Gay Patriot Header Image

If Obama can’t fix the economy, did W really wreck it?

Yesterday, ran into a Democratic friend whom I hadn’t seen since the debacle.  I told him I feared that the election returns would mean continued economic stagnation, with the slow recovery sputtering out and the twentysomethings who voted overwhelmingly for Obama finding it increasingly difficult to find jobs.

He, citing “most economists”, insisted that the president alone can’t fix the economy.

And that comment got me thinking, wondering. . .

I mean, haven’t you noticed that many of the people insisting that the president alone can’t fix the economy are some of the very people who still blame the immediate past president (a Mr. George W. Bush) for the Great Recession?

Share

77 Comments

  1. And Aaron… like lower case concern troll mike… will always vote for fiscally irresponsible Democrats because of social issues, despite their claims that they agree with cuts and entitlement reforms that the Democrats they vote for will fight tooth and nail.

    Partly because people like Aaron and lower case mike are always lecturing Republicans about what *they should do,” instead of lecturing their own side on compromise and fiscal responsibility.

    Making all of their comments and protests about their willingness to endure cuts an insulting farce.

    Comment by V the K — December 3, 2012 @ 4:02 pm - December 3, 2012

  2. Every day, there are about 1,000 articles and stories in the MFM lecturing John Boehner to accept tax increases. When have you ever seen any lecturing Harry Reid to enact entitlement reforms? (Articles with one throwaway line addressing entitlement reform after 3,000 words calling for tax increases do not count.)

    Comment by V the K — December 3, 2012 @ 4:07 pm - December 3, 2012

  3. Also, we don’t need death panels, we need people to take financial responsibility for their own health care. Life or death should not be a decision made by bureaucrats.

    Comment by V the K — December 3, 2012 @ 4:15 pm - December 3, 2012

  4. And don’t forget that concern-troll mike, Aaron, and the rest of the Obama Party are now pushing the meme that, if you oppose higher tax rates, you’re a racist.

    This is how insane, sick, and delusional Barack Obama is. Barack Obama honestly believes that any opposition or criticism of anything he does is racist.

    That’s why people like Aaron, concern-troll mike, Cinesnatch, Passing By, and our other liberal trolls cannot be taken as anything other than deranged cultists. They endorse, support, and vote for Barack Obama’s belief that his skin color means he’s always right about everything.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 3, 2012 @ 4:38 pm - December 3, 2012

  5. I focus on defense because of my job, and I see large amounts of money wantonly wasted everyday.

    That sounds interesting, if you want to say more about that.

    Entitlements are a bit trickier because people are entitled to them.

    People are told they’re entitled. I don’t agree that they’re entitled morally.

    Furthermore, Romney-Ryan proposed a solution, which is that you keep the entitlements for people currently depending on them (or about to), and only change them for future members. R-R were pilloried for their trouble.

    I wouldn’t feel ethical cutting someones social security check if they worked there whole life to earn it, like my parents and grandparents.

    Except they didn’t really earn it; that is, at current benefit levels and life expectancy and on average, they are going to draw far more out of the system than they put in.

    How about young people keep funding the program, but they don’t get the benefit?

    Inter-generational theft. Well, it would be honest at least in the sense that it would set young people’s expectations correctly, and would expose these programs as the welfare/redistributionist programs that they have always been (and just pretended not to be).

    So now that I have conceded that entitlement spending should happen, can everyone else agree that raising taxes should also happen? And that taxing the wealthy more will not adversely effect economic growth?

    It’s nice of you to talk about entitlements as I requested; thank you. It’s not about trading concessions, though, but about truth. I see no reason to believe that higher marginal tax rates will raise revenue in the long term, and no reason to believe that they won’t hurt the economy.

    Why would a rich person not make an investment if they were going to yield slightly less due to higher taxes? Wouldn’t they be stupider to not invest and therefore yield nothing?

