Post by mickeeteeze on Sept 10, 2013 11:35:30 GMT -8
You know, it get's kind of old when every political discussion somehow revolves back to "The Kenyan Interloper" who's 'ruined this great nation' in 5 years time, which is laughable. The latest intellectually dishonest discussion conflates people organizing a better wage for themselves as a negative 'byproduct' of a Healthcare bill.
Yet, if one dares to put the US lagging economy in the correct context of a spectacular Stock Market Crash in 2008, you are shut down with, "Oh yeah, now blame Bush".
That is not now, nor has ever been the reason I bring it up.
Let's take a little trip down to "Fantasy Island", and go 'Full Tilt Boogie" with the ridiculous assertion the 2008 crash was completely the fault of progressive politics.
Let's just assume it, for the sake of my point. A land where Limbaugh is a centrist, and Hannity has no party loyalties.
icon_eek
I decided rather than try to explain the unemployment rate is connected to that 'Democrat caused crash', LOL, I would just take a look at the NYSE, in a historical context. The NYSE is generally viewed as the prime indicator of the US economy, where both employment and profits supposedly meet. It was actually a surprising education for myself, I gotta say.
First off, generally speaking? Obama is not looking too bad here. I expected worse, to be honest.
The 1960's are generally considered one of the most affluent times in US history, but the market is strangely stagnant.
Under a ridiculously progressive tax rate, the economy boomed in the 50's.
I've never been too sure how I felt about the 'bailouts' in 2008-2009, but when I looked at what happened in 1929? When no Keynesian economics were in place from 1929-1932, the economy remained in freefall. The graph dramatically shows how FDR's policies of Government 'intervention' provided an instant stimulus, at the very least.
I also looked up the unemployment numbers for long term context. The fact is? Just about the same percentile of employment was lost between the middle of Bush II to January of 2009, as lost by Obama until midway through 2010. Actually, maybe I'll dig out that graph, as I don't recall the exact numbers.
The point being? This so called 'economic horror story' is not a one man dilemma, nor is it particularly horrifying. Actually, maybe the bailouts weren't so bad. And both Bush and Obama were responsible for them.
Yet, if one dares to put the US lagging economy in the correct context of a spectacular Stock Market Crash in 2008, you are shut down with, "Oh yeah, now blame Bush".
That is not now, nor has ever been the reason I bring it up.
Let's take a little trip down to "Fantasy Island", and go 'Full Tilt Boogie" with the ridiculous assertion the 2008 crash was completely the fault of progressive politics.
Let's just assume it, for the sake of my point. A land where Limbaugh is a centrist, and Hannity has no party loyalties.
icon_eek
I decided rather than try to explain the unemployment rate is connected to that 'Democrat caused crash', LOL, I would just take a look at the NYSE, in a historical context. The NYSE is generally viewed as the prime indicator of the US economy, where both employment and profits supposedly meet. It was actually a surprising education for myself, I gotta say.
First off, generally speaking? Obama is not looking too bad here. I expected worse, to be honest.
The 1960's are generally considered one of the most affluent times in US history, but the market is strangely stagnant.
Under a ridiculously progressive tax rate, the economy boomed in the 50's.
I've never been too sure how I felt about the 'bailouts' in 2008-2009, but when I looked at what happened in 1929? When no Keynesian economics were in place from 1929-1932, the economy remained in freefall. The graph dramatically shows how FDR's policies of Government 'intervention' provided an instant stimulus, at the very least.
I also looked up the unemployment numbers for long term context. The fact is? Just about the same percentile of employment was lost between the middle of Bush II to January of 2009, as lost by Obama until midway through 2010. Actually, maybe I'll dig out that graph, as I don't recall the exact numbers.
The point being? This so called 'economic horror story' is not a one man dilemma, nor is it particularly horrifying. Actually, maybe the bailouts weren't so bad. And both Bush and Obama were responsible for them.