It's official, Trump has been Acquitted

[Phase2]

 

[jamil]

Yep. Quite a bit. But it isn't clear by the comments of a few people above that they really understood what was going on back then. Doesn't matter. But there is enough historical review of the period that there really is no need to argue the matter.

So either you don’t think Bush owned it, or you think Obama DID handle it well. Neither point is supported by the graph.

 

[Alpo]

That would be a "no".

There are many more historical graphs available. I thought that chart was sufficient to prove that unemployment, as an isolated statistic, proves nothing.

This chart is probably more useful in that regard, and is a broader view of the previous chart I posted.

If you give presidents "credit" for stock market performance....which I generally don't except in special circumstances....then one might draw the conclusion that Obama created all of the conditions necessary for a continuing rise in markets and reductions in unemployment. The trend is your friend.

But that would be an oversimplification like the unemployment numbers posted above by someone who didn't look any deeper than the obvious level to support his wrong theory.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Have we ever had an impeached President, deliver the State of the Union address while he is on trial in the Senate?

Given the audience in the room will be both his prosecutors and jurors on said trial.

Yes, we have. The last President involved in impeachment.

 

[KG1]

Yes, we have. The last President involved in impeachment.

Just askin cuz I don’t know ****.

 

[Ingomike]

I can't even stand thinking about GW Bush. But do feel it is a little unfair (wish I had a better word at the moment) to say he owns the housing crisis. The crisis was a masterpiece created by both parties, dems in the name of easy loans for the unqualified and repubs as a sop to Wall Street with the backing of gov bailouts. No one politician owns this, they all did it. Hell have a prosecutor go all RICO on them.

The truth is even if GWB wanted to he had no switch on this train track. The hole shebang started shortly after the S&L crisis with loosening loan requirements a little at a time over the years. No president was going to take that on and be the bad guy that stopped millions from getting a home loan...

 

[BugI02]

That would be a "no".

There are many more historical graphs available. I thought that chart was sufficient to prove that unemployment, as an isolated statistic, proves nothing.

This chart is probably more useful in that regard, and is a broader view of the previous chart I posted.

If you give presidents "credit" for stock market performance....which I generally don't except in special circumstances....then one might draw the conclusion that Obama created all of the conditions necessary for a continuing rise in markets and reductions in unemployment. The trend is your friend.

But that would be an oversimplification like the unemployment numbers posted above by someone who didn't look any deeper than the obvious level to support his wrong theory.

I'm sure it's totally a coincidence, but I'm seeing an unattributed chart that takes as it's zero point not Obama's inauguration but the absolute market low that occurs months later and displays not raw data but datapoints as percentages of change relative to that [STRIKE]arbitrarily[/STRIKE] carefully chosen initial point

In this as in all things, the need to 'interpret' or massage the data for the reader's consumption should be held as suspicious

Figures lie, and ...

 

[jamil]

That would be a "no".

There are many more historical graphs available. I thought that chart was sufficient to prove that unemployment, as an isolated statistic, proves nothing.

This chart is probably more useful in that regard, and is a broader view of the previous chart I posted.

If you give presidents "credit" for stock market performance....which I generally don't except in special circumstances....then one might draw the conclusion that Obama created all of the conditions necessary for a continuing rise in markets and reductions in unemployment. The trend is your friend.

But that would be an oversimplification like the unemployment numbers posted above by someone who didn't look any deeper than the obvious level to support his wrong theory.

I don't think I was saying what you might have thought I said. I have long believed that presidents don't impact economies much, or at least enough to claim credit or deserve blame. However as you say, in special circumstances, certain policies, reactions to events, signaling, etcetera, can have short and long term effects. So on that we agree.

I do think that Bush deserves some blame for expanding the Democratic wet dream policies of guaranteeing loans for people who couldn't afford them, which was a big contributor of the crashing housing bubble. There wouldn't have been the bad loans to embed if the bad loans hadn't been made and guaranteed in the first place. And that led to a cascading effect throughout the rest of the economy. I think there were signs that the economy was slowing down, and we'd have hit a recession anyway, but the housing crash made whatever would have happened much worse.

