Will We See More of This?

[Pumpkin Eater]

No "gotcha" at all Heck.

A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

That didn't occur.

It's a simple fact.

You, I and everybody else know that.

If there's any spin going on it's because some might want to generate a headline.

Who knows and who cares.

But motivations on either part doesn't change the fact.

 

I'll assume your reasons are to help take heat off the failed economic policies and misjudgements of the current president.

 

So from here I'll keep repeating this fact: " A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth. " and you'll keep denying it.

Why waste the time? Surely you have other Obama failures to defend.

WSS

 

look, it started in December of 2007, no matter what you think. I can personally validate that, being in a construction related industry. Things slowed the fcuk down then and have never sped back up. Partisan hack.

[Westside Steve]

highest ever when Reagan was in office? But he was a GREAT president. Right? So why are you disparraging Obama After 4 months?

 

And if the economy turns around as quickly and as robust as it did when Reagan cleaned up the Carter mess Obama will have another four years without a problem.

Agree?

WSS

[Pumpkin Eater]

Agree. But Reagan took office in '81. You guys aren't giving BHO that much time.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, if your definition is the one everyone uses and that's just a fact, then why is the NBER using another one? I guess they should defer to your definition instead, huh? I'll be sure to let pre-eminent conservative economist Mr. Feldstein know he's wrong and he's merely trying to "take heat off the failed economic policies and misjudgements of the current president."

 

But funny that this is already tiresome. There's really no point. You've already declared all Obama economic policies - that have only been in place for a few months - to be failures, so I guess we know how serious an economic analyst you are.

 

And this notion that the NBER puts out its reports because they want to generate a headline is laughable. They put it out because that's what they do and that's their job. They're experts and take this very seriously, which is why their findings are the gold standard when discussing stuff like this. It's a very thorough measure of the economy, far more involved than simply looking at GDP growth.

 

But at least you admitted that you don't know what they do and you don't care. That's a start. I only wished that type of acknowledgment informed the rest of what you don't know.

 

But go ahead and cling to what you do know if it makes you feel better. Maybe we could spend another 20 posts where you say a recession is two quarters of negative growth, and I say that's one definition, but there are other ones, including the one the NBER uses. It'll be awesome.

 

As for my reasons for stating when everyone acknowledges the recession started, it's to acknowledge when the recession started. Because I like to have my facts straight.

[Legacy Fan]

look, it started in December of 2007, no matter what you think. I can personally validate that, being in a construction related industry. Things slowed the fcuk down then and have never sped back up. Partisan hack.

 

If that's the case, then you should actually realize that "it started" way back in 2004, when the price of steel jumped 400% due to the Chinese gobbling it up to prepare for the Olympics.

 

Also, that was at the peak of the "housing boom" (which started back in '98ish) if you're in a residential related construction field. You know, the boom where every idiot armed with a blackberry was going to "flip that house" and make a profit.

 

The boom where city councils consistently approved of new developments when they shouldnt have to drive up existing home tax assessments by simply their proximity to the new "upscale" developments that were springing up all over the place. Subdivision after subdivision of 6000 sqft homes with no improvements to roads or anything. City councils pissing away any revenue generated by the developments on pet projects. A $10 mil bike path on a road that should be widened instead? Check. Mile post markers every .2 mile rather than expanding/repairing 50 yr old infrastructure? Check. Traffic cams every 1/2mile when everybody already knows when & where the traffic will be? Check.

Then people lost their ass when supply leapfrogged demand.

 

And we want to give these assholes control of our health.

 

I'll stick a pistol in my mouth first.

[Mr. T]

highest ever when Reagan was in office? But he was a GREAT president. Right? So why are you disparraging Obama After 4 months?

 

 

Reagan encouraged savings, while little Obama encourages spending.

 

 

 

Big difference. You cannot borrow money and spend your way out of this recession.

[ballpeen]

Agree. But Reagan took office in '81. You guys aren't giving BHO that much time.

 

We have no choice but to give him time...it doesn't mean we have to be quiet if we humbly disagree with the policy.

 

If things start to roll, people get back to work, stocks begin to zoom, housing prices recover, I doubt many will be talking about poor fiscal policy under this administration.

[Kosar_For_President]

Reagan encouraged savings, while little Obama encourages spending.

 

Big difference. You cannot borrow money and spend your way out of this recession.

