- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 9/9/18 at 8:11 am to Ancient Astronaut
quote:
Yep and all the way through his 2 terms
Yeah. If anyone here wants to actually be objective, you would know this is false
Posted on 9/9/18 at 8:18 am to ohiovol
quote:And his ineptness kept it there.
It was when Obama inherited it.
Posted on 9/9/18 at 10:38 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Fine. Debatable
Really only debatable if one has an agenda. Either way as I posted in my other reply to you that you ignored, I’ll take Bernanke’s word on the matter. He spent most of his career prior to the Fed studying the Great Depression so would definitely consider him an authority on judging how bad an economic crisis is.
quote:
IT WAS FOLLOWED WITH THE SLOWEST ECONOMIC RECOVERY IN US HISTORY.
This is true, but ignores other factors like job growth during this period and how we are currently in the second longest expansion in US history.
Posted on 9/9/18 at 11:25 am to ohiovol
quote:
quote:
Considering the economy was dog shite
=====
It was when Obama inherited it.
Which was almost 100% the result of DEMOCRAT policies. It was a DEMOCRAT initiative to face banks to provide low-cost loans for people who could not afford the homes they were 'purchasing.'
GWBush warned congress about it numerous times - every time it was tried to fix the problem, DEMOCRATs torpedoed the attempt. See Chris DODD and Barney FRANK if you want to pin the blame on someone other than overall DEMOCRAT policy.
SURE - GWB could have done more - but he did have a war on his hands - and was being obstructed by the DEMOCRATs at every turn, intent on refusing to allow ANY kind of effective legislation to proceed.
When DEMOCRATs saw the popularity of GWB in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 they went on the warpath to destroy the man and his presidency. The ONLY difference between then and now is that GWB refuse to fight back. The very IDEA that Trump has the temerity to FIGHT BACK against their attempts to destroy him is what is fueling the absolute HYSTERIA they are displaying constantly.
DEMOCRATs created the problem - DEMOCRATs refused to let a GOP POTUS to correct it - DEMOCRATs immediately blamed GOP when the bubble finally burst - and DEMOCRATs sat back and enjoyed the economic throes they inflicted on the American citizenry because it created MULTITUDEs of unwitting voters to line up for the 'free cheese' the created a demand for.
DEMOCRATs are economic disasters - always have been - always will be.
Posted on 9/9/18 at 4:58 pm to MStant1
quote:Bernanke did a great job along with Paulson and Bush in stemming Bank Failures with TARP.
I’ll take Bernanke’s word on the matter.
If he actually claimed 12 of 13 banks were on the verge of collapse though, he's confabulating. There were certainly 3 or 4 in imminent dire straits, maybe others would have eventually followed suit.
But you make a good point. The danger of a spreading financial catastrophe was stemmed in October 2008. Obama subsequently piggybacked on W's economic program for 4yrs, before fully implementing redistributional obamanomics to lock in that sub-3% growth you seem to tout.
Posted on 9/9/18 at 5:01 pm to KeyserSoze999
Granted trump didn't inherit the pile of shite Obama did, but it wasn't hot by any stretch.
Posted on 9/9/18 at 6:40 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Bernanke did a great job along with Paulson and Bush in stemming Bank Failures with TARP. If he actually claimed 12 of 13 banks were on the verge of collapse though, he's confabulating. There were certainly 3 or 4 in imminent dire straits, maybe others would have eventually followed suit.
Yeah Bernanke certainly was known for hyperbole and exaggeration.
Kudos though to staying consistent on underplaying the severity of the financial crisis.
quote:
But you make a good point. The danger of a spreading financial catastrophe was stemmed in October 2008. Obama subsequently piggybacked on W's economic program for 4yrs, before fully implementing redistributional obamanomics to lock in that sub-3% growth you seem to tout.
Wasn’t touting anything. I was a very vocal critic of Obama and his policies when he was president. My overall larger point is that the notion that Trump inherited an economic disaster is objectively false. Was the economy red hot? No, but Trump did inherit the then 4th longest expansion in US history along with steady and consistent job growth for the prior couple of years.
I’m happy the economy is growing under Trump, but let’s not pretend he is a miracle worker when in reality the upward Trend was already well under way when he took office.
Posted on 9/9/18 at 6:52 pm to MStant1
quote:
Wasn’t touting anything. I was a very vocal critic of Obama and his policies when he was president. My overall larger point is that the notion that Trump inherited an economic disaster is objectively false. Was the economy red hot? No, but Trump did inherit the then 4th longest expansion in US history along with steady and consistent job growth for the prior couple of years.
I’m happy the economy is growing under Trump, but let’s not pretend he is a miracle worker when in reality the upward Trend was already well under way when he took office.
I don’t get how we’re even debating anything here. Hot is the wrong word, but Trump inherited a stable and expanding economy. Jobs were being added, unemployment was declining, and growth was happening. That’s a LOT different than what Obama inherited.
