The 3 recessions I have lived through

[snookums1]

In the fifties I was preteen and a teen. Eisenhower, a Republican, was our president. My father was out of work, we had no electric, since we had no money to pay the bill, and lived on dry beans, powdered milk and rice.

The recession in the early eighties, Reagan-a Republican was president, I had children in school and my husband was laid off for 3 full years. It was pure hell.

Todays recession that started when Bush, a Republican, was president.

Can someone explain to me, a person that has lived during all 3, how that philosophy works for the good of this country? Because I sure can't understand it.

[Susan43]

Well, I'm not sure what philosophy you're talking about unless you mean the conservative economic philosophy. And I think we can see that it hasn't been good for the country. I honestly believe without the TARP and Stim we would be in a worse recession possibly even a depression.

[Narcissist71]

In the fifties I was preteen and a teen. Eisenhower, a Republican, was our president. My father was out of work, we had no electric, since we had no money to pay the bill, and lived on dry beans, powdered milk and rice.

The recession in the early eighties, Reagan-a Republican was president, I had children in school and my husband was laid off for 3 full years. It was pure hell.

Todays recession that started when Bush, a Republican, was president.

Can someone explain to me, a person that has lived during all 3, how that philosophy works for the good of this country? Because I sure can't understand it.

The Reagan recession was started under Carter.......I thought Carter was correct in trying to start the idea of getting off foreign oil.

The Obama recession was started under Bush......

Of course Nixon had a recession when oil prices spiked as well.....

Common Denominator is Oil Prices. IMO

[snookums1]

Well, I'm not sure what philosophy you're talking about unless you mean the conservative economic philosophy. And I think we can see that it hasn't been good for the country. I honestly believe without the TARP and Stim we would be in a worse recession possibly even a depression.
I am talking about the conservative philosophy. Every time it has been used, it has led our country to a recession. Why don't they realize that?

[snookums1]

The Reagan recession was started under Carter.......I thought Carter was correct in trying to start the idea of getting off foreign oil.

The Obama recession was started under Bush......

Of course Nixon had a recession when oil prices spiked as well.....

Common Denominator is Oil Prices. IMO If it started under Bush, why call it the Obama recession? He inherited it and is trying to bring it under control.

[Susan43]

I am talking about the conservative philosophy. Every time it has been used, it has led our country to a recession. Why don't they realize that?

Plenty of people do realize that. But you have to give the RW credit for good PR and they are great at being loud. They keep saying the same things over and over until people believe them.

I mean really, they have been saying that cutting taxes brings more money into the treasury and creates jobs and yet we can see that it's just a big, fat lie by just checking out the numbers for the big tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Even Reagan ended up raising taxes for pete's sake.

But when you listen to the GOP right now all you hear is cut taxes, cut taxes, when we need jobs. I know I've posted this before but during the Clinton years 23 Million jobs were created. During the Bush years it was 3 Million, even with the big tax cuts. I can't understand why people who see those figures can't see that more then just tax cuts are needed.

[Narcissist71]

If it started under Bush, why call it the Obama recession? He inherited it and is trying to bring it under control.

Same reason you called it the Reagan recession...I dislike Reagan, but he inherited what he got from Carter which was high gas prices and high inflation. (sorry changed interest rates, though they were high, to inflation.)

I'm not defending Reagan and I thought Carter was on the right track with Energy Independence.

But it is what it is.

[watcher2005]

I am talking about the conservative philosophy.


And what is conservative philosophy? If it means smaller, more locally based government, less spending, and less intrusion into private lives--- Bush was something other than conservative.

[snookums1]

Plenty of people do realize that. But you have to give the RW credit for good PR and they are great at being loud. They keep saying the same things over and over until people believe them.

I mean really, they have been saying that cutting taxes brings more money into the treasury and creates jobs and yet we can see that it's just a big, fat lie by just checking out the numbers for the big tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Even Reagan ended up raising taxes for pete's sake.

But when you listen to the GOP right now all you hear is cut taxes, cut taxes, when we need jobs. I know I've posted this before but during the Clinton years 23 Million jobs were created. During the Bush years it was 3 Million, even with the big tax cuts. I can't understand why people who see those figures can't see that more then just tax cuts are needed.
The way Reagan got out of the recession was by raising taxes. Not the other way around.

[Narcissist71]

The way Reagan got out of the recession was by raising taxes. Not the other way around.

Actually I think that Reagan got out of the recession by spending lots of money......

ironic.....

and he said a deficit means nothing.

[Susan43]

Actually I think that Reagan got out of the recession by spending lots of money......

ironic.....

and he said a deficit means nothing.

I honestly don't know, I've never done any research on it. But that would make sense to me. To stimulate the economy he spent money...that makes a lot of sense to me.

