Obama has a lot of gall claiming he handed off the current recovery...

[Dawg]

there it is

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Bear Stearns collapsed in April 2008. The housing market began its steady decline in 2007. Your argument here refutes itself...

PetroPiper Picked an OPEC of Pickled Papers

Oil prices reached their all-time high in 2008 ($140 a barrel), but the petrocrat-controlled press was pressured into blaming the economic collapse on anything but that.

 

[middleview]

It got worse AFTER Obama became the front-runner:

View attachment 40147

There's the data. If you think it doesn't show that, explain why - don't claim that is doesn't show what it, well, shows.

Foreclosures tripled from 2004 to 2006. Lehman went under because of the dramatic drop in the value of mortgage backed securities. They hid $50 billion in debt in the summer of 2008...not because they thought Obama might win.

Companies did not lay people off because they were profitable, but suspected Obama's policies. They laid people off because it was becoming evident that they were losing money hand over fist. The DJIA dropped to about 6,000, the GDP dropped 8%. That was the result of 8 years of Bush administration....not the anticipation that Obama would win.

 

[middleview]

PetroPiper Picked an OPEC of Pickled Papers

Oil prices reached their all-time high in 2008 ($140 a barrel), but the petrocrat-controlled press was pressured into blaming the economic collapse on anything but that.

Foreclosures tripled from 2004 to 2006...not because of the price of oil in July 2008.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Foreclosures tripled from 2004 to 2006. Lehman went under because of the dramatic drop in the value of mortgage backed securities. They hid $50 billion in debt in the summer of 2008...not because they thought Obama might win.

Companies did not lay people off because they were profitable, but suspected Obama's policies. They laid people off because it was becoming evident that they were losing money hand over fist. The DJIA dropped to about 6,000, the GDP dropped 8%. That was the result of 8 years of Bush administration....not the anticipation that Obama would win.

Lehman was put out of business by the Fed. With all "doo" respect to your "deep understanding" of complex financial and economic matters, I think I'll go with Professor Ball's opinion on how poorly capitalized Lehman was:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bernanke-geithner-and-paulson-have-invented-alternative-history-of-lehman-collapse-professor-says-2018-07-25

And, if your simple (and I mean that in every sense of the word) "analysis" about why companies were laying off (and that they didn't fear Obama's policies), then that begs the question why they waited until after he was out of office to improve their outlook on the economy:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/15/small-business-confidence-hits-another-record-high-under-trump.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/15/small-business-confidence-hits-another-record-high-under-trump.html

You really do need to quit trying to act like you have a clue about economics...

 

[Raoul_Luke]

It got worse all over the world. The opening stages of a depression predictably take some months to unfold.

At any rate, we know that as it turns out the Obama administration was great for American business. Anyone betting otherwise lost their shirt.

Oh really? Obama?



I don't think so. You lefties really need to stop pretending like you know economics - at some point you have to realize how every time you do, I can (almost) effortlessly make you look like a complete political hack stooge.

 

[EatTheRich]

Oh really? Obama?

View attachment 40185

I don't think so. You lefties really need to stop pretending like you know economics - at some point you have to realize how every time you do, I can (almost) effortlessly make you look like a complete political hack stooge.

No capitalist economy today can possibly grow without deficit spending.

 

[Jen]

"And then the reckless behavior of financial elites triggered a massive financial crisis, 10 years ago this week, a crisis that resulted in the worst recession in any of our lifetimes and caused years of hardship for the American people, for many of your parents, for many of your families. Most of you weren't old enough to fully focus on what was going on at the time, but when I came into office in 2009, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. 800,000. Millions of people were losing their homes. Many were worried we were entering into a second Great Depression."

And with good reason!

We've seen again and again and again where the left has bleated about the massive job losses Obama "inherited." It would be wise to look under the hood of that claim. When you do so it's pretty easy to make a case that he in fact had a rather strong hand in why the decline accelerated before he entered office (and that it in fact never really "recovered" at all on his watch, but that is a subject for another thread).

Obama clearly ran on an anti-capitalist agenda (see: Joe the Plumber interchange) and one might reasonably expect businesses to anticipate the future, right? That is precisely what they do day in and day out. So how would a rational businessman react to the indications that Obama was likely going to win the election walking away? If you are thinking downsize, you are 100% correct. And what then would you think their reaction would be once he actually won? If you are thinking accelerate their downsizing, once again you are a winner! So if that, in fact, was the dynamic in place at the time, how would you expect the job loss statistics to look like for 2008? If you are thinking they would accelerate in the later months, especially in the fourth quarter, go smoke a cigar - you aced the exam.

