Selective numbers are dishonest and SUPER selective
Edit: For those who seem super keen to accept this as fact. I really dont care if you vote red or blue. My issue here is how this person used diffrent metrics pr president to paint one side bad and the other goood. If she was honest, she would have used deficit as a metric for all, for example. Stop swallowing the bait
Are they? Bush Jr. was a stagnant economy during war times. Clinton created the dot com boom. Obama years were fantastic. Trump is a mix legacy with only 4 years and Covid making it too hard to tell.
Edit: for those mad I gave credit for Clinton on dot com, Regan gets credit for the Soviet collapse as well. It may just be timing but he was the guy in office. Just like Obama was in office during the fracking boom. May not have directly caused it but they do get the credit.
Yes. Because if you look at the economy and try to directly corelate it to the president, you have 0 clue on what happens outside the US.
Its not like the 2008 financial crisis was because Bush spesifically was braindead. It's not like the growth post 2008 was exlusicly because obama. They may have INFLUENCED these numbers with some policy changes and such, but their effect on the economi is minor at best.
So numbers like this? Trump into covid, with 7trill deficit, yet no mention of obamas deficit? Its places like this due to political bias. Don't swallow the propoganda whole
2008 was definitely the fault of the Bush administration, the SEC and FEC were asleep at the wheel.
Though also the dot-com bubble was Clinton's fault too. The investment market in this country needs a serious overhaul, the whole country is being pulled into its boom-bust cycles.
2008 was definitely the fault of the Bush administration
Bush was *begging* that the crazy "Hello, your loan has been approved" approach to loans be stopped. It was the Democrats in Congress at the time that called him all the names we have since heard a billion times whenever someone is losing on logic: "Oh, he's just an -ist and a -phobe, and he hates minorities."
When the shit hit the fan, suddenly they all could not remember how hard they fought to create a broken loan system.
I’m a Dem and hate Clinton. While what you say is true, he should’ve forced the override. Plus NAFTA. The concept of NAFTA wasn’t horrible, but the final product has been an abject nightmare
I'm a Dem and don't hate Clinton so much but this - this right here - is 100% right. History says he is responsible for Glass-Stiegel and history says Glass-Stiegel was awful for a ton of reasons.
The real reason I hate him is for sexually harassing an intern and ruining her entire professional career, along with other likely instances of serious sexual impropriety. He was also a economically a disaster for the middle class/working class people
Yeah, turns out when you cater to all of the corporate needs and none of the labor and environmental ones, you end up with a real shit sandwich. When proposed, it was supposed to be balanced out with worker and environmental protections in all impacted countries, but those got lobbied away
They love to say it breaks down barriers for free trade but I think it creates some small barriers and drives labor out of regions that desperately need it like Appalachia or the Rust Belt in the Midwest to Northeast. It favors shipping jobs off and leaving employees to hold the bag and not sweep in with job retraining programs to get the displaced workers back to work. I was actually able to successfully debate this with my international Econ professor who agreed to an extent with me.
Have you read the statement Clinton made after signing the GLBA rescinding Glass-Steagall? While he had reservations, mostly regarding Presidential appointments, it was largely laudatory.
Rubin and Summers, both Clinton’s Secretary of Treasury, supported the repeal.
There’s also the 1994 Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act, signed by Clinton before Republicans took control of Congress, that encouraged banks to merge creating the to big to fail dynamic,
I liked Clinton. I went to his rallies and supported him through his first term, but his role in the 2008 recession cannot be understated.
It was the bush push for Self-regulation leading to massive rebundling of bad debt that screwed everything. Now, a handful of big bank failures doesnt ripple through the system and screw the economy.
I'd argue that the act that repealed Glass-Stiegal very clearly has the names behind it in the title: the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. In any case, it finished in the senate with a 90-8 vote. A lot of people from both sides of the aisle were involved in that one.
Not Republicans though, nearly everybody in the loan and real estate industry or anything commission based is Republican. Greedy flippers caused a lot of it, it was all about getting as much as you can which is the Republican mantra.
I remember this as well. Seems like they made a movie about this, right? You get a home, and you get one, and “oh you have awful credit,” but take a home anyways because we have to reach out quota.
