3 charts to email your right wing brother-in-law

Originally posted by sh76
You mean "liberals" and "socialists" like Nixon who created SSI and Reagan who expanded social security and Medicare?

He did? Because he sure railed against its implementation.

YouTube

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
He did? Because he sure railed against its implementation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bejdhs3jGyw

Yes, he did; whether he railed against them or not.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html

Originally posted by sh76
Yes, he did; whether he railed against them or not.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html

I'll read the article later, but I don't remember him actually expanding social security. I do remember he relented to a loan from the general fund.

Nixon on the other hand was a liberal by today's standards, signing into law programs that today's Democrats wouldn't even dream of in the post-Reagan climate.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
I don't see why using 2008 as the baseline is unfair. It's when the crash took place. That's really the ONLY basis for fair comparison. Bush had years of high tech expansion from before he took office to work with.

The fact of the matter is that the economy was spiraling quickly, and the stimulus prevented a 30s type depression. It wasn't enough, and i it to the safety nets liberals and socialists fought for and passed over the past century.

You can't use 2008 because it's an arbitrary point in the Bush administration. The President's job is not solely to end on a good note. The President's job is to try to have as many good notes as possible. If the crash would have happened in 2005 and a recovery by 2008, would you completely ignore the 2005 crash in assessing Bush?

Originally posted by sh76
You can't use 2008 because it's an arbitrary point in the Bush administration. The President's job is not solely to end on a good note. The President's job is to try to have as many good notes as possible. If the crash would have happened in 2005 and a recovery by 2008, would you completely ignore the 2005 crash in assessing Bush?

Oh please! Not when he sank the whole ship!

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Oh please! Not when he sank the whole ship!

Are you saying that the "ship" would not have come back up eventually under Bush?

Originally posted by sh76
Are you saying that the "ship" would not have come back up eventually under Bush?

sure it would have.....
I look at Obama like we would if we were flying in a jet with him as the pilot. NOT enough air time to handle a difficult situation, as he now finds himself in.. and we have no way to escape.... :-(
So you just deal with it, and hope for the best. But I wouldn't get back on for another trip..... and Joe Biden as the co-pilot?? Whew...

Originally posted by sh76
Are you saying that the "ship" would not have come back up eventually under Bush?

Not if he didn't push for a stimulus plan.

Originally posted by sh76
You can't use 2008 because it's an arbitrary point in the Bush administration. The President's job is not solely to end on a good note. The President's job is to try to have as many good notes as possible. If the crash would have happened in 2005 and a recovery by 2008, would you completely ignore the 2005 crash in assessing Bush?

We're not talking about the periodic recessions that are standard fair with any economy.

This was on the level of the great depression. We're talking about something so bad the entire financial and automotive industries were collapsing. The great depression lasted 12 plus years, and you could make the case that this was as bad. Luckily we nipped it in the bud with massive stimulus and those oh so popular bailouts.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Not if he didn't push for a stimulus plan.

He would have, and both Democrats and Republicans would have been on board. Just like with the bank bailouts that were necessary.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
This was on the level of the great depression.

No.

It wasn't.

Not even close.

Originally posted by sh76
No.

It wasn't.

Not even close.

The great depression didn't get the benefit of massive bank and auto industry bailouts and a huge stimulus package on the front side. Without those I have little doubt it would have been just as bad, or at least close.

Originally posted by sh76
No.

It wasn't.

Not even close.

Absolutely the truth. First Bush 43, and then Obama used government funds irresponsibly to bail out companies that made foolish, if not criminal mistakes.

Letting them fail was and is the correct response and letting the market correct itself. This course has the advantage of setting a standard so that corporate execs know what to expect, that is nothing. The actions of both Presidents are like parents who warn their children to stop, but never follow through on their threats.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
The great depression didn't get the benefit of massive bank and auto industry bailouts and a huge stimulus package on the front side. Without those I have little doubt it would have been just as bad, or at least close.

The size of the Depression bailout attempts from both Hoover and FDR were more than comparable given the size of the economy at that time.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
The great depression didn't get the benefit of massive bank and auto industry bailouts and a huge stimulus package on the front side. Without those I have little doubt it would have been just as bad, or at least close.

Nor did they benefit from many of the economic safeguards FDR put into place, which right wingers whine about to this day.