 

"Reagan's failure to reduce domestic spending and control the deficit was a reversal for his principles and provoked sharp criticism from conservative intellectuals and activists. Yet there was no suck reaction from the American people, because to them the deficit was an abstraction. Once accustomed to hearing about billions and trillions, they began to regard these figures as meaningless--just a matter of adding zeros. Far more serious, as a political matter, was the fact that the U.S. economy had plunged into a deep RECESSION in 1982. Only a year into his first term, Reagan found himself facing the most serious domestic challenge of his administration. All those who remember Reagan as the purveyor of feel-good sentiments--"the economics of joy," as Herbert Stein put it -- should carefully observe his leadership during what turned out to be the worst economic slowdown since the GREAT DEPRESSION."

 

from Ronald Reagan - By Dinesh D'Souza

 

And YES Reagan spent... He took from the poor ($35 billion from domestic programs in 1981 alone) and spend it on defense. Dude, just because the money was spent on guns, planes and "Star Wars" doesn't mean it wasn't spent. He used this money to inject our economy for the US to make weapons, Obama is creating jobs, not heavy profits for Halburton and Boeing. I do think he did a good job at the end, but we gave him time to give it a try.

 

7-11% unemployment, 10 million out of work. Poverty rate rose from 12 to 15%. His Trickle Down Economics was basically pissing on the poor. Make billions for the rich and give pennies to the poor.

 

Does anyone see a correlation? And this after 2 1/2 years of Reagan taking office. It is going to take some time. We are in it together people.

[Kosar_For_President]

We have no choice but to give him time...it doesn't mean we have to be quiet if we humbly disagree with the policy.

 

Exactly.

[Westside Steve]

 

 

But funny that this is already tiresome.

 

Thanks for making it happen Heck.

 

There's really no point. You've already declared all Obama economic policies - that have only been in place for a few months - to be failures, so I guess we know how serious an economic analyst you are.

 

Hey call me when we're booming again. Then the gloating will be sweeter. You sound like my Michigan buddy who calls during the game every year to tell me Ohio State's getting their asses kicked this time.

 

 

Maybe we could spend another 20 posts where you say a recession is two quarters of negative growth, and I say that's one definition, but there are other ones, including the one the NBER uses. It'll be awesome.

 

Heck that's what I predicted in my last post. Thanks for making my dream come true.

 

19 to go.

 

WSS

 

 

 

[choco]

What was the highest unemployment under Bush?

 

What is it now?

 

So, there ya go.

and that proves what? that the economy we had under bush was merely a projection on paper? that the dow value was inflated by money that didn't exist?

 

so then, when the bubble burst, the resulting unemployment rate is a result of obama policy? do you actually believe this bullshit you post, or is it just a lame attempt to make the situation worse?

 

i suppose you think its all clintons doing that resulted in the housing bubble? surely it didn't have anything to do with republicans desire to make everyone homeowners, did it?

 

 

 

kosar: is that the same regan that thought selling cocaine to americans to fund iran contra was a good idea? lol....

[Kosar_For_President]

kosar: is that the same regan that thought selling cocaine to americans to fund iran contra was a good idea? lol....

 

Yes! Ollie North loves crack, cocaine for the poor.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, was there a recession in 2001 resulting in part from the bursting of the tech bubble and the 9/11 attacks? The one that Bush "inherited from Clinton"?

[calfoxwc]

and that proves what? Choco

************************

It proves that Obama and Pelosi etc, are making ALL

 

the WRONG MOVES on the economy.

 

Obama said the unemployment rate would stablize

 

at about 8 %.

 

Oopsie. Went to 9.5 %

 

Oopsie, now admits it will probably keep creeping higher and higher for

 

another couple of years.

 

Wrong moves. No workee. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, and co. ... corrupt dummies.

[Kosar_For_President]

and that proves what? Choco

************************

It proves that Obama and Pelosi etc, are making ALL

 

the WRONG MOVES on the economy.

 

Obama said the unemployment rate would stablize

 

at about 8 %.

 

Oopsie. Went to 9.5 %

 

Oopsie, now admits it will probably keep creeping higher and higher for

 

another couple of years.

 

Wrong moves. No workee. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, and co. ... corrupt dummies.

 

Reagan (2 years into office) = 11% unemployment (out of 244,664,694 people)

 

Obama (6 months into office) = 9.5% unemployment (out of 305,529,237 people)

 

The sky is falling.

[ballpeen]

i suppose you think its all clintons doing that resulted in the housing bubble? surely it didn't have anything to do with republicans desire to make everyone homeowners, did it?