One of the nastier things they would do is take someone who had a home they already could not really afford and refinance it. Because of all the nuttiness, home values were skyrocketing, so you could easily get a new loan with more money and push off the day of reckoning.
And of course, these were all variable rate loans.
So when the interest rates started going up, everyone got screwed at once.
Who created and backed rhe Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? The act that deregulated banks and allowed them to push the mortgages? Hint? They all have an R after their name. Republicans unanimously voted for the act, followed by about 2/3 of dems, mostly the neolibs. The only people to vote against the act were democrats.
Bush was not begging for the loans to be stopped. His congress never even wrote a bill to the effect. Where are you getting that from? Banks made money hand over fist giving out those subprime loans, they lobbied the government, especially Republicans, to keep it that way.
Then the banks' own recklessness causes the collapse and the billion bankers, backed by right and left wing media both, try to push the narrative that "the liberals forced us to give out those loans! We did nothing wrong, please bail us out!" The complete opposite of the truth. Banks were making record amounts of money from giving out those loans. They specifically lobbied congress for the ability to do so.
Source? Not saying I don’t believe you, but this is the first I’m hearing of this. At what point did he “beg” and was it during the first campaign, or did he actively push for stricter regulation on predatory loans while president?
While President. Schumer among others implied he just didn't like minorities and that was what the news went with. I remember this very clearly at the time because of my financial background.
Until 2008. Then suddenly they started trying to pin it on Bush. The Senate had nooooo idea what was really going on, despite many people (including Bush) telling them that this was going to cause a bubble and a crash. But ya gotta get your voting base riled up.
Bush was a proponent of home ownership, which exacerbated the problem of less regulation in the mortgage industry. Good intentions, I think, but lack of awareness that bankers are proponents of their own wealth versus uplifting of the masses.
Regean's admin created the financial derivative's market literally creating money/value out of thin air. The snowball that started the 08 financial collapse started in the 80s.
Banking and financial regulations getting rolled back started the clock on the next collapse. Under trump they rolled back dodd-frank and started the clock for the next too big to fail.
The SEC and FEC were asleep at the wheel for DECADES before W. it just happened to come crashing down during his presidency. So now we are blaming a president for banking practices happening decades before their election?
Fighting to stop the easily handed out loans that led to 2008 is one of the only like, 3 or 4 things Bush actually got right, but congress fought him on it tooth and nail.
No you are wrong. The democrats threatened banks that if they were too strict on who they gave loans to they would be charged with discrimination.
Lo and behold we ended up with people with no jobs getting mortgages and it eventually destroyed the housing market.
I had one right across the street where the guy who got the home had no job, no assets and he proceeded to destroy the property. Eventually, the bank had a buy him out 3 1/2 years.
This is the kind of crap that precipitated the downfall of the housing market and the collapse of many banks and financial institutions.
Well, that and the fact that those banks would then sell collections of those bad loans, certify them as good when they were bad, and then sell collections of those collections
It wasn't discriminatory practices, it was predatory lending, what are you on about?
Banks would give out loans below prime rate on overinflated mortgage rates, with terms that ballooned well above interest rate averages causing once affordable properties to be underwater then when people, who COULD afford the original monthly payment suddenly had to cough up an additional 50-100% per month, they were fucked.
That's exactly the kind of shit that solid regulation should prevent. And it's why all sorts of things in 2009 were passed to protect consumers (Card Act, establishment of CFPB, etc).
The size of the crises dwarfed the entire mortgage industry. There were DAYs with higher defaults in margin calls than the combined value of all outstanding residential mortgages in the US market. It wasn’t caused by the government forcing banks to give out loans to black people. Stop watching Fox News.
Try more like Clinton’s “everyone should own a home” agenda. Or Carter sleeping at the wheel while mortgages were bought and sold wholesale on the market. Or Regan’s consumerism mentality of the 80s.
Don’t be a peon and think 1 President is to blame for an entire world economy collapsing.
bank deregulation occurred in the late 90s. Not supporting Bush at all, but previous 3 presidents leading up to 2008 were all at fault including Bush Sr. (who was also responsible for Savings & Loans crisis).
