Are we really better off?

**-Lazarus-** · 09-11-12, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

You've gotten several very solid, direct answers. We're not better off, but we're better off than we would have been if we had continued the failed policies of the Republicans.

Ah, I was waiting for this answer. Wow. What a weak, weak answer. And sadly, this is really the best and only answer any liberal can come up with. It could be worse? That is so weak.

**WickedTribe** · 09-11-12, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Lawl, ok, keep drinking that kool-aid bro while telling everyone else to take the tin foil off.

Are you saying that the economic metrics are dropping as fast now as they were at the end of the Bush presidency?

**WickedTribe** · 09-11-12, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Of course not. Obama's fault lies in what he did about it and what he said he would do about it. He turned out to be a fraud. His policies made things worse.

No they didn't. They turned a precipitous drop into a slow growth. That might not be the magical improvement that you were looking for, but it's certainly not making things worse.

**Fovezer** · 09-11-12, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Lawl, ok, keep drinking that kool-aid bro while telling everyone else to take the tin foil off.

There is nothing tin-foil about his comments. He isn't alleging any conspiratorial bullshit. I absolutely blame Clinton for signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which helped make the collapse possible, but that was an all-Republican authored bill. Deregulation was pushed hard in the 80's and again once Bush took office. There was also no real attempt to regulate any of the risky financial transactions that were taking place. But you absolutely cannot blame anyone for the debt we have now other than Bush, Bush Sr., and Reagan.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Of course not. Obama's fault lies in what he did about it and what he said he would do about it. He turned out to be a fraud. His policies made things worse.

Thank you for admitting you used a dishonest chart. And the stimulus definitely helped and made things better. No doubt about that.

**-Lazarus-** · 09-11-12, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Clinton left Bush in a really nice position, even after the dot com bubble burst. The same is absolutely can't be said of Bush and Obama. This recession started while Bush was still in office. Our runaway deficit was caused by tax cuts and two wars, courtesy of the Republican party. The financial crisis was largely caused by deregulation brought on by the republican party.

Look at any economic metric, and you'll see that they were all in free fall when Obama took office, and quickly planed off. No, he may not have replaced all of the jobs lost in the recession that the Republicans caused, but he stopped the numbers from climbing any higher.

Monetizing the debt was what happened and now we are fucked because of it. And he didn't "stop the numbers from climbing higher"...

What are you smoking?

Again, such a weak position.

**WickedTribe** · 09-11-12, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Ah, I was waiting for this answer. Wow. What a weak, weak answer. And sadly, this is really the best and only answer any liberal can come up with. It could be worse? That is so weak.

I'm not going for talking points, I'm going for honest discussion. The truth is that Obama's recovery may be tepid, but it's there, and that's certainly better than going back to the same failed policies that caused the collapse.

**CivilWars** · 09-11-12, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Are you saying that the economic metrics are dropping as fast now as they were at the end of the Bush presidency?

No, I am saying that the tech boom played a massive role in the government's financial success under Clinton, and the bust played a massive role in the decline of the economy early in Bush's term in office. I am not saying that Bush didn't make mistakes, but I am also not trying to say the world was perfect when he took office like some people seem to think.

**-Lazarus-** · 09-11-12, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

No they didn't. They turned a precipitous drop into a slow growth. That might not be the magical improvement that you were looking for, but it's certainly not making things worse.

Can I borrow your time machine? Since you seem so certain what our alternate past would have been like if McCain was elected? Bush wasn't running for president, remember?

**WickedTribe** · 09-11-12, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Monetizing the debt was what happened and now we are fucked because of it. And he didn't "stop the numbers from climbing higher"...

What are you smoking?

Again, such a weak position.

You show me one economic metric that has as sharp a downward trajectory now as it did in January, 2009.

**Warprosper** · 09-11-12, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

I am so tired of the blame the Reps for everything BS I keep reading around here. Yes, the economy was good/great under Clinton. Much of that was thanks to the dot com bubble. I still haven't heard what exactly he did to facilitate this even though I ask every time talk of the great economy under Clinton comes up. However, let's just assume it was indeed his genius that caused the bubble, then since the bubble popped in 2000, while he was still smoking cigars in the oval office, shouldn't he also be blamed for that. As I recall it was the second biggest collapse of the stock market in the history of our nation.

So, I blame everything negative that happened under Bush 2 on the failed economic policies of Clinton. That is why he had to do all of the things he did.

See, it sounds just as stupid when I say it.

I'll post it again

Gramm

This was put in by Clinton, and many believe that this is the cause of Bush's economic failures which in turn are now Obama's.

It's both parties that are at fault here but you can't blame one for the other's policies. You wan't to blame the economic crisis on a president instead of the actual cause. Corporate greed..