If 4.8% UE
GDP growth for the year, small dip last 1/4 and dood growth first 1/2 of 08
DJIA at 14,500 in Oct of 07
Then what is 10% UE
DJIA at 8300?
what do we call that?
The Glass Stegall act was repealed, sponsored by Phil Graham, and passed with both Dem and Rep support. That changed the rules. Banks were allowed to diversify with no oversite and what had worked well for 70yrs blew up in just a few yrs. That bill was signed during the Clinton yrs, but it's a instance of bowing to deregulation pressure. The American people blame deregulation for the financial mess and the Rep party is the party of deregulation. I blame the spineless Dems too who had no business voting to repeal Glass Steagal other than getting on the money gravy train.
The problem with the housing bubble is that it was not contained. Rules were changed on Wall st. to allow banks to leverage faulty mortgages 40x their value to invest in stocks and other assests, creating more bubbles. They also bundled the bad loans and sold them overseas. The Dems had a hand in this but it was mostly Wall st. and the Republican philososphy of deregulation that allowed the bursting bubble to almost sink the world economy. The american public got this and blamed not just Bush but the Republican party as a whole. They blamed deregulation for the mess and Republicans are the party of deregulation.
This is an excerpt from Charles Wheelan's article today about the state of our debt:
And we've done nothing terribly productive with all that borrowed money. Debt, after all, is not inherently bad. If you borrow $100,000 to go to medical school, then you've probably done a very smart thing. When you graduate, your earning potential will be higher, enabling you to live better even after you pay off the loans (with interest). In this case, you used borrowed money to invest in something that made you more productive.
Now suppose that you borrowed $100,000 to sustain a lifestyle that you could not otherwise afford: to pay the rent, to buy nice clothes, and to make the payments on your luxury car. When that bill comes due (with interest), you're no more productive than you were when you started borrowing. You borrowed used money for consumption, not investment.
Unfortunately, America's borrowing resembles the latter more than the former. We haven't upgraded our transportation infrastructure or made major investments in alternative energy or financed education for those who could not otherwise afford it.
Charles and I share a view here that Reps with short memories seem to forget. Debt is a tool and can be valuable. If you fix healthcare, roads, education, etc. now you save money later. Obama's plans with debt are good ones. The problem is the debt before his was used for pointless purposes. Tax cuts for the rich, nuclear cold war spending sprees, the war in Iraq, etc. If we could go back to the 80's and implement Obama's plans for healthcare, green energy, electronic health records, infrastructure, etc. then you would see massive dividends now.
Instead we blew our wad incorrectly and Obama has to suffer for it even those his debt spending is for justifiable purposes.
I was responding to biggieepops, your fellow Republican stated the economy grew.
I am glad you are not ignorant enough to agree with him.
You are correct about 9/11. However interest rates were still kept too low afterwards. Hopefully that same mistake will not be repeated this time around.
As a real indicator of economic growth I prefer looking at job growth and debt as a % of GDP.
These indicators show if POLICIES actually fuel growth. Every President signs spending bills or tax cuts. So which President's decisions create more jobs and get more economic bang for your buck.
Reagan and Bush both chose tax cuts for the rich and military spending. Look at their stats little job growth and massive debt/GDP. So they spent a lot of money but didn't spur on any economic growth.
You are correct in principle.
However the numbers look a lot different for Bush up until shortly after the Demos took control of Congress in Jan 2007 and Bush's poll numbers got abysmal. As usual the voters have to look not much farther than themselves.
The housing bubble was definitely the biggest most recent problem. A lot of people argue back and forth (mostly bahrra/cousinmoochy with himself) about whether Republicans or Democrats are more to blame. Republicans do NOT try harder to reward people with bad credit, and poor people, beyond their means,.
The Democrats latest siren song is for credit card holders who have bad credit.
George Bush and the Republicans are to blame for letting it happen, as much perhaps as Franklin Roosevelt allowed the Pearl Harbor attack.
The Japs were to blame for Pearl Harbor. The Democrats are responsible for the subprime mess.
The Demos are mostly just posting talking points with nothing to back them up. Anybody can keep saying "it's Republicans fault" over and over again. They really aren't saying anything. The one post attacking the wealthy was completely off base.
Less than 2Million people make over $250K and that doesn't even take into account taxes. With an arithmetic mean of about $350K for the group that's only $700Billion in a $14Trillion US economy.
Note also if they do 100% confiscation for $250K+ income they still only get $700Billion. Never mind that a lot fewer would be making $250K+ except for ultra-rich Kennedy, Kerry, Corzine, Clinton, Dodd, Geithner, etc., who will avoid the taxes anyway.
Exactly how are they going to pay for those $Trillion dollar gov't programs.
I agree with creating more opportunity for more people to make more money, especially lower income people. But confiscatory tax policy would only make it worse.
The Bush economy was a bubble economy based on subprime housing and Wall scams. All brought about by the Republican belief in no oversite or regulation. The lunatics were running the financial aslyum.