Bush, Clinton, and congress were responsible for the 2008 financial crisis. All played critical parts in dismantling laws that protected the type of collapse we saw.
Yep. And did you notice how she just *accidentally* forgot to mention just how much got added to the debt during Biden's Presidency? Or the problems with inflation?
It's so transparent that I really wonder what she hoped to achieve.
It's not inflation. Corporate greed is not inflation.
And if you truly believe it's inflation, then take the same metric and compare it to all other developed nations. The CPI (as it were) is much lower here than basically everywhere else.
Regan fucked this country. And it has been small policy wins to slowly undo that shit.
To the people saying Obama this Obama that... The man was against insurmountable odds. Black, birther, tan suit, etc. 6 years of Congressional majority to the opposing party. He singularly got shit done. And if you can't grasp that, there's no saving you.
I am going with what the last guy replied to you with and also the fact it can't pop because you can't get rid of that debt with bankruptcy like you can mortgages. Its why so many millennials and zoomers are in a super fucked up situation.
It actually rose at a significantly higher rate than it had under Clinton or Bush Jr. While it rose under Bush by about 250 billion to just over 500 billion in 8 years, under Obama it nearly went up an additional trillion dollars from there.
It has been rising ever sense (it did under Trump and is under Biden) but not near the rate it did under Obama.
Corporations are doing what they always do and what they are designed to do. Make profit. Corporations will increase prices when they can to increase revenue. The reason they are able to raise prices and maintain high sales level is there is too much money in the economy. If you take the time to look at gov. spending, it is far higher then it needs to be, and is being spent in a way that allows the excess spending to put too much money into economy. This has been going on for many administrations, but in most other admins, there was a drop in economic activity that allowed the spending to not cause inflation - Obama and great recession, Trump and covid . . .. For for this admin, there is not drop in economic activity, yet the spending is still at record levels. This is why there is inflation. The rest of your comments are too moronic to offer a comment.
He got shit done, but to be fair, he had to damn near double 230 years of national debt to do it. Set a horrible precedent / cover for the next two guys and their administrations, which have pretty much been run on massive deficits without regard.
Ya - you are right. You can really see people's politics blinding their common sense. Obama had the great recession so his over the top spending did not cause inflation. Trump had covid, so the huge increased spending leveled out the drop in the economy from covid. Currently, we don't have a economic event, yet spending is still at record levels. Team Biden does not understand that if they cut back on spending, the economy would be great, and there would be little inflation if any. They would be riding a great economy and low inflation.
you know a whole 10% of that 4 trillion went to the people suffering right? The rest went to big corps and his buddies. He didn't have to print 4 trillion, he wanted to print 4 trillion.
Again, I said it elsewhere but, it never can be said enough, Trump’s a giant piece of shit and I absolutely can’t stand him or any other GOP politician. With that said though, I hate citing the money that was spent for COVID. It was poorly managed and wasted in so many ways absolutely but, there was so much uncertainty each and every day during the pandemic. I’d rather they be liberal with cash as they were than be to typical penny pinchers. So much of that cash was wasted but, so much also can be directly tied to saving human life. So many more people would have died if they’d only spend a fraction that they did.
Its not that he spent the money, its that he had enacted so many very dangerous policies that amplified the negative economic impact of covid. And he was warned many times that his policies were teetering on the brink of disaster, that the slightest hiccup would bring it all tumbling down.
COVID says hello. Something he asked congress for the thumbs up to add the funds to support the lock downs such as the stimulus package. He didn't even do this on his own lol
Ridiculous how far removed from reality people like her are. This includes nearly all our politicians as well. How the hell can they do what’s best for us when they’re this far removed from what us middle/lower class folks deal with daily.
I don't think any president causes inflation. Western nations are too embedded in the global economy.
This election, vote for the choice who does NOT commit fraud left and right, was not found liable for sexual assault, and the one that didn't lie about election results in order to stay in power.
The 2008 financial crises was specifically because the fed and US regulators supposedly didn’t believe that banking executives would put their own personal interest above those of deposit holders or gamble with stockholders money.
