Economist and former labor secretary Robert Reich offered some insight into the Republican orthodoxy Tuesday night on The Ed Show.
“They are telling big lies," he said. "They tell those big lies over and over again. They tell them on every media outlet they possibly can … And those big lies are, again, corporations need tax cuts. The rich need tax cuts. Trickle down economics works. And nothing that Obama wants to do, and nothing that common sense dictates we do right now, is necessary.”
Corporations are currently sitting on between $1 and 2 trillion dollars, and the median net worth of families in the United States has collapsed to 1992 levels. Meanwhile, US companies face the the sixth-highest effective corporate tax rate in the world, contrary to frequent Republican claims. The idea that corporations need more money or relief from crushing taxes and regulations, Reich says, "is laughable."
"When the middle class has enough money in their pockets to spend, that’s when business say, 'Yes, now we have to expand, now we have to hire more people,'" Reich said. "But it's not until the middle has enough money to spend that we get that response from the private sector. And anybody who says any differently just doesn't know anything about the economy."
Leave a Comment:
This guy is still as irrelevant as when he was in the Labor dept.
Well, that explains a whole lot about what you understand of macro economics. You just publicly called an accomplished person irrelevant and never bothered to explain why!
the irreverant guy must be one of those "big liars" or just totally unaware of what's going on
Brad- you are confused. There is a difference between being irrelevant and understanding macro economics. Reich may very well understand, or may not. But he is still irrelevant.
As to the why? I was a labor professional during the time he was Labor Chief. Goofy is a good way to categorize him and his concepts.
Rusty, you don't really explain how it is "goofy" to state that the middle class needs more purchasing power to stimulate demand to bring the US out of recession. It seems like common sense, as there is no way the rich can generate the needed demand on their own. You show disdain for Reich because he is irrelevant. If he is irrelevant and right, as appears to be the case, then it is a sad fact, and there is no reason to denigrate him, as the fools are those who do not listen to him. If you think he is irrelevant and wrong, as it is rather clear you do, then you are the worse off for it.
What would he know about "big" lies? Then again, I guess big is relative when you're vertically challenged.
Vatican, Is that all you got? A juvenile remark about a man's height, as if that is the measure of his intellectual integrity?
I thought you would appreciate such comments since you all attack Conservatives, e.g., Michele Bachman's eyes, etc. based on how they look; sinking to your level for a few minutes. I'm back though. :-)
Once again we see a tea bagging republican who just can't grasp that Moon Bat gets attacked because of the stupidity that comes out of her mouth. But leave it to vat to not get that Moon Bats eyes show the level of stupidity and insanity the woman has, she has that deer caught in the head lights look going on that so many people in mental hospitals share. Pointing that out is not an attack it is an observation of a person who has bats in her belfry which comes shining out of her eyes. But then you can bet vat finds her attractive so he ignores her insanity.
I arrest my case. Thank you wacky 'foreigner' for supporting my thesis on a liberal blog. Too easy! :-)
What case is that? That you are just another tea bagging loser employed by the Koch brothers we already knew that. It isn't our fault that you chose women that are nuttier then grandmas fruit cake.
Robert Reich is one of the best economists in the world and it is better by far to be "vertically challenged" than intellectually challenged.
You can't fix stupid, as I can see from both your comments.
He may be a good economist- as Warren Buffett says, there are only two economists in the world who actually can forecast the economy. They both live in Switzerland. They have opposite views from each other.
Please don't confuse my thoughts. I don't think he is a goofball because of his economic education. He is just a goofball, and would be if he ran a cooking show on tv. It's just who he is.
I would guess that the "corporate" elected officials and corporations who care ONLY about the quarterly profits would not like Robert Reich because he does such a great job educating the public! Corporations are NOT the people! And neither are the banks! I support the middle class, Obama 2012! By the way, we needed Obama Care, people forget about what the insurance companies were pulling back then, but I have not forgotten, nor will I... Again, Obama 2012!
Dona, Yes, OBAMA 2012!
The Romney/Ryan plan is so bad that the Catholic Church has said it is immoral. I agree.
dona- half right. They don't like Reich. But yur reason for dislike is silly.