Furthermore, job losses accelerated sharply over the course of the year, with an average of 216,000 jobs lost per month over the year but an average of 510,000 lost per month in the last three months…

View attachment 40137

https://www.epi.org/publication/job_losses_ballooned_in_final_quarter_of_2008/

So whenever you hear anyone, including Obama saying he "inherited" the massive job losses, the fact is that this is propaganda. No one (even a lefty) can argue that businesses would simply ignore the looming changes in the economic environment stemming from a Presidential election until after the inauguration. And, in looking at Obama's campaign platform, what did they see:

We will start by renewing the American Dream for a new era – with the same new hope and new ideas that propelled Franklin Delano Roosevelt towards the New Deal…

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=78283

They would clearly be justified, based on that passage in the preface to Obama's platform, in anticipating a pretty crappy economic agenda, along the lines of FDR's interventionism on steroids that caused the Great Depression. And, indeed, they would rationally fear another economic depression stemming from a President (fundamental transformation) Obama's efforts to emulate FDR. And that is exactly what they got.

Obama didn't "inherit" 750,000 a month job losses - he CAUSED them!

Obama is a liar and a phony so that's the sort of smarmy thing we should expect.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Foreclosures tripled from 2004 to 2006...not because of the price of oil in July 2008.

If that was such a big cause of the bad economy, then why didn't Obama fix it?

https://mises.org/wire/2016s-homeownership-rate-was-lowest-1965

 

[RickWA]

If that was such a big cause of the bad economy, then why didn't Obama fix it?

https://mises.org/wire/2016s-homeownership-rate-was-lowest-1965

Uh oh. Any citation of the Austrian School and/or Von Mises makes the collectivist Keynesian marxist hordes go bonkers...and DON'T get them started on Milton Friedman/Chicago either...

 

[Raoul_Luke]

No capitalist economy today can possibly grow without deficit spending.

Seriously, you are a proponent of communism, an economic system that has led to the torturous death of over a billion people, attempting to impugn capitalism, which has lifted at least a billion people to unparalleled prosperity. I certainly don't feel the need to go beyond pointing that out to debate you on this. The idea would be patently laughable, if it only weren't for all those dead souls...

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

Truly deplorable fiction.

No sane person denies that Obama inherited near-depression conditions, including a complete collapse in the jobs market. But Trump zombies are happy to deny it.

And then we have the “fall back fantasy” - the fiction that the economy collapsed because people knew Obama would be the next president. Of course, nobody knew that. But more to the point, it’s pretzel logic - the economy only started recovering after Obama came into office, followed by a record shattering streak of economic growth and jobs growth. An ever-growing economy that Obama bequeathed to Trump.

Trump zombies sure do hate reality. It just doesn’t square with everything they’ve been programmed to say.

obama didn't inherit anything he helped to create it in 2007

 

[Dawg]

Foreclosures tripled from 2004 to 2006. Lehman went under because of the dramatic drop in the value of mortgage backed securities. They hid $50 billion in debt in the summer of 2008...not because they thought Obama might win.

Companies did not lay people off because they were profitable, but suspected Obama's policies. They laid people off because it was becoming evident that they were losing money hand over fist. The DJIA dropped to about 6,000, the GDP dropped 8%. That was the result of 8 years of Bush administration....not the anticipation that Obama would win.

MV

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

It’s amazing.

We tell them in advance that their foolish deregulation of banking institutions will ultimately collapse the economy, it happens, and then they deny that it happened. It happened with the S&L’s in the 1980’s, and it happened again with the big banks in 2007-2008.

We predict the future more accurately than wingers can perceive the past.

What specifically did obama do that create this booming economy that we could not see signs of it when he was president?

 

[middleview]

If that was such a big cause of the bad economy, then why didn't Obama fix it?

https://mises.org/wire/2016s-homeownership-rate-was-lowest-1965

it was certainly a big reason for the derivatives crash....why didn't Bush do something to prevent it? See, that would be the question I'd expect from a non-partisan....The fix is a whole lot more complicated...

 

[middleview]

Seriously, you are a proponent of communism, an economic system that has led to the torturous death of over a billion people, attempting to impugn capitalism, which has lifted at least a billion people to unparalleled prosperity. I certainly don't feel the need to go beyond pointing that out to debate you on this. The idea would be patently laughable, if it only weren't for all those dead souls...

just curious. what capitalist economy is not running a deficit today?

