Wait a minute? Are you still posting in this thread? I hate to have to repeat myself, but after your brilliant comment about the FTC setting interest rates, I ordered you to excuse yourself from the adults' conversation. Run along now. Thx in advance.
I think their responding moreso to those who claim that the US economy is on the brink of disaster - or that it's the worst since the Big Depression era - and that it is GW's fault. No use really to claim that the data is politically motivated or incorrect. It is what it is. It is just as partisan to blame the "recession" on GW as it is to claim that he single-handedly turned it around. I, for one, never really gave Clinton any credit. Now I don't give much credit to GW. Presiding over a good economy during one's presidential term(s) is as much luck as anything else. The economy had already started to turn around near the end of Bush41's term. If the turnaround had occured a few months earlier - Bush41 probably would have easily won a second term because most people would have given him credit when credit was not necessarily due. As things turned out - he may very well have lost because voters unfairly blamed the recession on him. With the bipartisan makeup of the legislature - it is really difficult to pass any "radical" legislation that would cause any boom or bust.
when I should have jumped into with ... Hey bigtexxx stick your head up your *ss, but no wait it is already up there. BTFW I made a nonpartisan comment (before this response at least). You appear to wear partisan googles that filter your reality to fit nicely in your preconceived, idealogic driven world. Carry on.
to be fair...how many of you have blamed the president for the state of the economy? that's what TJ and bigtexxx are alluding to, i believe. can't speak for them, of course. but that's why it comes across as defensive from the very beginning. i don't think he can be blamed nor credited with the state of the economy.
Please show us how your stats are better than those of the Labor Department. Weren't you part of the crew that thought Kerry's polling stats were understated b/c they excluded all the liberals who only had cellphones? We all know how that turned out. You libs ain't too good wit numbas, are ya?
Please show us how your stats are better than those of the Labor Department. Like if you can't find a job and your unemployment insurance runs out, DoL thinks you have "given up" and no longer count. Here is a AP story that might give you good wood .. U.S. job growth tepid, jobless rate drops or not.
Way to give Bush credit for the cyclic housing industry.... "Over the past four years, consumer spending and residential construction have together accounted for 90% of the total growth in GDP. And over two-fifths of all private-sector jobs created since 2001 have been in housing-related sectors, such as construction, real estate and mortgage broking." Source Past presidents have relied on Greenspan to heavily and he's showing his age. Should the housing bubble pop, the Fed's interest rates are at all time lows and we can't cut more taxes with our gross budget deficit. I guess the historians will have the last laugh. The public will have to cry over it.
Invisible, why should anyone be surprised by that stat? Seriously, consumer spending represents about 2/3rds of GDP. When you add in construction, IT IS GOING TO ACCOUNT FOR MOST OF THE GROWTH. That just stands to reason, friend. Nice try though. At least you are attempted to use facts, even if you botched it up.
Try this on for size - Neither Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, nor Bush have caused our economic growth or recession. They are merely heads of state.
They're getting most of that spending power by borrowing on their home's equity. Even stagnation in housing prices can cause a sharp drop in consumer spening. The corporate sector, supposedly Bush's doing, hasn't retained non-temporary jobs since before he picked up office. This growth you talk about has hinged upon the capital gains of rising house values. Doesn't look too good, chum.
There is no doubt housing values have cause increased consumer spending, I don't dispute that. Housing values haven't had nearly the wealth effect impact that rising stock market values had for Clinton, however. And show me some stats on what proportion of homeowners have taken out a home equity loan. It's not 100%. When any asset that you have substantial equity in goes up, you are tempted to do a recap-dividend, that's nothing new. Owners have been doing that for many years across many asset classes. There will always be drivers of economic growth. You can't just dismiss them as not being meaningful. Heck, for all we know, the demographic shift that we are currently seeing related to the baby boomers aging, coupled with the very high rates of home ownership for Americans who are over 40 years old could lead to a *permanent* step change in housing valuations. We just don't know.
Heck, for all we know, the demographic shift that we are currently seeing related to the baby boomers aging, coupled with the very high rates of home ownership for Americans who are over 40 years old could lead to a *permanent* step change in housing valuations. Suckers bet.
No Worries, 1) Do not use that method of quoting any longer. It is not the preferred method on this board. This is your final warning. 2) The home value theory is not my personal theory. If you read the WSJ or any other financial publication, you would have seen this theory advanced by many columnists.
That's a very good point - and one that is not brought up too often. The booming Clinton years were, in large part, a bubble funded by VC money. Now some of that VC money is flowing into the housing market. Whether another bubble-burst will occur remains to be seen.
It's not VC money that is flowing into the housing market, but rather large institutional money (a much larger pool of money). It isn't just the housing market, either, it's the broader real estate asset class. Hospitality, residential, office, industrial, the entire product suite. Cap rates are at incredibly low levels and deals are getting done with 110% financing. It's overheated, no doubt. When will it stop? Nobody knows. It took the equity market four years to pop after Greenspan made his famous "irrational exuberance" declaration. Not trying to say that the same forces move the equity market and the real estate market, since liquidation/intrinsic values are higher for real estate, but you get the point.
Please. So I made a typo while responding. Are you saying you never made a mistake? Are you arguing that making a mistake causes any other argument a person makes illegitimate? If so, you can't trust anyone's argument in the world. There's another example of smalltexxx's "great" logic.
How many of you here blamed Bush for the recession and praised Clinton for his role in "his" economy? Quite a few, I think. It's very strange how you give "your" guy credit for when the economy is good and find excuses when the economy is bad but are quick to blame the "other" guy when the economy is good and find excuses when the economy is bad. What's even stranger is that you can't even see yourselves doing it!
Government has little control over the health of the economy. Clinton didn't create the huge tech bubble that produced giant tax receits and allowed for surpluses. Bush didn't pop the bubble and throw us into recession. That is just the way the economy works. You really can't blame someone for the bad parts (like deficits) and not give credit for the good though, which is I guess what MadMax was pointing out. The Left has become the "I Hate Bush" party, and not much else.
I didn't. I find smalltexx and T_J's broad sweeping statements about 'liberals' idiotic. If they want to call out specific members that have credited Clinton, but not Bush about the economy, they can do so. Otherwise, their posts are ignorant and childish.
You may not have, however, if you are going to come down on texx and tj for trying to claim credit, where were you when so many people on this board were trying to blame Bush for the economy? Or give credit to Clinton?