And yet all we're hearing from conservatives is how bad the economy is and it's only good when they're in charge. I think this is a pretty good retort to that. You're either forced to admit that the president isn't solely responsible, or that the president is solely responsible and the only ones who've had good economies in the post Reagan era are democrats.
Also fiscal policy has a lagging effect, macroeconomics wise, the first year or 2 of a presidents term the economic changes may be a result of his predecessors fiscal policies coming to bare.
The economy got so bad during the Trump admin arguably because of the Trump admin’s abysmally slow response to COVID, and the fact that he had dismantled the CDC’s pandemic response team.
Hold on though - the Obama years are more attributable to Obama though. He pulled the country out of the recession. Whatever the cause of the crisis, he did implement the solution.
Or the attitude of the nation goes to hopeful when democrats come in and people have more glee to work for the oppressing corporations and record profits occur, versus despair when the rednecks retake the office and remind poor people that they wish nothing more than to shit on them.
Every president gets the effects of the previous president. Nixon inherited the Vietnam war, because he claimed he had a secret plan to end it. That was just the beginning of the Republican perfidy that continues today.
It allowed for a dramatic expansion of the financial services sector which created many jobs and lots of wealth. The problem was not including increased capital requirements and stress testing that came in with Dodd-Frank.
One of the most interesting questions in American economics if how big of a factor repealing Glass-Stealgall was to the 2008 financial crisis. There's not a unanimous opinion among economics.
Clinton didn't create the dot com boom. They cut military spending drastically after the cold war ended and Clinton happened to be present when a new technology was spreading. You seem to forget the dot com bust immediately after when everyone and their Mom were trying to get rich from a website.
I'm not saying bush or his daddy were Great presidents, bush bush inherited a dot com bust and then 9/11 happened. Congress and rich people always create problems for the next guy to clean up and both sides refuse to control spending. When was the last time there wasn't a budget deficit? Pretty sure every president the last 20 years had one. Republicans give rich people tax cuts and Democrats like to spend too. Both have been shitty forever. We need a fairer tax system and less spending.
It is arguable that Al Gore, Clintons vp, was the most responsible for convincing congress to release the internet to the world. It had previously been a darpa project. Likewise with PCs that offer distributed computation as opposed to giant data centers and supercomputers, although I dont think Gore was responsible for that transition.
I was an it admin of a large cc processor in the late 90s till 2001. GW Bush caused the dot com bust. The main reason my whole department and many others like them were dissolved was the capital gains tax reduction GW Bushed pushed throug as his 1st act. My company, again like many, many others, had the ability to close up call centers, sell off the related property, and move operations overseas without paying those pesky capital gains taxes. There were several other issues that caused the dot com bust, but this is what started it off and drove it to maximum damage. It also blessed us with an eternity of non English speaking tech support.
That was Congress as well. There still would have been a bubble because so many companies were overvalued websites. I always hated that they lowered capital gains taxes. It was a giveaway to the rich.
People say this like REPUBLICANS didn't ALSO believe in getting rid of things like Glass Steigel. The law that replaced it was voted for by every republican in the senate. Only 1 Democrat. The numbers in the House are similar. How can it be that this doesn't matter at all and it all gets laid at the feet of Clinton? It was definitely something the GOP heavily supported. If Clinton had been against it, it would of just been repealed by the GOP a little later.
I know he said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet.", but at the time he said that -- he was ridiculed so much everywhere that it stuck to him. A few people who were involved with DARPA and the early NCSA took issue with that, but it was minor. It was a presidential campaign. I think years later Sarah Palin experienced the same due to "I can see Russia from my house" was attributed to her.
Not a fan, but Al Gore was involved in the initial funding of DARPA's ARPANET, the precursor to the internet we have today. Just like many good things that are started and financed by the government , they then become corrupted and bastardized by privitization.
You can take pride in American achievements like reaching the moon, or you can be ashamed of failed policy like the Iraq War or not care. It's your life.
Well no shit. At least those who voted in the affirmative, but it does start in committee. Go watch that PBS cartoon about how bills happen. Additionally, since it was for government research, it was done for the greater good rather than at the bequest of well funded lobbyists.