[MiamiNice1]

In the fifties I was preteen and a teen. Eisenhower, a Republican, was our president. My father was out of work, we had no electric, since we had no money to pay the bill, and lived on dry beans, powdered milk and rice.

The recession in the early eighties, Reagan-a Republican was president, I had children in school and my husband was laid off for 3 full years. It was pure hell.

Todays recession that started when Bush, a Republican, was president.

Can someone explain to me, a person that has lived during all 3, how that philosophy works for the good of this country? Because I sure can't understand it.

I agree with Narcissist71........his posts are accurate.

It would be nice if you did a little research before posting unsubstantiated musings.

imo

[Narcissist71]

I honestly don't know, I've never done any research on it. But that would make sense to me. To stimulate the economy he spent money...that makes a lot of sense to me.

Problem is that after spending lots of money we had a big time crash in 1987.

And I believe at that point he did relent and raise taxes.

Of course Reagan was the champion of Voodoo Economics as Bush Sr. called it.

And Reagan did cause a big spike in the national deficit by cutting taxes on the rich while spending on extravagant projects that never panned out while cutting government spending on social programs, and breaking unions like air traffic controllers.

[snookums1]

Actually I think that Reagan got out of the recession by spending lots of money......

ironic.....

and he said a deficit means nothing. He also raised taxes and that also helped.

[Susan43]

And what is conservative philosophy? If it means smaller, more locally based government, less spending, and less intrusion into private lives--- Bush was something other than conservative.

Smaller government huh? Like the FDA, CDC, USDA? You mean like that? Because that is what Bush was doing. All the agencies that were designed to protect the consumers were allowed to get smaller with less inspectors.

Having good sized, workable agencies doesn't mean that they will intrude into your life unless you want to sell tainted pistachios or spinach with e. coli.

IMO there are some things that it takes the federal government to do. Like help us after earthquakes or hurricans. Or make sure our meat and vegetables are clean and healthy. And make sure that if we import dog food that it doesn't kill our pets.

I see people say, all the time, they want less government but I rarely see anyone say where they want it smaller.

[Narcissist71]

Smaller government huh? Like the FDA, CDC, USDA? You mean like that? Because that is what Bush was doing. All the agencies that were designed to protect the consumers were allowed to get smaller with less inspectors.

Having good sized, workable agencies doesn't mean that they will intrude into your life unless you want to sell tainted pistachios or spinach with e. coli.

IMO there are some things that it takes the federal government to do. Like help us after earthquakes or hurricans. Or make sure our meat and vegetables are clean and healthy. And make sure that if we import dog food that it doesn't kill our pets.

I see people say, all the time, they want less government but I rarely see anyone say where they want it smaller.

Well I want to see smaller government.....

I'm not going to say I don't want the FDA.......but I don't want the FDA if they can't do the job that they are supposed to do. I want efficiency in any agency of the government. If they can't do the job then I don't care to fund them.

I hope that makes sense.

I don't need the Department of Insurances if they are out to protect Insurance Companies.

I don't need the FDA if they are out to protect the drug companies when those drug companies sell a drug that they know or haven't the manpower to know is dangerous to consumers.

I don't need a law passed that outlaws to protect me from Canadian drugs yet allows Companies to import drugs from China that have a pattern of being dangerous to consumers.

Again I hope that makes sense......lets figure out what is important and fund those government programs instead of all these half-@$$ government agencies that claim they don't have the resources when they don't do their jobs.

[snookums1]

Well I want to see smaller government.....

I'm not going to say I don't want the FDA.......but I don't want the FDA if they can't do the job that they are supposed to do. I want efficiency in any agency of the government. If they can't do the job then I don't care to fund them.

I hope that makes sense.

I don't need the Department of Insurances if they are out to protect Insurance Companies.

I don't need the FDA if they are out to protect the drug companies when those drug companies sell a drug that they know or haven't the manpower to know is dangerous to consumers.

I don't need a law passed that outlaws to protect me from Canadian drugs yet allows Companies to import drugs from China that have a pattern of being dangerous to consumers.

Again I hope that makes sense......lets figure out what is important and fund those government programs instead of all these half-@$$ government agencies that claim they don't have the resources when they don't do their jobs.I understand exactly what you are saying. The agencies that we need to protect the people have been cut. The agencies we do not need, have grown. For instance, anyone that makes out of country calls is now in a data base and considered a possible terrorist. I have family that live outside the country. Yet protection of our health and well being has been cut. Strange way to look out for the people.

[snookums1]

Smaller government huh? Like the FDA, CDC, USDA? You mean like that? Because that is what Bush was doing. All the agencies that were designed to protect the consumers were allowed to get smaller with less inspectors.