Big Corp is going to bag there money because Obama doesn't know what doing. He's an Amateur. He has the highest national dept within a 3 year term in history. Every energy policy he's performed has been a total failure. He's created class war fair. He's selling out with Russia, Unemployment is running upward and still going. Pleading with Government to hire more. He's speeches the past 2 days are unclear with no real solution with a NOT MY FAULT REMARKS. He has absolutely no answer for anything.
And the Romney solutions are?
I won't waste time addressing your other varying delusions on foreign policy, spending or the economy so answer that question 'cuz I'm not interested in anything else. Answer it.
CynicalCitizen Are you a POP QUIZ King. Sounds to me you like giving questions. But can't give the answers. Are you one of the these So Called Self proclaimed Professors, you know (Oh Great Wise One.)
@Irisheagle - Care to spew any other talking points or would you care to elaborate on ANY of the claims you've just made?
No he wouldn't because that is all he knows how to do is repeat talking points and attack others, he is a good little Koch employee.
I'll be happy to respond to your mistatements. First, the three biggest contributors to the burgeoning debt are (1) Two UNFUNDED wars started by Bush costing TRILLIONS,(2) the Bush Tax Cuts which reduced revenues and resulted in nearly ZERO job growth (before and after the 3rd factor), (3) the financial meltdown/housing bubble burst which dramatically reduced revenues. Spending caused by Obama's programs is one of the LOWEST in decades.
As to "class war fair", your assertion is as ludicrous as your spelling. He's proposing we go back to the CLINTON era tax levels, not rob from the rich. You remember those years don't you? NO deficits and huge SURPLUS. The Republican policies have been class warfare actually since the Reagan era. Since his terms the Middle Class has seen NO growth in wages, massive rise in productivity resulting in massive profits to the top 1% who now claim they are the "victims" of the very thing they have been promulgating on us.
You simply spew what you hear from Fox, Rush and their ilk, neither of whom are noted for factual statements, possibly due to their close ties to the Republican establishment (Rush's an acknowledge icon of the party while Faux News is owned by Rupert Murdoch well known for his ultra-conservative views).
As to the remainder of your tripe, it's laughable and unsubstantiated so deserves no further comment. Go to the library, read some books, check some factual non-partisan sites and if you can pull your head out of the dark, post something backed by facts. Now that would be worth reading.
Cynical, #4.1 The Romney solution is all of Bush's policies on steroids. It will cause an unprecedented catastrophe in America.
It is truly a horrible document; a scary policy.
Jim Copley, Exactly so.
Oh Jimmy-boy, we are talking about a 4 % increase in the top tax rate, and you liberals act as if that is all you need to fund the welfare state you desire. The bulk of the Bush tax cuts in total went to the middle class, not the rich.
Right, Bush had two wars, but if you listen to the president you love, and objectively examin his every solution, you will realize that the country cannot possibly collect enough taxes to pay for the gargantuan government that he wants and desires.
Finally, government spending does not create prosperity as you liberals believe. Your community reinvestment act brought down this economy, not tax cuts. Obama is a socialist, and he is running toward an European cliff as fast as he can. No, before you try, there is no austerity being tried in Europe, only higher taxes, and that is our future if Omama got everything he wanted.
Know this young man, socialism has never worked, does not work, and will never work.
And then there is reality something that you tea bagging republicans avoid at all costs until you get thrown under the bus by those you adore.
Reagonomics: Obama is not a big government advocate.
http://indialecarre.newsvine.com/_news/2012/04/28/11446541-the-gop-lie-that-obama-has-grown-government
So you admit that the right comparing that small increase to stalinism or communism is melodramatic. Good.
So that would be? What is this massive government he desires specifics and real facts please. Know this old fool war is expense so tax decreases? Yeah not a good way to manage the money when you have those going on.
Really because I recall the economy going down before then? Alright moron ask yourself what was the reason for the stimulus why did they want a stimulus in the first place? Answer: financial collapse. So explain how did it brinkg down the economy that had already gone down all while showing increased temporary hiring? You might want to reconcile that belief with reality.
