From who did Obama "inherit" the economic mess?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

On MSNBC tonight, both Chris Matthews and President Obama stated that Obama "inherited" the economic mess from the Republicans. Of course, since this was MSNBC, that statement goes completely unchallenged.

What were you doing watching MSNBC?

The United States is a democracy, not a dictatorship. The legislative branch has more influence on the legislative agenda than the executive branch.

Depends...Quite often the Executive branch is quite assertive to ensure the Congressional agenda is in alignment with the President's objectives.

Since January 2006, the Democrats have controlled the legislative branch. When they took over the legislature from the GOP in January 2006 , the Dow was at 12,600, and unemployment was at 4.6%.

Hmmm, if things were so good why did the Democrats take over the legislature?

The president (Obama), vice president (Biden) and Secstate (Clinton) were all prominent, influential senators in the majority party. As such, it seems to me that they have a great deal of ownership of economic performance since their party took control.

You're talking about 3% of the Senate...and not any of them sat on committees with direct impact to the economy.

The financial de-regulation that allowed things like derivitives, credit default swaps, and collaterized debt obligations, was passed by a republican legislature in the late 1990's, and signed into law by President Clinton.

I recall reading some time ago "The legislative branch has more influence on the legislative agenda than the executive branch." If you subscribe to this they it sounds like the GOP should be the target of your wagging finger.

Before the economy collapsed, the GOP introduced a bill that would have prevented Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from writing so many subprime mortgages. That bill was fillibustered by 2 senators named Chris Dodd and Barack Obama, 2 senators who got more campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie than anyone else.

I'm not aware of any Dem filibuster just before the economy tanked. Most of this story is from 2003-2005 and when looked at in detail reveals mistakes by both sides of the leadership. This has been discussed in detail in older threads.

The GOP, when they controlled the legislature for the 1st 6 years of the Bush presidency, allowed Bush to rack up a ton of debt. My point is, the GOP is not without fault here.

That's because despite what they pretend to aspire to, the GOP has a really chronic debt problem. Google up the rate of debt change as a percentage of GDP for the past 60 years and look at the parties in charge.

OK, what am I missing? How were the Democrats innocent bystanders to all this?

Nobody has said they were innocent bystanders...but the economy was under Bush's watch for 8 years and he left Obama with a massive recession. I'm not sure this is really in dispute.

Generally speaking, in the media Presidents get to take credit for success and blame for failures regardless of the trends or systemic actions that actually drive them. Examples of this may be the tech boom, 9/11, lack of terrorism after 9/11, the 2009 recession etc...

I work in Sales and I'll tell you the best factor that determines the success or failure of a salesperson is the TIMING of when they take their job given the product and market needs.

Look at liberal policies of taxing, spending, borrowing, and saying "yes" to every demand ever made by a labor union. What has that gotten us?

I think you confuse the word "liberal" with "irresponsible". Borrowing beyond your means isn't a Liberal tendency, it's an irresponsible tendency that both parties too often suffer from.

I don't get it, I just don't get where guys like Spence are coming from...

I come from the pragmatic center where we try to balance ideology with observation.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I come from the pragmatic center where we try to balance ideology with observation.

-spence

"The proper bafflers are the ambiguists. Their flashes of insights are frequent enough; but in the end the fog closes down. They are great ones for the facts, against the fundamentalists, and great ones of "conscience," against the cynics. They insist on the values of pragmatism against the absolutists; but they resent the suggestion that they push pragmatism to the point of relativism of moral values."
"For the pragmatists there are, properly speaking, no truths; there are only results."
-- John Courtney Murray, S.J. (September 12, 1904-August 16, 1967)

[spence]

Neat quote but it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Originally Posted by scottw

"The proper bafflers are the ambiguists. Their flashes of insights are frequent enough; but in the end the fog closes down. They are great ones for the facts, against the fundamentalists, and great ones of "conscience," against the cynics. They insist on the values of pragmatism against the absolutists; but they resent the suggestion that they push pragmatism to the point of relativism of moral values."
"For the pragmatists there are, properly speaking, no truths; there are only results."
-- John Courtney Murray, S.J. (September 12, 1904-August 16, 1967)

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Neat quote but it doesn't make a lot of sense.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

to one who claims....

