Trump's Stock Market - Maxine Waters

[rogue06]

We had the worst recession in the post WW2 era, worst since the depression.

The "pundits" that the media trotted out in 1994 assured us of the same thing.

The recession of the late 70s early 80s brought us double digit unemployment, double digit inflation and interest rates over 20% and yet soon after the economy was recovering at a phenomenal pace.

Did you think this was going to be the fastest recovery? Why wouldn't you expect the worst recession to have the slowest recovery? Please step out of your echo chamber.

Just a standard one. Two years or less. Even four would have been acceptable. But now same of the same experts who told us how the 1994 recession was the worst since the Great Depression when it barely registered a blip (we were already recovering at the time anyone really noticed it) have been declaring that the reality is that we can never expect to see GDP rates go much higher than the anemic 1.5% average growth rate we experienced the past 8 years.

[The Thinker]

The "pundits" that the media trotted out in 1994 assured us of the same thing.

In 1994 about what? The '91 recession? You make no sense. There was no 1994 recession. We have plenty of evidence this past recession was indeed the worst since the great depression. That is not a matter of dispute.

The recession of the late 70s early 80s brought us double digit unemployment, double digit inflation and interest rates over 20% and yet soon after the economy was recovering at a phenomenal pace.

Yes, by lowering interest rates you can improve things but we're already at low interest rates. And the great recession unemployment rate peaked at 10.1% - double digit. The great recession "has been the most severe in the post-war period by many measures" according to Congressional Research Service report. "It was the longest and deepest recession of the post-World War II era."

This was the worst recession we've had, it is ignorant not to think we wouldn't also have the slowest recovery. You just want to blame Obama for everything and you're willing to lie to make that point.

Just a standard one. Two years or less. Even four would have been acceptable. But now same of the same experts who told us how the 1994 recession was the worst since the Great Depression when it barely registered a blip (we were already recovering at the time anyone really noticed it) have been declaring that the reality is that we can never expect to see GDP rates go much higher than the anemic 1.5% average growth rate we experienced the past 8 years.

Romney promised he'd get unemployment to 6% by the end of his first term. Obama got it down to 4.9% in less than that time. There was no 1994 recession. I think you've gotten your facts wrong. We have abundant data the 2007-09 recession was the worst since the great depression. Keep living in your echo chamber where facts do not penetrate.

[Jaecp]

Not to mention that we didn't have unprecedented obstruction of government that time. This would have been fixed a lot sooner, and a lot faster, if we had the stimulus that Obama actually wanted.

[One Bad Pig]

It seemed to imply more lipstick would be better.

Nah, just ackowledges that people often seem to think that more is better.

[One Bad Pig]

Not to mention that we didn't have unprecedented obstruction of government that time. This would have been fixed a lot sooner, and a lot faster, if we had the stimulus that Obama actually wanted.

You mean when the Democrats controlled the whole shebang? And then didn't even bother bringing up a budget bill for years so they could keep on spending the same amount via CRs? If you want to blame someone for "obstruction" look no further than Harry Reid.

Obama promised "shovel-ready jobs." Eventually he admitted that maybe that was an over-statement, but GWB passed a ginormous stimulus package followed shortly by Obama's even larger one. Obama's might have helped more if so much of it hadn't gone to pork projects like Solyndra. He had his chance, but squandered it.

[Jaecp]

You mean when the Democrats controlled the whole shebang? And then didn't even bother bringing up a budget bill for years so they could keep on spending the same amount via CRs? If you want to blame someone for "obstruction" look no further than Harry Reid.

Obama promised "shovel-ready jobs." Eventually he admitted that maybe that was an over-statement, but GWB passed a ginormous stimulus package followed shortly by Obama's even larger one. Obama's might have helped more if so much of it hadn't gone to pork projects like Solyndra. He had his chance, but squandered it.

Squandered what? We are objectively better off than we were when he took over. We could be significantly better if not for the obstruction. I remember when McConnel said:

You don't get to pretend that the obstruction Obama faced wasn't there or that it wasn't there from the start. Funnily enough, the autoplay then showed an interview with Newt Gingrinch over quotes of his, which he admitted to in the interview, about the plan for Republican obstruction from a meeting that took place on the day of President Obama's Inauguration. That the President has been as successful as he was at fixing things is remarkable. We're better off than we were 8 years ago, but we could be doing so much better :(

[Cow Poke]

No matter what happens or what Trump does, liberals are going to call it evil. Trump could give us another Reagan economy, and the left would still find something to complain about.

That sounds exactly like how many conservatives reacted under Obama.

But, Obama IS evil!

[Cow Poke]

We had the worst recession in the post WW2 era, worst since the depression. Did you think this was going to be the fastest recovery? Why wouldn't you expect the worst recession to have the slowest recovery? Please step out of your echo chamber.