Do you know what austerity means? Funny since they are doing massive spending cuts.........greece? Do you not have access to what's really going on in reality? People in Europe are mad because they can't have anymore free socialist handouts.....that's what you righties believe remember?
Reagonomics.......witch doctor finances.....vaccuum up economics......republican deregulation plans failed. They are still failing. Taxes haven't gone up, we've tried the low tax solution for decade jobs and prosperity have not followed. You may deny that the bush tax structure has been in place for over a decade or that taxes have gone up. Here on planet earth, they haven't. You may pretend that too much regulation caused the financial collapse as if we had only not payed attention to those sub-prime loans and transactions we could have avoided the whole mess. Maybe on planet rockwell but on earth we most live this is not the case.
Now India let help you on the big government matter you see because Obama says he wants to cut it and because it actually has been getting cut....so subtracting a minus is plus thus he's growing the government. LMAO GOP math......
So because he says government is getting cut and it is getting cut like the republicans want he is growing it. When the GOP wants something it's conservatism and when Obama wants to do the same things the GOP wants, it's stalinism.
Jim- another way to say exactly what you've said is unfunded wars started by Bush, with the unfunding being continued by Obama, temporary tax cuts by Bush, with the majority of them made permanent by Obama and the top end of them extended as temporary, Additional tax cuts made by Obama.
Interesting how paying for war with a credit card is bad if one side does it but ignored if the other side doesn't cut up the cad and continues it. How torture is bad & detainment of terrorist is bad on one side, but plug them before they can surrender is not, how any collateral deaths is greatly publicized- at least until it is under Obama's watch. Now, those terrible things are ignored.
When the middle class does well the economy does well. Helping the middle class do well requires policies that don't cater specifically to those who are not middle class. We don't need anymore half wit republican deregulation ideas or whining the president isn't holding their hand every step they take.......we also don't need anymore democrat surrender and let them walk all over you policies
cynicalcitizen well said
cc- could you list those half wit deregulations the Republicans have passed? Billie- you could pop in with your list as well...
The tea baggers don't like Robert Reich he doesn't tell them that they will be in the 1% club.
maphi you just proved rusty and vatican wrong and that they don't have the intelligence for debates here. just want to spout off about nothing.
@Rusty and @Vatican
I appreciated your deep thinking but would like to point out the following regarding this segment on the Ed Show with Robert Reich.
I would appreciate any feedback you can give me if I get anything wrong. I obviously have a very different opinion of Robert Reich than you do.
"Corporations are currently sitting on between $1 and 2 trillion dollars" - this is not a secret - corporations report the earnings to their investors and in general they are showing record profits.
"the median net worth of families in the United States has collapsed to 1992 levels" - this is also based on real data. Just look at the drop in home values and you can see that this makes sense.
"US companies face the sixth-highest effective corporate tax rate in the world" - link to a Bloomberg article that is really quite interesting. There are 5 other countries that have a higher tax rate - Japan, Morocco, Italy, Indonesia, and Germany. The one that jumps out at me is the last one - Germany - which is the country with the strongest economy in the EU. (hmmm - interesting).
The article has a section about the VAT: "Except for the U.S., all other major industrialized countries levy value-added taxes that help cover the cost of government and are used to hold down corporate tax rates." I don't really understand what a VAT is - need to study up on that...
In the second paragraph, Robert Reich is quoted saying "And those big lies are, again, corporations need tax cuts. The rich need tax cuts. Trickle down economics works."
Corporations are making record profits, so why do they need tax cuts?
The rich are doing very, very well - not only compared to everyone else, but compared to ever - so why do they need tax cuts?
The Republicans (I assume this includes you) claim that - "Trickle down economics works". I have had many discussions with quite a few people over the years. I think I understand the theory. But I have never had anyone show me where I can find the actual data that proves this statement. Since Ronald Reagan was elected, this theory was tried several times (see below).
Since you are so convinced that Robert Reich is in your words "irrelevant", I am assuming you think this statement about supply-side economics is true.
Perhaps you can share with me what your reasoning and point me towards the evidence.
If you can't do this, I suggest you at least open your minds and think for yourself.