 

[middleview]

Lehman was put out of business by the Fed. With all "doo" respect to your "deep understanding" of complex financial and economic matters, I think I'll go with Professor Ball's opinion on how poorly capitalized Lehman was:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bernanke-geithner-and-paulson-have-invented-alternative-history-of-lehman-collapse-professor-says-2018-07-25

And, if your simple (and I mean that in every sense of the word) "analysis" about why companies were laying off (and that they didn't fear Obama's policies), then that begs the question why they waited until after he was out of office to improve their outlook on the economy:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/15/small-business-confidence-hits-another-record-high-under-trump.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/15/small-business-confidence-hits-another-record-high-under-trump.html

You really do need to quit trying to act like you have a clue about economics...

So you do know just how accurate "online polls" are, right? How about this one...it is a real poll, not one that is based on who ever stumbles on it on their web site...

Lehman was under capitalized because they were over leveraged. That is not the fault of the Fed. It was the fault of Lehman's management. They had a deal with the South Koreans, but Fuld insisted they take Lehman's real estate junk because he stood to lose a lot of money. They hid $50 billion in debt using Repo 105 to temporarily transfer debt off their books...and they got caught. They spent $2.5 billion to look good for their yearly audit.

You and professor Ball want to blame the fed? Go ahead. It doesn't change the facts....

 

[Dawg]

What specifically did obama do that create this booming economy that we could not see signs of it when he was president?

his Legacy

 

[Raoul_Luke]

So you do know just how accurate "online polls" are, right? How about this one...it is a real poll, not one that is based on who ever stumbles on it on their web site...

Lehman was under capitalized because they were over leveraged. That is not the fault of the Fed. It was the fault of Lehman's management. They had a deal with the South Koreans, but Fuld insisted they take Lehman's real estate junk because he stood to lose a lot of money. They hid $50 billion in debt using Repo 105 to temporarily transfer debt off their books...and they got caught. They spent $2.5 billion to look good for their yearly audit.

You and professor Ball want to blame the fed? Go ahead. It doesn't change the facts....

Okaaay, so consumer confidence ALSO takes a big jump just as Trump takes office (probably because of the quality of the jobs being created leading to higher incomes), and your point is...?

I would posit that these sharp increases in business and consumer confidence as Trump was taking over from Obama are the mirror (read: reversed) image of the worsening declines as Obama was in the process of taking over from Bush. So thanks for helping me make my point.

The fact here is that Lehman's bankruptcy was forced on it by the three stooges - Bernanke, Paulson and Geithner, and therefore shouldn't have occurred. And that is why the credit markets locked up and the banking crisis intensified (not all that anti-capitalist nonsense you have repeatedly spewed about the evil bankers and deregulation).

Ball's take is precisely in sync with my claim that the government screwed up by bailing out Bear Stearns and then deciding not to do the same for Lehman, which created the mother of all market uncertainty, thereby leading to the situation where nobody knew the value of anybody else's collateral (because it depended on the whim of the government regulators, rather than being market determined). So what I have been saying all along about this has now been backed up by the exhaustive (and disinterested) examination by Professor Ball. And, as is typical, you claim it doesn't have any bearing on your "evils of capitalism" line of reasoning.

Which only proves one thing - you don't even understand this subject matter well enough to know Ball just blew a huge gaping hole in your (official government propaganda supported) narrative.

 

[RickWA]

Okaaay, so consumer confidence ALSO takes a big jump just as Trump takes office (probably because of the quality of the jobs being created leading to higher incomes), and your point is...?

I would posit that these sharp increases in business and consumer confidence as Trump was taking over from Obama are the mirror (read: reversed) image of the worsening declines as Obama was in the process of taking over from Bush. So thanks for helping me make my point.

The fact here is that Lehman's bankruptcy was forced on it by the three stooges - Bernanke, Paulson and Geithner, and therefore shouldn't have occurred. And that is why the credit markets locked up and the banking crisis intensified (not all that anti-capitalist nonsense you have repeatedly spewed about the evil bankers and deregulation).

Ball's take is precisely in sync with my claim that the government screwed up by bailing out Bear Stearns and then deciding not to do the same for Lehman, which created the mother of all market uncertainty, thereby leading to the situation where nobody knew the value of anybody else's collateral (because it depended on the whim of the government regulators, rather than being market determined). So what I have been saying all along about this has now been backed up by the exhaustive (and disinterested) examination by Professor Ball. And, as is typical, you claim it doesn't have any bearing on your "evils of capitalism" line of reasoning.

Which only proves one thing - you don't even understand this subject matter well enough to know Ball just blew a huge gaping hole in your (official government propaganda supported) narrative.

Yep. Middleview is a paid DNC surrogate. You will get nothing from him other than HQ-issued talking points.