My other comment was that Obama didn't help the recovery as much as he could have. A mountain of regulations doesn't encourage economic growth. An adversarial relationship with small businesses doesn't encourage economic growth. I recall that Obama said at the beginning, as he talked about his regulatory policies that the days of 3% growth were over, and that we should get used to 1-2% growth. In that respect, I think Trump deserves some credit to the extent that deregulation has made it easier for businesses to grow. Obamacare had an impact on that.

 

[BugI02]

Yep. Quite a bit. But it isn't clear by the comments of a few people above that they really understood what was going on back then. Doesn't matter. But there is enough historical review of the period that there really is no need to argue the matter.

Why not use U3, the more commonly accepted number (unemployment only, not the even more subjective underemployment). According to U6, a -studies graduate working as a barista is underemployed but we both know that such is likely to be their natural level for some time to come

 

[jamil]

I can't even stand thinking about GW Bush. But do feel it is a little unfair (wish I had a better word at the moment) to say he owns the housing crisis. The crisis was a masterpiece created by both parties, dems in the name of easy loans for the unqualified and repubs as a sop to Wall Street with the backing of gov bailouts. No one politician owns this, they all did it. Hell have a prosecutor go all RICO on them.

The truth is even if GWB wanted to he had no switch on this train track. The hole shebang started shortly after the S&L crisis with loosening loan requirements a little at a time over the years. No president was going to take that on and be the bad guy that stopped millions from getting a home loan...

I think it's fair to say, when a party in power creates policies, which their executives and representatives implement that are damaging, they own that damage. It's also fair to say that when another party has control, and has the power to remove those destructive policies, and not only does not remove them but expands them, they now own the damage that comes about from it. I remember Bush's driveling speech where again he invoked "compassionate conservatism" to expand the dream of owning a home to people who couldn't afford it. He blamed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae "cooking the books", as if those loans weren't doomed to fail anyway. Embedding those bad loans with good loans only hid the problem longer, but it would never have happened if he hadn't expanded a bad policy in the first place. So yeah. I think Bush owned that.

 

[Dead Duck]

I would add this to all the President blaming crap....

September 11th, 2001 screwed everything up for all of us across the board. I don't care who was in power at that time, they were doomed regardless of how they handled it. I wouldn't have wished that on any US President ever.

 

[BugI02]

I don't think I was saying what you might have thought I said. I have long believed that presidents don't impact economies much, or at least enough to claim credit or deserve blame. However as you say, in special circumstances, certain policies, reactions to events, signaling, etcetera, can have short and long term effects. So on that we agree.

I do think that Bush deserves some blame for expanding the Democratic wet dream policies of guaranteeing loans for people who couldn't afford them, which was a big contributor of the crashing housing bubble. There wouldn't have been the bad loans to embed if the bad loans hadn't been made and guaranteed in the first place. And that led to a cascading effect throughout the rest of the economy. I think there were signs that the economy was slowing down, and we'd have hit a recession anyway, but the housing crash made whatever would have happened much worse.

My other comment was that Obama didn't help the recovery as much as he could have. A mountain of regulations doesn't encourage economic growth. An adversarial relationship with small businesses doesn't encourage economic growth. I recall that Obama said at the beginning, as he talked about his regulatory policies that the days of 3% growth were over, and that we should get used to 1-2% growth. In that respect, I think Trump deserves some credit to the extent that deregulation has made it easier for businesses to grow. Obamacare had an impact on that.

