Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I say that both Clinton and Bush hurt the economy.
Democrats claim that Clinton was great with the economy while on the other hand claiming that policies he put into place hurt the economy.
I place blame on both of them. You put blame on one of them. You are not intellectually honest.
Clinton championed policies that hurt the economy per Democrats, yet he is hailed as an economic messiah by those same people.
P.S. Speaking of Bush not fixing Clinton's mistakes even though he tried with Fannie and Freddie but the Dems in congress refused to go along at the time...I am sure you blame Obama and not Bush for the current mess....you have no intellectual honesty.
It's not "disingenuous" and "intellectually dishonest" to expect the President to do his damned job.
Clinton DID that - he made the best decisions he could based on the knowledge and information available AT THE TIME.
Bush didn't do that.
THAT'S the difference.
I don't expect the President to be omniscient, but I DO expect him to not sit on his butt and do nothing as problem unfolds before him.
Bush was a LAZY President.
Bull.
You may wish to paint that picture, but the fact is the 55+ group represents a far smaller share of the working-age population than the 16-54 age group does - that's just a fact so it's no surprise that the 16-54 age has the lions share of the folks who've left the labor force. That's the way any sensible person would EXPECT it to be and in no way, shape, or form undermines the fact that Babyboomers are entering their retirement years.
The the segment of the population over age 65 is growing 50% faster than the population as whole - that is BOUND to impact the LPR.
Ken
They are getting older but more are not retiring.
Surge In Older Workers Continues
Among current seniors, more than 16 percent were still in the labor force in 2010. That's up from about 12 percent in 1990. In demographic terms, a shift of four percentage points in only 20 years is a big deal. The trend continued in 2011, the bureau said, rising slightly to 16.2 percent.
Surge In Older Workers Continues
Among current seniors, more than 16 percent were still in the labor force in 2010. That's up from about 12 percent in 1990. In demographic terms, a shift of four percentage points in only 20 years is a big deal. The trend continued in 2011, the bureau said, rising slightly to 16.2 percent.
Sure, the percentage of seniors who still work IS rising, but it's STILL just a small minority (16%) of the seniors - meaning 84% of this very fast growing group is retired. The VAST MAJORITY of seniors retire, and the average retirement age in the US is 61 - that's up from the 57 it was 2 decades ago, but it's still short of the "SS early retirement" age of 62.
10,000 turn 65 every day. So what ?
Seniors aren't retiring. We have a record number of older Americans still working.
And you know what ?
More turn 18 each day then 65. Why isn't that just as important in the news ?
WRONG!
Yes, more older Americans ARE working - it's more than it USED TO BE, but it's still a very small minority of seniors who continue to work. Average retirement age is 61.
And yes, more turn 18 each day than 65 - so what? That's not really relevant. What's relevant is that the percentage of retirees is GROWING relative to the population as a whole. Over the last decade the population as a whole (INCLUDING those folks turning 18) grew by a bit less than 10%, while the population of folks 65 or older grew by more than 15% - making them a LARGER SHARE of the population than they used to be - and that trend is excellerating.
It's not "disingenuous" and "intellectually dishonest" to expect the President to do his damned job.
Clinton DID that - he made the best decisions he could based on the knowledge and information available AT THE TIME.
Bush didn't do that.
THAT'S the difference.
I don't expect the President to be omniscient, but I DO expect him to not sit on his butt and do nothing as problem unfolds before him.
Bush was a LAZY President.
Ken
Whenever I read these threads, Dr. Krugman must channel my thoughts:
Quote:
One of the remarkable things about the ongoing economic crisis is the endless search for explanations of something that’s actually quite simple — the sluggish pace of recovery. You have a large overhang of private debt; you have a still-depressed housing sector; and you have contractionary fiscal policy. Add to this the well-established fact that recovery tends to be slow after recessions caused not by tight money but by private-sector overreach, and there’s just no mystery that needs explaining.
Yet we’ve seen an endless series of analyses declaring that there is indeed a deep mystery, and it must be Obama’s Fault. Probably the most influential of these analyses was the claim that Obama was creating “uncertainty”, and this was holding everything back.
Larry Mishel did a thorough debunking of this meme almost two years ago. And sure enough, the index of uncertainty that everyone was pointing to has plunged, with no visible boost to the economy.
Will anyone who bought into this story engage in some serious self-analysis? Why am I even asking? link
I don't think that will ever happen...No matter who is in charge.
I completely disagree.
Obama's assault on the energy industry, as well as use of administrative agencies (EPA, etc.) has outright decimated the nation's demand for skilled and professional jobs.
Once Obama's term is over, the economy will improve. Even if SHillary somehow gets in (which I hope she doesn't), it's most probable that even she knows Obama and his herd of Liberal Sycophants are total amateur tools.
All of Obama's ignorant initiatives will be dismantled, and industry and its job market will recover.
Obama's assault on the energy industry, as well as use of administrative agencies (EPA, etc.) has outright decimated the nation's demand for skilled and professional jobs.
Once Obama's term is over, the economy will improve. Even if SHillary somehow gets in (which I hope she doesn't), it's most probable that even she knows Obama and his herd of Liberal Sycophants are total amateur tools.
All of Obama's ignorant initiatives will be dismantled, and industry and its job market will recover.
Obama policy hasn't helped but we need someone to change Obama policy to remove the anti-business paths. I don't care if it's a Republican, Democrat, Whig, Federalist, Libertarian, Green Party, Socialist or Communist party candidate, I just want someone to right the ship. I will vote for anyone but Hillary. I can't trust her even more than Obama.
For such an anti-business president, Obama’s got a pretty pro-business record. Obama proposed and passed the original stimulus to include billions in tax cuts for businesses, including allowing businesses to write off 100% of the cost of any depreciable capital purchases. The American Jobs Act, which the GOP blocked, sought to halve payroll taxes on the first $5 million of a companies payroll and a complete elimination of payroll taxes on new workers or increased wages for existing workers.
Under Obama corporate profits hit all-time highs as well as their stock prices. If Obama is anti-business, he's really bad at it.
It's not "disingenuous" and "intellectually dishonest" to expect the President to do his damned job.
Clinton DID that - he made the best decisions he could based on the knowledge and information available AT THE TIME.
Bush didn't do that.
THAT'S the difference.
I don't expect the President to be omniscient, but I DO expect him to not sit on his butt and do nothing as problem unfolds before him.
Bush was a LAZY President.
Ken
My issue with the past president is not that he was lazy, he just was not the conservative he billed himself as when elected. He spent like a sailor on leave damn the consequences and certainly didn't have the right people with their eyes on finance.
This president is no better and in fact many ways worse which seems to be the trend. We're spiraling downwards in the quality of the people we're electing to office so we shouldn't be surprised at what's happening now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