    Define “slightly”. Investments carry risk (unless, of course, you are George Soros or Goldman-Sachs, politically connected to the Fed and the Obama administration). That’s why. Lower the return, and sooner or later, the investment is not worth the headache i.e. the risk.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2012 @ 4:59 pm - December 3, 2012

  6. “Just let the rich people do whatever they want.”

    Comment by Levi — December 3, 2012 @ 1:20 pm – December 3, 2012

    But then we would end up with an economy that looks like Singapore or Hong Kong with a huge middle class. Everyone knows that pesky middle class must be stamped out. But we are seeing the “progressives” making inroads even in Singapore and as a result, the middle class is shrinking, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Every time you see “progressive” policies applied, the disparity between richest and poorest increases and the middle class declines. Every time. That disparity, for example, is greater today in Venezuela now than it was before Chavez took power. His cronies get richer, the middle class evaporates, and more people become poor. That has been true ever since Roman times. Every single time it is tried. Why are “progressives” so stupid?

    Comment by crosspatch — December 3, 2012 @ 5:23 pm - December 3, 2012

  7. You have to remember, cultists look at economic outcomes differently than rational people do.

    Suppose someone put forth an economic plan that would create ten million good paying, middle class, private sector jobs and would also make millions for Mitt Romney, the Koch Brothers, Warren Buffett, George Soros, the Rockefellers, and the Obama cronies at Lehman Brothers.

    Rational people would say, “Everybody wins. Let’s do it.”

    But a cultist looks at and says, “No, it’s not fair that rich people profit from this plan.”

    Left-wing economics simply aren’t based on doing the most good for the most people; those considerations are secondary to the left’s primary agenda of revenging grievances and settling scores.

    Comment by V the K — December 3, 2012 @ 7:16 pm - December 3, 2012

  8. You don’t “pay for” tax cuts.

    The issue around the Bush tax cuts is moot, in my opinion. The only real solution is to throw the US tax code out completely and establish a flat tax rate that is just enough to run a surplus. And, since there is no way to bring in that much revenue, you have to cut spending. My suggestion is to start at zero, determine which things must be funded by the federal government, and regularly determine how much those things will cost and ajust the tax rates accordingly. And cut all other spending, after the obligations made by the US Federal Government have been met.

    Also, something else that should be done: relax regulations on extracting fossil fuels. The United States is incredibly rich in fossil fuels, and there is no reason to be buying your oil from places like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.

    Just let the rich people do whatever they want.

    They have the right to do whatever they want unless it violates the law (i.e. the actual law, not some arbitrary regulation).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — December 3, 2012 @ 10:58 pm - December 3, 2012

  9. The tax cuts have to go. I can understand what Obama was trying to do by letting them ride (stimulate the economy), but it’s time to let them expire.

    Really?

    Tax revenue kept climbing, up 6.4% for the year overall, and at $2.45 trillion it is now close to the historic high it reached in fiscal 2007 before the recession hit. Mr. Obama won’t want you to know this, but this revenue increase is occurring under the Bush tax rates that he so desperately wants to raise in the name of getting what he says is merely “a little more in taxes.” Individual income tax payments are now up $233 billion over the last two years, or 26%.

    This healthy revenue increase comes despite measly economic growth of between 1% and 2%. Imagine the gusher of revenue the feds could get if government got out of the way and let the economy grow faster.

    Soooooooooooooooooooo…..why do the tax cuts have to go?

    Comment by TGC — December 4, 2012 @ 12:35 am - December 4, 2012

  10. Whoops! Forgot:

    http://tinyurl.com/b339obg

    Still, would like to know why.

    Comment by TGC — December 4, 2012 @ 12:36 am - December 4, 2012

  11. I’ll take Bush’s “burden” any day. The country was richer, we had 52 straight months of job growth and thousands moved UP out of the much vaunted (why?) middle class and became the eeeeeeeeeeevil rich. Presidents can’t create jobs nor can they fix an economy, but they can enact policies to stimulate the growth or death of both.