----------
Reagan tried Supply-side (trickle down) economics and we had record deficits, recession - he had to raise taxes and increase spending.
G.H.W.Bush continued supply-side policies and the economy struggled.
Clinton took a different approach and worked with Congress to balance the budget through tax increases and budget cuts. The economy boomed resulting in a budget SURPLUS (though this was helped by the dot.com bubble).
George W. Bush returned to Supply-side economics - slashing taxes, but then added massive spending through 2 unfunded wars and the Medicare prescription drug plan. The economy struggled and then - due to collapse of the housing market and the global financial system - the economy went into the free-fall - where we find ourselves.
All of these statements are true and can be demonstrated looking at the federal budget data freely available on the web.
----------
PS - I don't really expect a rational response, but I might not have read that Bloomberg article otherwise.
Anyone have an explanation on why Germany has the most robust economy in the EU, while having a higher corporate tax rate?
What is a VAT? Why do other counties have it and we don't? Do we want it and if not why not?
There was a study by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.
"The report may help shape the debate over rewriting the U.S. tax code. President Barack Obama has asked Congress to lower the 35 percent corporate tax rate and remove tax credits and deductions to make up for the forgone revenue."
Hmm - interesting ...
That is absolutely BS. He offered to drop it down to 28% and lose all other deduction. Absolutely not. No Deal Jack. This need to be dropped down to at least 18% for private sector stimulus growth. If Obama wasn't in political trouble he would have never made an offer like that. Your whole article is EDITED toward Liberal Perfection. Which you can't convince nor perform. Whole outline is absolutely in insane.
No insanity is when you have 34 years of economic disasters you then say well maybe we need to do more of those same failures and this time they will work. Insanity doing the same thing expecting different results. Tax cuts to the wealthy failed every time it was used to stimulate the economy, it failed in 1892, it failed in 1929, it failed in 1982 ,it failed in 1992 and it failed in 2007. Just how many times do you tea bagged republicans need to fail before you realize that your insanity is never going to do more then fail.
maphi, Excellent post!
Far as I've ever been able to see, nothing of value has ever trickled down from the wealthy; certainly not money and jobs! The wealthy invest their money. The middle class are the spenders. Lose the middle class, you're in trouble with supply and demand.
Reich is right on the money; he is an excellent economist. Granted, I am from the British, Keynesian school of economics, but I see it working, and austerity, deregulation and more tax cuts do nothing but harm.
Young Taker, the fact is, Supply side economics did work, does work, and will always work. Reagan was hood-winked into tax hikes because the Democratic congress promised $ 2 in cuts for every $ 1 tax hike. True to form, the Dems never cut a red cent ! Reagan is still waiting for the cuts !
O.K., I understand your ideology, Nanny state, the more government the better etc.. But the fact is, look no further then Europe if you want to see the future should the country adopt liberal-socialists policies to turn the economy around.
You liberals always lie about supply side economics because Reagan showed that liberalism does not work. Your doctrine is built on a house of cards, muck like the former Soviet Union.
They did not work Reagans economy didn't start improving until after he raised taxes 12 times. If he would have continued with what he had started he would have had the GWB economic disaster. Reagans policies are failures except for those who were born wealthy. 7 million more families on welfare was Reagans legacy.
and irisheagle isn't any better about his "arguments" either
maphi- long post- but I'll respond to the parts I remember.
Record corporate profits- I'm not for sure this is accurate. I understand Reich may have stated it, and I understand there are always companies hitting the sweet spot with record earnings. It is one of those statements that has no meaning. For instance, if you just add up corporate profits, and it is more than ever before, that could be correct. But, Facebook, Google, etc, are all relatively new corporations as an example so as they made zero profits 20 years ago, those numbers are incremental drivers. If you took GE plus Hewlet Packard plus Circuit City, etc and added them all up- I don't think you'd find those "records" Reich talks about. He assumes Facebook, but doesn't factor out Circuit City.
German tax rates- I don't think correlating it to being the best economy in Europe is braggable. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. Also- Germany is, as the Euro stabilizer, going to be the one thing that allows those liberal economies- Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, France, etc- to survive if they do. German people work, save, work some more and save some more- their work efforts will eventually be used to allow those who don't store away food for the winter to survive. Read Michael Lewis' book- Boomerang. Easy to read and scary.
