, and you get the credit crash. Add in the artificially lowered interest rate created by the Fed and you make it worse as the recession is coupled with the one that would have occurred due to the business cycle. That is what caused the recession. Regulation and government interference. Fannie and Freddie were two of the most regulated companies in the U.S., as they were basically run and owned by the U.S. government. What brought down the U.S. economy and were the first to fail? Fannie and Freddie.

"allowing greed to overwhelm the capacity of the markets to respond."

That makes absolutely no sense. If greed (do you mean "ambition"?) were to be extremely prevalent, you'd have more investment, more trading, more wealth being created, and thus, a healthier economy. Maybe you meant "government greed". That makes more sense. Your statement as is may as well read "allowing the market to overwhelm the capacity of the markets to respond".

Again, you provide no proof, nor do you provide any reasoning. Instead, you more or less tell me to "shut up". You are right on par with my theory of liberal debate tactics GE. I should quote this, it would be excellent teaching for my readers.

http://www.myuncommonsense.com/?p=325

Just in case you'd like to know what to say next.

Evan Brehm said...

*Derek

Um, the longest expansion in the history of the United States happened under Bill Clinton. The 2002-2007 expansion was pretty weak by historical standards.

That statement alone shows how clueless you are.