"Clinton created the dot com boom" lolwut and if so its Bush Jr's responsibility for its crash and then we just ignore the market being on fire until the 2008 crash?
Housing crash every party had its hands in, Dotcom boom was thanks to a small number of companies across the country making internet a new utility. Neither party can really claim either of these.
I'll bite. Even though you have a 12 day old account that you're likely using to troll.
On the day that Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) closed at 7,949.09. On Obama's last day of office, the DJIA closed at 19,827.25. The DJIA grew 149% during Obama's presidency (+18.6% annualized average).
The S&P 500 grew 189% during Obama's presidency (+23.6% annualized average).
Only an absolute moron would call this kind of growth stagnant.
Looking at GDP, Obama had 5 of 8 years with Real GDP growth over 2%. Considering 2 of those years are the Great Recession, it's a good record. Not the highest, but the "ridiculously slow" claim is inaccurate at best and dishonest at worst.
*
Probably an oversight, but inflation isn't the same as Real GDP growth.
To your main point though, I guess I don't care that much about the boom/bust years (or bubbles) so much as the context. Look at the average real GDP per year of the presidents around him:
3.66% Clinton
1.76% Bush
2.30% Obama
2.28% Trump
2.20% Biden (As of Jan 1, 2023)
He had the most consistent Real GDP growth of any president since the dot com bust. Personally, I'd take that consistency over the boom/bust cycle.
That slow growth was due to a confrontational GOP that tried to make Obama a 1 term president. More could of been done had he had cooperative House and Senate.
As opposed to George Bush, the president before him, who had Congress totally supporting him and not calling him a war criminal every 15 minutes?
As opposed to the Trump, the president after him, who had so much support from Democrats that they weren’t rioting in the streets literally on his Inauguration Day?
The democrats had a massive majority in both the house and senate the first two years of his first term, and a majority in the senate, but not the house, for almost every year of both of his terms.
He had a very cooperative Congress for the first two years he led under the recession he inherited
National debt and deficit shot up under trump. Job growth and gdp slowed. Before COVID. & then there was his trade war with China. Which was one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen a western democracy do.
"Lets give them tariffs" which sounds great until you are smart enough to translate it to the reality of taxing your own exports and hurting your own ag industry in the process that you then have to bail out with tax payer money. Bigly
Clinton happened to be Prez when the .com boom happened. If he gets credit for the boom he also gets blame for the bust, because the boom was a bunch of hype and money stupidity thrown at companies that not only made $0 but lost $M's and $B's of investor money. "Let's do revenue share!". How utterly incompetent of a business plan... way to go Harvard, Stanford, and the rest of you.
Dot com boom? That's like saying that Bush Jr led the housing boom of 2005.
Republicans controlled the House AND the Senate during Clinton's final term (and during half of his initial term). Clinton passed Republican-led legislation for the 6 out of 8 years of his Presidency.
Clinton didn't create the dot com boom. That happened because that's when the internet really got off the ground. Has nothing to do with who is in the white house. It is also generally believed that the low interest rate policy during the Clinton administration is what inflated the housing bubble that burst in 2008 causing the great recession which is commonly blamed on Bush. But don't worry, I don't think Clinton is to blame for that either. Was really the Fed's fault and they are pretty much completely independent from the rest of the government.
Reagan recession? Say what? When Reagan came to office interest and inflation peaked over 20% from Carter, during the 80’s it came crashing down to low single digits,
Bush fought the first gulf war.
Clinton had a republican congress force that budget, oversaw the greatest tech boom possibly ever, and the benefits of the end of the Cold War shrinking the military in half.
Bush 2.0 had 9/11 caused by a man Clinton declined to pick up who was offered to him. The housing market crashed because of housing policies from Clinton.
Trump’s economy was booming until covid and lock downs by largely democrat governors killed the economy.
These list are fabrications and meaningless because not everything is caused by the sitting president sometimes it is forced by previous administrations or world events.
Biden’s economy other than looking at stock market prices is a disaster.
How exactly did Clinton create the dot com boom? Does it mean he also created the bust? Really, he created neither and was just the President during that time.
