02 Sep '11 01:04>
Originally posted by sh76He did? Because he sure railed against its implementation.
You mean "liberals" and "socialists" like Nixon who created SSI and Reagan who expanded social security and Medicare?
YouTube
Originally posted by sh76He did? Because he sure railed against its implementation.
You mean "liberals" and "socialists" like Nixon who created SSI and Reagan who expanded social security and Medicare?
Originally posted by sh76I'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.
Yes, he did; whether he railed against them or not.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html
Originally posted by KunsooYou 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?
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.
Originally posted by sh76Oh please! Not when he sank the whole ship!
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 sh76sure it would have.....
Are you saying that the "ship" would not have come back up eventually under Bush?
Originally posted by sh76We're not talking about the periodic recessions that are standard fair with any economy.
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 sh76Absolutely the truth. First Bush 43, and then Obama used government funds irresponsibly to bail out companies that made foolish, if not criminal mistakes.
No.
It wasn't.
Not even close.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThe size of the Depression bailout attempts from both Hoover and FDR were more than comparable given the size of the economy at that time.
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 USArmyParatrooperNor did they benefit from many of the economic safeguards FDR put into place, which right wingers whine about to this day.
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.