    What we have now is a party in power that glorifies mediocrity, at best, and rewards failure, at worst. Why do these jackasses get the time of day from the American people is so far beyond me that it isn’t even funny. It’s a damn cryin’ shame that so many can be so motivated by hate, envy and….yes…GREED. There’s no greed in wanting to keep your own money that you earned. The greed comes when you demand someone else’s for your own. THAT is what the liberal bastards call “fair”. They should be spat upon and run out of town on a rail.

    Comment by TGC — December 4, 2012 @ 1:14 am - December 4, 2012

  12. I think I will mostly just nod to all of ILC’s posts.

    … and lied about it, to get elected. Obama campaigned in 2008 on a “net spending cut”, as Dan B. has mentioned repeatedly.

    Every day is opposite day in Obamaland.

    Net spending cut=net spending increase

    Comment by Just Me — December 4, 2012 @ 8:29 am - December 4, 2012

  13. Is it really that hard to understand why tax revenues went up even with the Bush tax cuts? Look at the posts above and you’ll see people talking about the bubble. When things were riding high on the housing bubble, most people were employed, and companies were making record profits. Now that the bubble has burst, fewer people are working, and more people are saving, thus reducing companies profits. So if there is less taxable income being made than in 2007, then you’re going to collect fewer taxes. If you have two people making the same amount of money to tax at 35%, than you’re going to collect more tax than taxing one of those people at 39.6%. It’s not hard to understand. Now that the economy has been on the rise again for a while, and we need to collect more revenues, than tax people more!

    Define “slightly”. Investments carry risk (unless, of course, you are George Soros or Goldman-Sachs, politically connected to the Fed and the Obama administration). That’s why. Lower the return, and sooner or later, the investment is not worth the headache i.e. the risk.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2012 @ 4:59 pm – December 3, 2012

    I understand there are inherent risks with all investments. And if you’re profit margin is going to be undermined by tax increase, I wouldn’t expect a wise investor to take the risk. The implication is that these investors, or job creators, or whatever you want to call them would therefore be more careful with their investments, not necessarily stingier. Imagine if Dick Fuld and all those other corrupt bankers would have had to look at their books closer because they knew they were going to have a higher tax bill at the end of the year. Perhaps they would have figured out that the mortgage backed securites they were buying and selling were a horrible idea and they would have stayed away. Yes there would have been a lot of people who wouldn’t have been sold sub-prime mortgages, but then the real value of the property would have remained intact, and perhaps the housing market wouldn’t have collapsed. I know that that’s probably not true, because the market was still figuring out how to make money with the new financial tools they were allowed to use like the credit default swaps and derivative trading. Inevitably some banks would have taken the risk and gone under, but having to pay higher taxes would have been a factor in the equation.

    I focus on defense because of my job, and I see large amounts of money wantonly wasted everyday.

    That sounds interesting, if you want to say more about that.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2012 @ 4:59 pm – December 3, 2012

    I could go on and on and on about waste in defense. I beleive it was Plato who figured out several thousand years ago that social property was a bad idea, because no one is going to treat community property with the same respect they show to private property, whether or not it is owned by that individual or someone else. This is the same problem with defense. Defense has never been charged with making a profit, it’s always about the mission. And if the easiest way to make mission is to spend more money, that’s what the DoD is going to do.

    Here’s an example from just this week. A unit had to go to a training exercise about a thousand miles away. The training required a lot of equipment. Instead of the unit driving their equipment to the training area, the government spent $400,000 to have it shipped there and back on flatbed trailers. What a waste right? It gets worse. The training area had all of the equipment available! They have fleets of vehicles of that don’t get used because these units like training on their own equipment (despite it being the exact same) So now the DoD has spent ??? money on a fleet of vehicles that don’t get used, because the DoD is also spending money to ship the same equipment back and forth. And there’s no accountability, no one cares. That’s just one example. One example I saw from my desk just this week. With a price tag of well over $1,000,000. Ask me anytime for more examples, I’m full of them.

    Comment by Aaron — December 4, 2012 @ 10:09 am - December 4, 2012

  14. I’ll take Bush’s “burden” any day. The country was richer, we had 52 straight months of job growth and thousands moved UP out of the much vaunted (why?) middle class and became the eeeeeeeeeeevil rich. Presidents can’t create jobs nor can they fix an economy, but they can enact policies to stimulate the growth or death of both.