I come from the pragmatic center where we try to balance ideology with observation.
-spence

it wouldn't.....

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

to one who claims....

I come from the pragmatic center where we try to balance ideology with observation.
-spence

it wouldn't.....

Not in the context you used it.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Not in the context you used it.

-spence

thanks for the chuckle this morning anyway....pragmatic center

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

thanks for the chuckle this morning anyway....pragmatic center

I think the center tends to be inherently more pragmatic by it's very nature, not in a pure sense mind you (there's still room for idealism) but with a nod to reality when illuminating a path forward.

Glad I could make you laugh.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

What were you doing watching MSNBC?


Depends...Quite often the Executive branch is quite assertive to ensure the Congressional agenda is in alignment with the President's objectives.


Hmmm, if things were so good why did the Democrats take over the legislature?


You're talking about 3% of the Senate...and not any of them sat on committees with direct impact to the economy.


I recall reading some time ago "The legislative branch has more influence on the legislative agenda than the executive branch." If you subscribe to this they it sounds like the GOP should be the target of your wagging finger.


I'm not aware of any Dem filibuster just before the economy tanked. Most of this story is from 2003-2005 and when looked at in detail reveals mistakes by both sides of the leadership. This has been discussed in detail in older threads.


That's because despite what they pretend to aspire to, the GOP has a really chronic debt problem. Google up the rate of debt change as a percentage of GDP for the past 60 years and look at the parties in charge.



Nobody has said they were innocent bystanders...but the economy was under Bush's watch for 8 years and he left Obama with a massive recession. I'm not sure this is really in dispute.

Generally speaking, in the media Presidents get to take credit for success and blame for failures regardless of the trends or systemic actions that actually drive them. Examples of this may be the tech boom, 9/11, lack of terrorism after 9/11, the 2009 recession etc...

I work in Sales and I'll tell you the best factor that determines the success or failure of a salesperson is the TIMING of when they take their job given the product and market needs.


I think you confuse the word "liberal" with "irresponsible". Borrowing beyond your means isn't a Liberal tendency, it's an irresponsible tendency that both parties too often suffer from.


I come from the pragmatic center where we try to balance ideology with observation.

-spence

Spence -

"if things were so good why did the Democrats take over the legislature?"

Read a history book. It wasn't because of the economy, it was because of the Iraq war.

"You're talking about 3% of the Senate...and not any of them sat on committees with direct impact to the economy."

Spence, please put down the Kool Aid and think straight for 2 seconds. The chairman of the house banking committee was Barney Frank, the chairman of the Senate Banking committee was Chris Dodd, both Democrats. My point was (which you carefully avoided),is that the Democrats inherited a robust, thriving economy in 2006.

"I'm not aware of any Dem filibuster just before the economy tanked. "

None of us know everyihtng. In 2006, the GOp introduced legislation to regulate Fannie and Freddie, Senators Obama and Dodd fillibustered. I doubt it would have saved the economy anyway...

"Nobody has said they were innocent bystanders..."

Please Spence. Please. Obama blames EVERYTHING on the previous administration, and has said REPEATEDLY that the previous administration (NOT THE PREVIOUS CONGRESS) drove the car into the ditch.

Spence, you're going to say with a straight face that Obama and the Dems haven't placed all of the economic blame on the GOP?

"I come from the pragmatic center where we try to balance ideology with observation. "

Thanks, I needed a good laugh. Spence, every post you have ever written can be summed up thusly:

liberal = good
conservative = bad.

The only "middle" you occupy is the middle between Ted Kennedy and Mao Tse Tung.