Vat- it is a way to tax value additions in every step of the process. Used by many companies. Probably better than oour system of taxing profits no mater where they are earned. But- can anyone really tell me why it is a good thing to tax the addition of value? If a car company produces something in Mexico and sells it here, for example, the VAT process would be neutral becuase we didn't add value. We would only tax those things that were made her in America and not stuff made elsewhere. Reich, understandably, didn't tell you this. He is only interested in taxing Corporations, not in making sense. I would much prefer a National Sales tax if you need more revenue. And forget about people who say that would be regressive while they push a VAT. A VAT is probably more regressive and discourages on-shore value add. A sales tax would bring revenue, for instance, on something produced in China and sold here. A VAT would have the revenue go to China. The consumer would pay for it in either situation.
now- explain to me what trickle down economics means besides being buzz words? Explain trickle down- but when you do- think in terms of Solyndra, Construction Projects, etc. You know- where the Government pours money into the top and jobs are expected to come out at the bottom. I would imagine, if you are an Obama or Reich backer- you will defend Solyndra as an "investment in energy technology"- but money was poured in to the top of the company with the expectations that eventually jobs would come out at the bottom. Why isn't that an example of trickle down? Ditto a "shovel ready" construction project. Money is poured iinto the top, expecting jobs out the bottom.
I guess I would leave this by also repeating something you said. I don't expect any rational response to this. Most of the people on this site are just drive by shooters. Whom will pop on with a tea bag response showing stupidity, and lots of others will pop up and say- that's right- oh yea! Go Obama. You won't find much substance. I do, though applaud you and C for trying to raise the level of discussion. Even if I have fundamental disagreements with what I assume are your positions.
Forgot one thing- And Obama got this right- through Geitner. They have drastically raised the capital requirements of corporations, specifically in the finance industry in order to help buffer future shocks. It is working- look at Goldman Sachs recent huge loss. Without sufficient capital, they would have either failed or been bailed out. As such, the shareholders just took a huge hit, and deservedly so. That's the way it should be (I doubt Reich used them in his record profits calculation, either). Point being, isn't it a little disengenuous to require capital formation then ridicule corporations for capital formations? Words and phrases like these are more rhetorical and without meaning. Think about it- if corporations are really greedy (as they should be), wouldn't they actually try to make even more money? Why would they leave profits on the table and not collect them? Do you really think McDonalds, Sears, Deere, IBM, Berkshire Hathaway and GE, Google, Apple, etc are not trying to make as much profit as possible? That is what Reich is saying- all the while inferring they are greedy?
didn't figure I'd get a response. Once you get past the talking points and sound goods, the liberal agenda is fairly vaccuous
I have one point of disagreement with your statement. Germany is not doing all that well due to Angela Merkel trying to push austerity. We are trying to get her to stop going down that road, but so far no luck. Sounds like the Republican view, doesn't it? Maybe she's a closet Republican.
Germany is the only country in the EU that is not going down the tubes.
Next they started austerity over 20 years ago, that is the reason they are the country holding the EU together...
Crap.
India, it's back. So sorry.
oh stupida there you go again living up to your name. germany and all of europe is going down the drain or do you not watch real news and not that fake news channel.
Businesses have said time and time again that they will not hire until they see more consumer demand. The largest number of consumers are the middle class thus the middle class are the real 'job creators' in our economy. The wealthy like to call themselves job creators because when they are not investing in derivatives (which do not produce jobs) they are investing in new companies. However those new companies will not create long term jobs without consumers.
It is so funny when I hear people talk about how Obama doesn't know what he is doing and how he is an amateur. Have they forgotten when USA was loosing 250,000 jobs per month EVERY month for months upon months. Now we have had months of steady job growth with the exception of last month's employment report where we ONLY lost 65,000 jobs. Have they forgotten that he is President NOT KING. He can't force companies to hire more people instead of paying the CEO and top executives more money while laying off thousands of employees.