 

 

It is never any one persons fault....but red lining was a hot topic during President Clintons first term with the Justice Dept. more of less forcing banks to loosen up and made them loan money to people in areas that were historically high default areas.

 

It may not be President Clinton himself, but his policies were the largest reason for the housing crisis of today.

 

People kept running to refi when it was getting to close...and they finally ran out of equity and the banks ran out of money.

 

Just so we don't go down the revisionist road.

[choco]

It is never any one persons fault....

thanks 'peen.....thats exactly what i've been saying. this isn't obama's fault.....he'll share in the blame IF this shit doesn't turn around soon. but Cal's notion that this recession is all democrats fault is laughable at best, pathetic at worst.

[Kosar_For_President]

It is never any one persons fault....but red lining was a hot topic during President Clintons first term with the Justice Dept. more of less forcing banks to loosen up and made them loan money to people in areas that were historically high default areas.

 

It may not be President Clinton himself, but his policies were the largest reason for the housing crisis of today.

 

People kept running to refi when it was getting to close...and they finally ran out of equity and the banks ran out of money.

 

Just so we don't go down the revisionist road.

 

Agreed. In my opinion it was Clinton's fault that the economy is the way it is, you know when the recession started under Bush.

[choco]

alot of what 'peen said is correct...

 

under clinton, there was a push to get people into affordable housing, likely row housing or condos......this was the birth of the housing bubble. it was indeed democrats that wanted to help the poor folk get housing they could afford by expanding fanie and freddie.

 

but republicans didn't exactly disagree on getting people into homes, they just saw it differently. 'pubs preferred everyone own a home, but those people in the target demographic had bad credit.

 

so whaddya do?

 

 

lower the standards.....capitalism at its "finest"....

[Westside Steve]

alot of what 'peen said is correct...

 

under clinton, there was a push to get people into affordable housing, likely row housing or condos......this was the birth of the housing bubble. it was indeed democrats that wanted to help the poor folk get housing they could afford by expanding fanie and freddie.

 

but republicans didn't exactly disagree on getting people into homes, they just saw it differently. 'pubs preferred everyone own a home, but those people in the target demographic had bad credit.

 

 

 

True enough.

To be honest I think I woulda seen it as a good idea.

Who knew?

 

Law of unexpected consequences or no good deed going unpunished but there ya are.

 

WSS

[Pumpkin Eater]

basically it was too much greed that caused this mess. The banks were just as greedy as the house flippers; they liked making quick money off of lending to them. They liked making quick mlney off of everyone and turning the mortgages into securities.

[Mr. T]

Even after reading all of the excuses from everyone pointing fingers the thing that is sadly laughable is boy wonder obama wont own up to this mess, he wants to lay claim to he inherited this mess while all along him and his fellow democrat whiners only dumped barrells of gasoline on this fire with their stimulus bill that was nothing more than a big assed spending bill failed to resurrect anything for the economy.

 

 

 

 

and they still dont have a clue, other than taking over all of the failing businesses like a good marxist will do.

 

 

know they can lord over all. while many families start pitching tents, in tent cities across the USA.

[Kosar_For_President]

Even after reading all of the excuses from everyone pointing fingers the thing that is sadly laughable is boy wonder obama wont own up to this mess, he wants to lay claim to he inherited this mess while all along him and his fellow democrat whiners only dumped barrells of gasoline on this fire with their stimulus bill that was nothing more than a big assed spending bill failed to resurrect anything for the economy.

 

 

 

 

and they still dont have a clue, other than taking over all of the failing businesses like a good marxist will do.

 

 

know they can lord over all. while many families start pitching tents, in tent cities across the USA.

 

T, you seem like a cool dude which is why I am going to say it straight. There is no other reason why you are pre-judging Obama before at least a year other then spite. Be honest did you pre-judge Reagan for his 11% unemployment, come on be honest? Dude I am not on Obama's nuts, we are just saying let it work, if not, THEN let's rebel. I swear I will be the first one to buy a shotgun, a tent, a Berkey, marry my cousin and make all my clothes out of the American flag.

[Kosar_For_President]

know they can lord over all. while many families start pitching tents, in tent cities across the USA.

 

That is funny you mention that. I was reading some of Reagan's book on Google, and they called Reagan the Hoover (Hooverville) of the 80's because of the high unemployment rate he inherited and created at first.

[ballpeen]

but republicans didn't exactly disagree on getting people into homes, they just saw it differently. 'pubs preferred everyone own a home, but those people in the target demographic had bad credit.