    Durability is important. It’s abundantly clear that all of Bush’s job growth can be attributed to the housing bubble, which means it isn’t an accomplishment for him to brag about. If anything, the job growth worsened the financial crisis.

    You know what you get for being in first place at the All-Star break?

    Nothing.

    Comment by Levi — December 4, 2012 @ 10:42 am - December 4, 2012

  15. Hey dumbass. 911 was a massive financial crisis, yet bush was able to keep unemployment low.

    Your cult leader had 10% unemployment for 6 years. Well done retard, hope that you all drink the kool aid in Jonestown

    Comment by susan — December 4, 2012 @ 10:58 am - December 4, 2012

  16. HAHAHAHA who’s this person? Why doesn’t she post more often! Really good insight, I like it. When was the cult leader elected? Let’s see, if he came to office in Jan 2009, and it’s Dec 2012, he’s been in the office for…Yep! 6 years! You’re right!

    Comment by Aaron — December 4, 2012 @ 11:11 am - December 4, 2012

  17. Durability is important. It’s abundantly clear that all of Bush’s job growth can be attributed to the housing bubble, which means it isn’t an accomplishment for him to brag about. If anything, the job growth worsened the financial crisis.

    [Citation needed]

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 4, 2012 @ 11:17 am - December 4, 2012

  18. Shorter Aaron: I’ll jump on an obvious typo because I can’t refute the unemployment numbers.

    We’ll note Aaron wasn’t quick to jump on any math fail Levi made. (like 1.4T being 10% of 4B)

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 4, 2012 @ 11:20 am - December 4, 2012

  19. Bureau of labor statistics:

    J F M A M J J A S O N D
    2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
    2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
    2010 9.7 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4
    2011 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.0 8.9 8.7 8.5
    2012 8.3 8.3 8.2

    Comment by Aaron — December 4, 2012 @ 11:41 am - December 4, 2012

  20. The damage of the Obama regime to the national economy is hidden, in part, because the work force has shrunken dramatically as jobs have been eliminated permanently and people have simply given up looking for work. These people are no longer counted as part of the unemployed.

    If unemployment were measured using the size of the labor force under Bush, it would be over 12%.

    Comment by V the K — December 4, 2012 @ 11:53 am - December 4, 2012

  21. Thnak you V the K.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 4, 2012 @ 12:08 pm - December 4, 2012

  22. Yeah the one trend Obama has had happen under his watch is the move towards people being employed part time.

    I have a friend who was laid off around May/June and she can’t find a full time job anywhere (she did office type work) and she is now working part time in retail because that is the only thing hiring and the job is part time only.

    My former employer moved and is moving a large portion of its employees to part time work.

    This trend is likely only going to get worse.

    Comment by Just Me — December 4, 2012 @ 12:54 pm - December 4, 2012

  23. Waste is an intractable problem in Government; it will never be solved. This is why it is important to keep Government limited to essential functions for which there is no practical private alternative.

    Thus, waste in the defense department is something I tolerate because defense is a unique and essential Government function; like administering the judiciary, where I also would tolerate waste.

    Where waste cannot and should not tolerated is in functions the Government has no business providing; such as housing, health care, agricultural subsidies, and managing a third of the total landmass of the USA as Federal Land. There is no way to separate waste from these functions, except to get the Government out of them. Which is exactly what I think should be done.

    Comment by V the K — December 4, 2012 @ 1:32 pm - December 4, 2012

  24. I understand there are inherent risks with all investments. And if you’re profit margin is going to be undermined by tax increase, I wouldn’t expect a wise investor to take the risk.

    Comment by Aaron — December 4, 2012 @ 10:09 am – December 4, 2012

    And yet, this was completely incomprehensible to you before.

    Why would a rich person not make an investment if they were going to yield slightly less due to higher taxes? Wouldn’t they be stupider to not invest and therefore yield nothing?