If businesses are scared to make any radical moves because of uncertainty in the economy then those business should be blaming Congress since they can't seem to pass many stabilizing bills. Republicans want to keep providing tax breaks for the wealthy while reducing social programs. Those social programs untimely turn the recipients into consumers, just what business say they need.
For the record the creation of the Dept of Homeland Security was the biggest increase in the size of the federal government in the history of the United States. That was W. Bush not Obama.
Kenny, Good post and correct. If we lose the middle class, we lose demand; supply and demand drive an economy.
you give them the what for kenny. the repukes refuse to help this country at all because they are so filled with hate, bigotry and contempt for OBAMA. well i have one thing to say to all you haters, OBAMA 2012!!!!
Billie- keep drinking the dummycrats kool-aid
I notice that the 3dr Reich never makes those rediculuos statements when he is on CNBC
do you really believe what you post stupida?
One thing says it all, Obama's Policies have led to a reduction of the Median Family Net Worth by 40% in his three years in office.How can any one in their right mind want another term for Obama. The cost of food, clothing, appliances, gas, electricity, rent, etc... is going up every minute. The Housing Market is continuing its downward spin. States continue to suffer loss revenues because of the continued high unemployment rate. Home values for those that still have then have been reduced significantly. Where would we be 5 years from now if Obama remains in office, on par with Mexico? I agree with one thing Obama has said, "Its time for Change".
Wrong again it has been the GOP failed trickle down polices that created everything you are whining about. But then again you run around the playground telling everyone your daddy has a bigger penis then their daddy's.
Wrong young Whom, your liberal community reinvestment act brought down the economy, not tax cuts.
Wrong again but you believe in he Reagan fairy tale. To bad for you that you can not rewrite history when facts show the Reagan failed and should have been impeached for his illegal drug dealing and selling arms to terrorists for hostages. Good old cut and run Reagan a legend in the minds of the delusional.
@2ez4u2c
"One thing says it all, Obama's Policies have led to a reduction of the Median Family Net Worth by 40% in his three years in office."
That's provably false. The housing bubble burst in 2008 and started the collapse of the global financial system. You are arguing that President Obama's policies led to this, except he took office in January 2009.
"The cost of food, clothing, appliances, gas, electricity, rent, etc... is going up every minute." Inflation is quite low actually - and the main driver of cost increases is the price of gas (in particular). What is more worrisome for the health of an economy is actually deflation - wrecks havoc for businesses.
"The Housing Market is continuing its downward spin." There are signs that in some markets the housing is improving, but the number of foreclosures and the number of home owners that are underwater is still a huge drag on the economy.
"States continue to suffer loss revenues because of the continued high unemployment rate. " Yes - absolutely correct.
"Home values for those that still have then have been reduced significantly." Yes - This was caused by the housing bubble that burst. A larger question that I have not heard anyone discuss is this: We know that home values increased at an unsustainable rate. That was the bubble. Then they plummeted. That was the bubble burst. When we look ahead, what can we expect? Certainly not values at the height of the bubble. Probably not at the values at the bottom. Somewhere in between?
"I agree with one thing Obama has said, 'Its time for Change'." We agree on this. However the kind of change we each envision is very different.
I suggest that the change that is needed is to end the destructive, counter-productive divisiveness and have reasonable debates that are based on facts. You can't solve problems without making changes. You can't select the best solution unless you gather and analyze the facts.
Maphi facts don't work with our tea baggers, they just ignore everything and repeat the 5 biggest lies Reagan ever said.
well said whoitmay, you can't argue with stupid. stupid is as stupida does.
Maphi, I agree the Housing Crisis started before Obama took office, however Obama has done nothing to stabilize the market. Simply re-enacting the Glass Steagall Act would have been a prudent thing to do. Abolishing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would have also been a good idea. The only thing Obama has done is attempted to buy votes with more Government Bailouts.
Of course the higher costs for every thing are related to energy costs. Remember Obama saying energy costs would shy rocket. Obama shut down oil drilling in the Gulf, denied new drilling on Federal Lands, denied the Keystone Pipe Line and then gave billions of dollars to failing Green Energy Companies, (Sunpower, Solyndra, Beacon, ERN-1, etc....) Obama's Policies are responsible for the higher costs of all goods.