When you look at Trump’s first full year, we were still well under 3%. We’ve had some good quarters, but you can’t really say that things have been significantly better yet. Maybe in the future, but that remains to be seen. That chapter has not yet been written. It’s dishonest to say otherwise
This post was edited on 9/9/18 at 6:54 pm
Posted on 9/9/18 at 7:00 pm to KeyserSoze999
I am not a "lib", and I am not at all a support of Trump. The state of the economy when Obama took over was catastrophic. I think people assume presidents have more power over the economy than they actually do.
But technically, when Obama left the WH, the economy was in much better shape than it was when he entered.
But technically, when Obama left the WH, the economy was in much better shape than it was when he entered.
Posted on 9/9/18 at 7:06 pm to cahoots
quote:
When you look at Trump’s first full year, we were still well under 3%. We’ve had some good quarters, but you can’t really say that things have been significantly better yet. Maybe in the future, but that remains to be seen. That chapter has not yet been written. It’s dishonest to say otherwise
There’s a stark difference between Trump’s economic policies and Obammy’s..., Trump actually has an economic plan. Obammy was merely a casual observer in the Fed’s use of monetary policy on steroids to save the Global Banking cabal and the too big to fail corporations. The only effect Obammy had on the economy, and it was a negative, was diverting billions of dollars from the private sector to the federal government with his brilliant Obammy Care catastrophe.
Posted on 9/9/18 at 7:12 pm to Bass Tiger
What is Trump’s plan?
Posted on 9/9/18 at 8:08 pm to KeyserSoze999
Obama inherited a bad economy in the midst of a financial crisis. This much is undeniable. However in no way, shape, or form did he leave a "hot" economy. At the end of Obama's term, the economy had improved and was ready to start growing again, but was hampered by low consumer confidence and overbearing Obama-era regulations. Trump was the jump start the economy needed.
This post was edited on 9/9/18 at 8:10 pm
Posted on 9/9/18 at 9:35 pm to MStant1
quote:Facts are facts. Sorry.
Yeah Bernanke certainly was known for hyperbole and exaggeration.
If Bernanke actually is claiming 12 of 13 banks were on the cusp of insolvency within the week, he's simply mistaken. Attach any qualifiers to it you'd like. Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein, and others have talked extensively about TARP, and about their own institutions' solvency at that time. Despite being solvent, they were strong-armed by Paulsen and Bernanke to accept TARP.
quote:
The Treasury had first decided to use a chunk of the $700 billion financial bailout package to pay for taking partial ownership stakes in banks, rather than use the money to buy rotten debts from financial institutions. The idea was that the investments would instill confidence in the system and get banks to lend again, following the credit-market freeze.
The meeting was hosted by Paulson, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. chairwoman Sheila Bair, and Geithner, who was then president of the New York Fed.
Banks that were initially required to accept the funds were Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., State Street Corp., Bank of New York Mellon, and Bank of America Corp., including the soon-to-be-acquired Merrill Lynch.
Paulson wanted healthy institutions that did not necessarily need capital to participate in the program first, to remove any stigma that might be associated with a bailout. He told reporters the intervention was "what we must do to restore confidence in our financial system."
LINK
This post was edited on 9/9/18 at 9:46 pm
Posted on 9/9/18 at 9:56 pm to NC_Tigah
Fair response and you are right that certain institutions were strong armed by Paulson as that isn’t a secret. Although still doesn’t change how many institutions during that period did fail, merge or became holding companies because of the crisis.
Also still comes down to Bernanke wasn’t known for hyperbole. Given his academic background and overall his handling of the crisis and afterwards I’m going to still stick with his assessment of the severity of the crisis. I will grant you this, I would be interested to know what 12 - 13 institutions he had in mind when stating what he did.
Also still comes down to Bernanke wasn’t known for hyperbole. Given his academic background and overall his handling of the crisis and afterwards I’m going to still stick with his assessment of the severity of the crisis. I will grant you this, I would be interested to know what 12 - 13 institutions he had in mind when stating what he did.
Posted on 9/9/18 at 11:54 pm to KeyserSoze999
if obama is responsible for the economy turning around and trump's policies are the antithesis of obama's, shouldn't the economy be tanking instead of growing? trump is enacting literally the opposite of what obama did yet, the economy continues to grow. trump's policies should be undoing the progress made by obama's policies.
Posted on 9/10/18 at 12:57 am to VOR
quote:not exactly
unemployment was at a 10 year low
Posted on 9/10/18 at 1:01 am to MStant1
quote:get govt out of the way. he is doing that and it is succeeding spectacularly. obama sucked
What is Trump’s plan?
Posted on 9/10/18 at 5:07 am to bfniii
quote:
get govt out of the way. he is doing that and it is succeeding spectacularly. obama sucked
I understand the talking point, but I’m asking for specifics besides the tax bill.
Posted on 9/10/18 at 5:10 am to bfniii
quote:
not exactly
Unemployment is calculated exactly the same now as it was under Obama. So why do Trump fans praise The unemployment rate now, but still make excuses for the rate then? You can’t cal into question the validity of the calculation under Obama, and then praise Trump while using the same calculation.
Page 5 of 14
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News