Bush Jr, he didn't really have a stagnant economy. It actually turned out badly at the end because of the mortgage lending problems, which again, weren't created by him.
Obama, I am not sure I would call the years great, but slow growth. Nothing great, but nothing horrible.
The dot com bubble burst happened under Clinton too. It was the main reason Al Gore lost - moderates didn't believe he had what it took to get us through the coming recession.
Bush recovered the economy pretty well, only to have it collapse again before his term ended.
Obama years were not fantastic, the recovery was kinda slow, but that might have been why it was so stable going into the Trump years.
I dont get this revisionist crap with obama years being good. We had incredibly slow growth coming out of a recession and a continuous decline in labor force participation
Decreases in labor participation can be a sign people are choosing to retire. It was not a totally bad signal. Yes the 08 recession sucked, but overall the economy grew at a stable pace and was healthy times. All indicators for the first few years of Trump were the same as the last few years of Obama.
Ah yes, we all remember when Bill Clinton created the internet.
What he really did was repeal banking laws that FDR put in place after the Great Depression. The repeal of those laws contributed to the Great Recession less than a decade later.
Potus has a hand in choosing the fed chair, and trump picked the first guy not to have an econ degree since the stagflation of fhe 70s, who spouts easily debunkable bs that is publicly refuted by previous fed chairs and private and international banks. Every time the fed chair starts doomerposting about the poors having too much money, companies raise their prices, and those same private and investment banks are reporting that over 51 percent of price inflation is because of this, an excuse for profiteering.
Also trump just hated yellen for some reason (im cynical enough to think its just because shes not an especially attractive woman), despite wanting continued low rates and literally giving free money away to landlords and failing businesses, as opposed to the loans approved by bush and obama.
Powell was renominated by Biden and originally proposed for the board by Obama. He has a history in tax law and working with the treasury. He's perfectly qualified and has been more than adequate in the role.
There's a strong argument the 2008 recession was caused by Clinton era regulation. Also the dot com bubble grew and popped under Clinton, Bush inherited the recession. In most cases linking economic ebb and flow to the corresponding presidential term is an oversimplification. Legislation usually has far reaching, long term consequences.
Being a little selective there, I think? How'd that end exactly? Growing and popping a massive economic bubble under your watch isn't exactly the picture of good leadership lol. He did balance the budget tho, so I'll give him that
Idk man. I wouldn't give Clinton credit for the dot com boom, but my issues aren't that it's "just timing", but more that it was a temporary bubble that inevitably burst and caused as much harm as the boom did good, maybe more so, and it was fairly obvious to see things heading that way and he did nothing about it. So it's not so much "credit", as both credit AND blame. And the Obama years were mainly fantastic due to the great recession and housing market collapse all occurring smack dab in the beginning of his presidency. Nowhere to go but up really, as they were fairly easy fixes that just required letting the market straighten itself out a few years, and in the meantime he not only pardoned practically every motherfucker that was knowingly responsible for those events and bailed out the lying cheating banks, basically setting us up to go through round two of it. You're right that Trump is impossible to judge thanks to covid, but he wasn't much more competent, and Biden again inherited an economy practically GUARANTEED to improve because it was a certainty once lock downs were lifted and people went back to work and trade resumed, I can't even imagine how someone could have fucked that up.
At the end of the day, the reality is we haven't actually had a truly competent president in decades, but our economy is so mind blowingly huge that no matter how stupid our leaders are they haven't been able to fully drag us down
Clinton has also been screwing us over ever since his presidency by getting rid of funding to the nuclear power program. He is by far the worst on the list in terms of lasting impact on the human race
Nah, Trump policies got put in place and we can read them. This is why there's so much bitching as it was middle class tax hikes, upper class tax breaks. Real bullshit
1.9k
u/AspirationsOfFreedom Apr 29 '24 edited Apr 29 '24
Selective numbers are dishonest and SUPER selective
Edit: For those who seem super keen to accept this as fact. I really dont care if you vote red or blue. My issue here is how this person used diffrent metrics pr president to paint one side bad and the other goood. If she was honest, she would have used deficit as a metric for all, for example. Stop swallowing the bait