Perhaps if he had focused on the economy first, instead of forcing his job-killing economy-sucking Obamacare down the throats of the American people, it could have been a "normal" recovery, like 2 or 3 years. Are you forgetting he's been in office for nearly EIGHT?!?!?! Perhaps you think he needs 4 more years. So, please step out of your echo chamber.


(I italicized AND bolded "your", so I win. )

[One Bad Pig]

You don't get to pretend that the obstruction Obama faced wasn't there or that it wasn't there from the start. Funnily enough, the autoplay then showed an interview with Newt Gingrinch over quotes of his, which he admitted to in the interview, about the plan for Republican obstruction from a meeting that took place on the day of President Obama's Inauguration.

Yes, it was planned from the start. Not that it much mattered as long as Obama's party had House and Senate in hand. As Obama said when the possibility of compromise was broached, "we won."

That the President has been as successful as he was at fixing things is remarkable. We're better off than we were 8 years ago, but we could be doing so much better :(

It's possible to spin things to show that we're a little bit better off, as long as you're white, and especially if you were rich in the first place. For a whole lot of people, things aren't objectively better. Of course, if Obama had had an unfettered hand, the economy would be even MORE hobbled by regulation.

[Cow Poke]

... That the President has been as successful as he was at fixing things....

He sure fixed Hillary, and the Democratic party, and the House and the Senate, and Statewide offices and governing bodies in states across America..... He's why the Democratic party is in the "fix" they're in.

[Cow Poke]

He sure fixed Hillary, and the Democratic party, and the House and the Senate, and Statewide offices and governing bodies in states across America..... He's why the Democratic party is in the "fix" they're in.

Here's some more info on what Obama "fixed".....

Republicans now dominate state government, with 32 legislatures and 33 governors

[Jaecp]

Yes, it was planned from the start. Not that it much mattered as long as Obama's party had House and Senate in hand. As Obama said when the possibility of compromise was broached, "we won."

I gotta say OBP, this seems like an extremely slanted way of describing the events. I recall numerous attempts to get Republicans to come to the table for the ACA, a bill that was already modeled after Romneycare and the Heritage Institutes original plans, and that he was rebuffed. Why would people whose whole goal was to obstruct and win the white house back after nothing happened want to play ball? And if your version of events is true, then why do we have this complicated exchange system instead of just single payer health care in the first place? Surely that's the more liberal option?

It's possible to spin things to show that we're a little bit better off, as long as you're white, and especially if you were rich in the first place. For a whole lot of people, things aren't objectively better. Of course, if Obama had had an unfettered hand, the economy would be even MORE hobbled by regulation.

Yes, you'd have to spin things to say that we're only a little better off than when Bush left office. For some reason, all those non-white people went overwhelming for the person who wanted to continue those policies. Strange, huh? If only white people are doing better, at least. And the economy is not hobbled, its continued to grow in spite of historic obstruction from a Republican party whose goal was to use those economic worries to get back into power instead of doing their jobs and getting the country back on its feet :-/

[Jaecp]

He sure fixed Hillary, and the Democratic party, and the House and the Senate, and Statewide offices and governing bodies in states across America..... He's why the Democratic party is in the "fix" they're in.

You know you're strawmanning me, right?

[Cow Poke]

You know you're strawmanning me, right?

Whatever ya say, kid.

[One Bad Pig]

I gotta say OBP, this seems like an extremely slanted way of describing the events. I recall numerous attempts to get Republicans to come to the table for the ACA, a bill that was already modeled after Romneycare and the Heritage Institutes original plans, and that he was rebuffed.

I gotta say, in return, that I'm not sure how you can say this with a straight face about a bill which we needed to pass so we could find out what was in it. And it's not like Romneycare was a huge hit with Republicans.

Why would people whose whole goal was to obstruct and win the white house back after nothing happened want to play ball? And if your version of events is true, then why do we have this complicated exchange system instead of just single payer health care in the first place? Surely that's the more liberal option?

This way they could get the insurance companies to buy in and help craft the thing.

Yes, you'd have to spin things to say that we're only a little better off than when Bush left office. For some reason, all those non-white people went overwhelming for the person who wanted to continue those policies. Strange, huh? If only white people are doing better, at least.

That sort of thing tends to happen when the facts get heavily spun in your favor by an obliging press.

And the economy is not hobbled, its continued to grow in spite of historic obstruction from a Republican party whose goal was to use those economic worries to get back into power instead of doing their jobs and getting the country back on its feet :-/

An economy growing at the slowest post-depression rate since forever is hardly one to crow about. And generally, IMO, government intervention tends to hamper recovery more than help it. Obstruction by either party preventing intervention is fine by me.