    Comment by Aaron — December 3, 2012 @ 3:28 pm – December 3, 2012

    Oh, and this is entertaining.

    Imagine if Dick Fuld and all those other corrupt bankers would have had to look at their books closer because they knew they were going to have a higher tax bill at the end of the year. Perhaps they would have figured out that the mortgage backed securites they were buying and selling were a horrible idea and they would have stayed away. Yes there would have been a lot of people who wouldn’t have been sold sub-prime mortgages, but then the real value of the property would have remained intact, and perhaps the housing market wouldn’t have collapsed. I know that that’s probably not true, because the market was still figuring out how to make money with the new financial tools they were allowed to use like the credit default swaps and derivative trading. Inevitably some banks would have taken the risk and gone under, but having to pay higher taxes would have been a factor in the equation.

    Kind of hard to argue something is a “horrible idea” when the government is the one creating and encouraging the purchase of those securities, isn’t it?

    Page 3
    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fund the purchase of mortgages they securitize by selling the resulting MBSs to investors in the capital markets. An investor who buys a mortgage-backed security guaranteed by one of the GSEs will be paid the principal and any interest that is due even if borrowers default on the underlying loans.

    Page 22

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were rewarded for taking risks because the riskiness of their operations had little effect on their credit costs and their access to the market. When times were good, the GSEs’ stakeholders received the gains in the form of higher profits on riskier investments, but when times were bad, taxpayers were left with the losses.

    Page 23 – 24

    Their charters require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide ongoing assistance to the secondary mortgage market and to promote access to mortgage credit throughout the nation, including for low- and moderateincome families and residents of central cities. Subsequent legislation, the 1992 Federal Housing Enterprises and Financial Safety and Soundness Act, required the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to establish affordable-housing goals expressed in percentages of total housing units financed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    Since then, regulators have set annual targets for all mortgages and, beginning in 2005, separate goals for home purchases (as opposed to refinanced loans). Those goals apply to low- and moderate-income families (defined as those with income at or below an area’s median income), families who have very low income (no more than 60 percent of the area median), and underserved areas (generally census tracts with large percentages of low-income people or minorities). Since 2001, slightly more than half of the loans purchased or guaranteed by the GSEs have counted toward those goals. Regulators have also set targets for mortgages on affordable multifamily rental housing, expressed in fixed dollar volumes for low-income renters overall and for low-income renters living in poor neighborhoods. In pursuit of those targets, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchase mortgages on multifamily rental properties—which account for about 10 percent of the housing units they finance—and issue multifamilyhousing MBSs

    So let’s see; the government pushed for more risky loans to be make, demanded that more risky loans be purchased, securitized the risky loans, and sold them to the market with an implicit government guarantee that they would be covered to make them appear less risky — and then you blame the people who bought them.

    This is really what makes Obama supporters like Aaron and Levi total imbeciles. They haven’t actually researched this or done any reading; they just snip fancy words like credit-default swaps, etc. out of Obama talking points, blame “bankers”, and think they sound intelligent.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 4, 2012 @ 4:55 pm - December 4, 2012

  25. Let’s not forget that Clinton Era cronies Jamie Gorelick and Franklin Raines cleaned up eight-figure fortunes from Fannie Mae while they were making all those risky loans. (But Bush!). Or Fannie Mae executive Herb Moses, who lobbied Congress against regulating Fannie Mae while he was Barney Frank’s lover.

    The Democrat Party: a wretched hive of scum and villainy that makes Mos Eisley look like Disneyland.

    Comment by V the K — December 4, 2012 @ 6:22 pm - December 4, 2012

  26. It’s abundantly clear that all of Bush’s job growth can be attributed to the housing bubble,

    That would be the housing bubble the esteemed (why?) Bawney Fwank denied (and the liberals still refuse to believe) existed, right?

    Comment by TGC — December 4, 2012 @ 11:21 pm - December 4, 2012

  27. Looks like the serial liar has ran away again.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 5, 2012 @ 1:37 pm - December 5, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.