I would have liked to see you credit the Fed's push of investors towards risk-on investment (by pushing bond rates to record lows) as also blameworthy, as it helped create and sustain the demand for mortgage backed securities. It was the greed in the banking industry; where loans could be made, aggregated and sold without the loan originator being on the hook for the long term performance, and then using the proceeds to make even more loans, that propelled the race to the bottom on underwriting standards

 

[jamil]

I would have liked to see you credit the Fed's push of investors towards risk-on investment (by pushing bond rates to record lows) as also blameworthy, as it helped create and sustain the demand for mortgage backed securities. It was the greed in the banking industry; where loans could be made, aggregated and sold without the loan originator being on the hook for the long term performance, and then using the proceeds to make even more loans, that propelled the race to the bottom on underwriting standards

We were talking about the impact of presidents though. Of course the blame is spread to everyone who influenced it. For example, for showing how Bush contributed, I did not exclude what Freddy Mac/Fanny Mae did. The cluster**** was a team effort.

 

[BugI02]

We were talking about the impact of presidents though. Of course the blame is spread to everyone who influenced it. For example, for showing how Bush contributed, I did not exclude what Freddy Mac/Fanny Mae did. The cluster**** was a team effort.

I was more of a mind to point out it was Bush who lit the Bernanke and threw it into the powder magazine, and Obama just let that **** burn

 

[Alpo]

I'm sure it's totally a coincidence, but I'm seeing an unattributed chart that takes as it's zero point not Obama's inauguration but the absolute market low that occurs months later and displays not raw data but datapoints as percentages of change relative to that [STRIKE]arbitrarily[/STRIKE] carefully chosen initial point

In this as in all things, the need to 'interpret' or massage the data for the reader's consumption should be held as suspicious

Figures lie, and ...

https://cabotwealth.com/daily/stock-market/unemployment-stock-market-correlation-one-chart/

First google search for "unemployment vs s&P 2008 to 2019". As to the starting point, who gives a dang? Start it earlier or later if you want. The trend is consistent.

Your cynicism adds nothing to the conversation except snark. If that was your intent, you were successful.

 

[Alpo]

Why not use U3, the more commonly accepted number (unemployment only, not the even more subjective underemployment). According to U6, a -studies graduate working as a barista is underemployed but we both know that such is likely to be their natural level for some time to come

Add your own chart. I was objecting to the isolation of unemployment figures only. Underemployment during a recession is something to consider, methinks, rather than just pure unemployment statistics. However, I doubt, once again, that the trend lines will vary significantly. Absolute numbers for any quarter can be seasonally adjusted, etc etc. But long term trends paint a more reasonable picture, no matter what machinations occur.

If you have a chart that supports a different scenario, just click on the little icon up in the toolbar that looks like a square window and you can post an image.

 

[JAL]

Iowa Senator Joni Ernst warned Sunday that Republicans would immediately push to impeach Joe Biden over his work in Ukraine as vice president if he win the White House.

This is what occurs when the nuclear impeachment option is invoked in the manner the Three Stooges (Pelosi/Schiff/Nadler) went about it. It's become politically weaponized. This, all because the lead stooge, Pelosi, wanted to keep the Speaker's gavel. I fully expect there will be nearly immediate impeachment and continued impeachments of Biden if he becomes POTUS. Much too arrogant to even consider this.

John

 

[ArcadiaGP]

This is what occurs when the nuclear impeachment option is invoked in the manner the Three Stooges (Pelosi/Schiff/Nadler) went about it. It's become politically weaponized. This, all because the lead stooge, Pelosi, wanted to keep the Speaker's gavel. I fully expect there will be nearly immediate impeachment and continued impeachments of Biden if he becomes POTUS. Much too arrogant to even consider this.

John

And I expect people on "our side" to say it's perfectly justified and legit, unlike the one against Trump, no... this is a good impeachment we're doing against Biden, and it's totally not political.

 

[Alpo]

I wouldn't worry too much about it. If Biden gets elected, I think the democrats will control the House.

 

[Ingomike]

I wouldn't worry too much about it. If Biden gets elected, I think the democrats will control the House.

I agree, the house goes to the President in this election...