Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF
Obama has about as much to do with the drop in the market as Bush did in 2008.
|
Perhaps, but that's not the way it was presented by the Dems, was it?
In fact, some Dems have tried to call George Bush a two recession president by blaming the crash of the dotcom bubble in 2000 on him - even though NASDAQ and the NYSE both began free falling under Bill Clinton and were in nose dive when Bush took office.
Arguably, government (i.e., Obama and Congress) has more to do with the current crash than the dotcom crash. The bailouts went to the banks and to certain big companies. All efforts were made to maintain stock prices, not employment. Companies cut work force until they stopped losing money and then hoarded cash rather than investing.
All of the quantitative easing (money printing) and zero interest rates did nothing to stop that. The companies recovered, but the US worker did not. Middle class incomes are flat or shrinking, but stock prices were maintained. At least for a while.
And, oh yeah, we continued to flood our labor markets with low-skilled or no-skilled immigrants (legal and illegal). MacDonalds was lovin' it, I'm sure. But what about lower income Americans who saw wages fall, if they could get work at all? But Dems loved all the new minorities that would vote for the party of government handouts, didn't they?
Now we have to pay the piper.
We're still running huge deficits 7 years later, aren't we?
Where's my recovery, dude?