 

There really wasn't much the republicans could do since it was more a legal threat from Reno and the Justice dept.

 

On top of that, two other blunders(IMO) that don't get talked about much was President Clinton ushered out the Glass-Steagal Act, which for decades had separated commercial and investment banking, as well as signing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act – which exempted all derivatives, including the now-notorious credit-default swaps, from federal regulation.

 

Now all of a sudden brokerage firms and banks could team up. In the past the two more or less counter balanced each other. Now with both in the same game, it was a sinking ship waiting to happen.

 

As for the derivatives...we saw what happened to an esteemed firm like Lehman Brothers when oversight was sent packing and greed and the need to compete exist. Add in to that cocktail you have the federal government mandating loans that in the past would never be made and continue to print money like it was going out of style..again..a ship waiting to sink.

 

And they did.

 

[Mr. T]

That is funny you mention that. I was reading some of Reagan's book on Google, and they called Reagan the Hoover (Hooverville) of the 80's because of the high unemployment rate he inherited and created at first.

 

 

I remember the early Reagan years very well, I got to see my parents loose almost everything they had worked so hard for. Remember (Jimmy Carter? and he didn't have to fund any wars either) But the biggest difference between Obama & Reagan are Reagan encouraged american to save their money what little they had and work at paying off their debts.

 

Obama, he is telling people to go spend their money same as "W" did. That is why I really dont consider "W" a conservative.

 

 

 

You cannot borrow your way out of this economic recession it dosn't make any since. All you end up doing is create more debt.

[Westside Steve]

Steve, was there a recession in 2001 resulting in part from the bursting of the tech bubble and the 9/11 attacks? The one that Bush "inherited from Clinton"?

 

Dunno Heck.

Were there two consecutive quarters of negative growth?

If not then there was an economic downturn.

 

If there was were you expecting me to blame Clinton or just asking?

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I guess everyone has to see it your way or they're wrong, huh?

 

There was a recession in 2001. It's common knowledge. It's taken as a given in economic circles. And yet there were never two consecutive quarters of negative growth. And yet somehow there was still a recession.

 

Your first answer was the right one. You don't know.

 

I really think you can give up on this one. You got spun by someone who didn't want to start the recession in December of 2007 for political reasons, even though that's when it started.

 

And acknowledging this says nothing about either Bush's economic policies or Obama's. It's just acknowledging reality.

 

The current recession started in December of 2007. And no one knows when it will end. It's the longest downturn since the Great Depression. It's much worse than the one in 2001, or the one in 1990.

 

It also could have been a lot worse.

[calfoxwc]

It also could have been a lot better. and Barney Frank is AGAIN asking

 

for more lenient rules on lending for home mortgages for the poor.

 

This admin, these libs in Congress seem to be determined to trash

 

our economy, making the entire country dependent on the government.

 

Experts are saying the economy is going to get worse the next couple of years.

 

Obama has reversed course AGAIN, and said that unemployment will continue to rise

 

the next couple of years.

 

Unemployment is ALREADY 9.5 %

 

Not good. And Obama is making all the WRONG MOVES.

[Westside Steve]

I guess everyone has to see it your way or they're wrong, huh?

 

Sure Heck. Isn't that how you feel?

You asked me a question and I answered it correctly.

Now you're mad? Are you disappointed that I didn't attack Clinton?

 

There was a recession in 2001. It's common knowledge. It's taken as a given in economic circles.

 

Shall we say that IF I said that Bush saved us from the CLINTON RECESSION you'd probably be quick to point out the two quarter rule then grumble that Bush didn't save shit.

 

And yet there were never two consecutive quarters of negative growth. And yet somehow there was still a recession.

 

Well I guess there wasn't one by definition. So what?

 

Your first answer was the right one. You don't know.

 

Didn't bother to look. I assume you aren't outright lying.

 

I really think you can give up on this one. You got spun by someone who didn't want to start the recession in December of 2007 for political reasons, even though that's when it started.

 

Asked and answered. Tell me when we get to 20.

 

And acknowledging this says nothing about either Bush's economic policies or Obama's. It's just acknowledging reality.

 

No Heck, it's really not.

For the entire campaign you and Obama repeated the mantra that it was caused by the failed economic policies of George Bush.

 

The current recession started in December of 2007. And no one knows when it will end. It's the longest downturn since the Great Depression.

 

Ahhh I love that one.

 

It's much worse than the one in 2001, or the one in 1990.

 

It also could have been a lot worse.

 

It probably will.

Thanks.

WSS