As for your last comment, when you say reasonable debate are you referring to the complete exclusion of Republicans? Democrats completely shut out Republicans when developing and passing Obama Care. Transparency is non-existent in the Obama Administration, there is no debate. I can only hope that when the Republicans take the House and the Senate in November, they and President Romney will receive in put from the remaining Democrats, but so how I doubt they will.
I'm sticking with the smart guy with the heart! Obama 2012!
We need a leader in the white house, not a "smart dude with a heart" and the smart is now in question. after his statements he made last week about the private sector & the economy..
So far the "smart guy with the heart" has dropped the ball.
LOL
well i rather have a smart leader with a heart. then a dumb leader (which you cannot fine any leader that's not a little smart) that's just a puppet. hint the GOP as we see they have no leadership and that why they have no idea what to do to help America.
To say that Obama caused the 40% reduction in median family net worth is ludicrous. The recession caused it and began under Bush in 2007. That's when the bottom fell out of everything, and it was caused by the big banks gambling with our money. Silly people . . .
Michael, Absolutely. Tax cuts to the wealthy, two unfunded wars, an unfunded prescription drug plan, plus Wall Street's addiction to gambling with other people's money.
These combined to hand Obama, in 09, a big plate of sh#$! Then, if that wasn't bad enough, the GOP bigwigs got together and figured out a plan, that very night he was elected, to destroy him through obstruction and lies. They have continued with that plan.
Still blaming Bush after four years of Obama? We'll see how that works for ya in November. Obama and the DNC said they now own this economy and he promised to cut the deficit in 1/2. Nope. His administration promised unemployment would not exceed 8% if Congress passed his Stimulus, which they did. Hope. Businesses said they could grow and hire more people if Congress passed a federal budget that included tax reform and pro-business regulations. Nope. Obama is the Campaigner in Chief as he now attended 160 fund raisers vs. Bush's 80 fund raisers by this same time in their respective terms. Here's to more hope and change. :-) Even Democrats disagree with Obama.
leave it to vat to not get it, he must be dreaming of Moon Bat naked again.
Please educate me so we all understand your logic and "get it" Ha Ha. We enjoy reading the lunacy that comes from Socialists in Europe. It's music to our ears of how fringe you all are. :-) Foreigner.
First of all you must be logical to understand logic, but that requires giving up emotional outrages. You then prove that you lack logic by using a word that you have no knowledge of what the word means, Fox news sad it was a bad word and you just repeat it. The only fringe is you tea baggers with big mouths and empty heads.
nope not blaming Bush just his Recession.
thats right it was the Great Bush Recession. should have been saying this from the start!
Logic is just lost on some people. (GOP)
Bushs, fault, reagan faults, bobs faults, peters fault, steves fault, karens fault, suzy's fault, bills fault, every ones faults...
But obama's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
well no ones fault but for the Great Bush Recession!
and the fact he had his head stuck up Chaney`s fourth point of contact. LOL so maybe he didn't have anything to do with it seeing is total lack of leadership.
Guess you were not here in 9/11/2001.
GWB kept the country together....
oh STUPIDA you're getting more stupid as you go along here. get off it already.
oh and on 9/11 bush held us together for what 2 weeks then back to his i don't care about bin laden attitude. please get your facts and fairy tales straight stupid you're not winning any arguments here and i'll reiterate it again since i'm almost positive something more stupid is yet to come from your mouth, just haven't read it yet. just saying.
Not an Obama supporter- but decline in net worth did not just occur over the past three years. It started in late 05 early 06 when the housing market started to decline through the crash in 08 through today. President Obama is not in my view responsible for the decline nor for that matter is GWB.
As CC correctly notes the middle class and the consumer is the key to economic recovery. The challenge is what does economic recovery mean. The primary reason for the decline in net worth is/was the decline in housing. When you go from new housing starts of 1.4 million to just a few hundred thousand, that will have a dramatic impact on the economy. The reality is that we will not likely see those kinds of new housing starts or existing home sales that drove the economy from the mid 90's to the peak in approximately 05/06.
If the above is true, then we have a sea change in our economic system. So then what is the solution? Short term stimulas will not create the jobs lost in the housing industry. I do not know what the answer is , but it will take both Republicans and Democrats to craft some effort, which unfortunately will not happen.
I have written extensively after studying the historical record on this subject. History, basic economic concepts & assumptions, and rational thinking all support Reich's claims. Please read this one page summary of the record:
This is from my website.
Great website, huh? Anyone that defends Obama's economic plan for more stagflation, doesn't rank high on anyone's list of "leading economists". Now would the real economist please [stand up]. :-) Willy Wonka called. He said, "Get back to work!" Sing and chant some Obama songs. Right liberals?
Anyone that blames Obama for bad GOP policies and obstruction just have serious mental issues. Because they are unable to deal with reality so they make up this little fantasy world where any day now they will be in the top 1%, all they have to do is believe in Reagan.
Tell us what Obama initiatives were "obstructed" by the GOP and how those programs would help the poor and middle class. Uh oh, this may require you to think before you type. Don't hurt yourself little fella. :-) God Bless Reagan! Obama... the worst President ever.
No that would be Herbert Hoover, Reagan and your buddy GWB. You are the one hurting yourself, but then you have a history of abusing yourself. Reagan is rotting in a hole in the ground where he went after that who knows but at least now Reagan is doing something useful, he is fertilizing the ground.
Hoover raised taxes, increased import fees.
That is why the country fell into a rescission from 1930-33
In 1933 FDR wins the election thanks to JPK.
FDR keeps the height tax rates, but lowered the import fees a little bit.
FDR then put people on the government payroll and by 1936 the country fell into a rescission during the depression...
It was the build of arms that started in 38' and the eventual war that brought the country out of the depression.
High tax rates, large government programs, is why the country went through the Great Depression of the 1930's
Wrong again but then what else can we expect from the GOP who like their Ayn Rands and Bircher rewrites of history.
Look it is office record what took place in the white house and the tax rates they raised and the import fees.
Go read the Smoot-Hawley Traiff act .
Then go read The New Deal.
You liberals watch Jamie Dimon today???
Dude's a "Swinging dick American Capitalist stud"...
He made the democrats look like total imbeciles...
The one ding bat told Dimon the JPM had to take the TRAP money to stay afloat...
Wrong, JPM ws forced to take the TRAP money to make it look good for the hand full of banks that needed it...
Dimon 1, Democrats ZERO....
LMAO
Was funny, as in the end these senators were asking Jamie what the regulations should be...
no whats sad and funny is how the GOP senators
Senators Fawn Over JPMorgan CEO After Massive Trading Debacle
Did you watch the testimony?? Of coarse you didn't..
I did...Live on CNBC....
you obviously was watching a different version than the one on c-span, stupida. dimon and the repukes were the ones looking stupid again, they must be relatives of yours. nothing quite like it when you steal from your customers is there?
oh by the way it was tarp not trap, trap is where you're at in believing the repukes.
I think Jonathan Alter was off with his feedback of Obama. I am an independent Obama supporter and I love listening to Obama speak, he is on purpose. I turned in always to listen to him. We have 5 months to the election; Obama knows what he is doing. He is setting the political table at the same time he has to educate the populace to the distinctions of candidates. I do not think he was rambling; on the contrary he was deliberate. He was setting the table to maitre'd' the voters to his table. I concede his future events will be shorter and more concise...not doubt it has to. But concise with what at this stage of the game? He has to test his lines and speeches. He needed to go on in seminar fashion today for he had to get to the comparisans of candidates, tell what he accomplished and then envision going forward. Can't do that in sound bites which pundits are addicted to. I find the media impatient and minimal in their curiosity and sound bite news reporting. Jonathan Alter who I admire very much and usually agree with, is missing the point of the speech today I feel. Obama will turn the feedbck he receives from the American people on this speech, into a masterpiece...Be patient and watch. He is not listening to the media first...he is listening to the voters who count and poll feedback. The rest of the news appears sensational at times more for station ratings in my view. Patience and Peace. Obama is on the people's side...he has lived in what we now live through. He understands where he is going and what he is doing. Trust him. Thank you.