Having good sized, workable agencies doesn't mean that they will intrude into your life unless you want to sell tainted pistachios or spinach with e. coli.

IMO there are some things that it takes the federal government to do. Like help us after earthquakes or hurricans. Or make sure our meat and vegetables are clean and healthy. And make sure that if we import dog food that it doesn't kill our pets.

I see people say, all the time, they want less government but I rarely see anyone say where they want it smaller.
Susan, it has become that money means more than people. The agencies that protect people have been cut to the place where they do not have the manpower to check on peanuts, or dog food or contaminated vegies. But the agencies that look into our private lives have been enhanced. That needs to stop.

[Narcissist71]

I understand exactly what you are saying. The agencies that we need to protect the people have been cut. The agencies we do not need, have grown. For instance, anyone that makes out of country calls is now in a data base and considered a possible terrorist. I have family that live outside the country. Yet protection of our health and well being has been cut. Strange way to look out for the people.

Well I'm glad you understand what I'm saying. We may disagree on where to shrink government, but I think it's time to have a national forum to discuss this issue instead of the millions of agency that don't or can't do the job on the whim of the politicians that created them.

[Narcissist71]

Susan, it has become that money means more than people. The agencies that protect people have been cut to the place where they do not have the manpower to check on peanuts, or dog food or contaminated vegies. But the agencies that look into our private lives have been enhanced. That needs to stop.

Well the USDA and FDA has complained since I was in grade school about not having the resources to do their job....which was in the late 1970's.....it hasn't gotten better IMO.

Politicians create these supposed "protection agencies" at a whim and it's just a waste of money.

Not saying to do away with the USDA, or FDA......but I am saying to do away with them if they can't do their jobs.

I'd like limited government and swing the pendulum of power back in the States hands.

[watcher2005]

Smaller government huh? Like the FDA, CDC, USDA? You mean like that? Because that is what Bush was doing. All the agencies that were designed to protect the consumers were allowed to get smaller with less inspectors.

Having good sized, workable agencies doesn't mean that they will intrude into your life unless you want to sell tainted pistachios or spinach with e. coli.

IMO there are some things that it takes the federal government to do. Like help us after earthquakes or hurricans. Or make sure our meat and vegetables are clean and healthy. And make sure that if we import dog food that it doesn't kill our pets.

I see people say, all the time, they want less government but I rarely see anyone say where they want it smaller.


That is a question of the agencies doing what they are supposed to do or not, not the overall size, or intrusiveness of government. Federal spending in Bush's last year (before the bailout is even counted) increased by 25%. If you throw in the bailout, of course, the figures go astronomical.

"Federal spending soars 25% before bailout,"
By Jon Ward | Tuesday, December 16, 2008, Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/16/spending-soars-25-before-bailout/

But it didn't start with just the "downturn" days.

This article from 2004 shows that it had been going on long before.--- "Under Bush, Federal Spending Increases at Fastest Rate in 30 Years"

(C) 2004 The Independent Institiute

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31


Then add the non-financial matters, such as No Child Left Behind, Patriot 1 & 2, The New Freedom Initiative, warrantless wiretapping, tsars, livestock RFID implanting, REAL national ID mandates on the states. I mean so much, that it would take days to gather it all up. The idea that Bush shrank government is not supportable by the facts.

[Susan43]

That is a question of the agencies doing what they are supposed to do or not, not the overall size, or intrusiveness of government. Federal spending in Bush's last year (before the bailout is even counted) increased by 25%. If you throw in the bailout, of course, the figures go astronomical.

"Federal spending soars 25% before bailout,"
By Jon Ward | Tuesday, December 16, 2008, Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/16/spending-soars-25-before-bailout/

But it didn't start with just the "downturn" days.

This article from 2004 shows that it had been going on long before.--- "Under Bush, Federal Spending Increases at Fastest Rate in 30 Years"

(C) 2004 The Independent Institiute

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31


Then add the non-financial matters, such as No Child Left Behind, Patriot 1 & 2, The New Freedom Initiative, warrantless wiretapping, tsars, livestock RFID implanting, REAL national ID mandates on the states. I mean so much, that it would take days to gather it all up. The idea that Bush shrank government is not supportable by the facts.


Who said he shrank the government? Not me. But I am saying that under his watch the agencies that were put into place to protect us like the FDA and such were allowed to atrophy. So, when I see someone say they want smaller government I always wonder where they want to shrink it.

[Banditta]

In the fifties I was preteen and a teen. Eisenhower, a Republican, was our president. My father was out of work, we had no electric, since we had no money to pay the bill, and lived on dry beans, powdered milk and rice.

The recession in the early eighties, Reagan-a Republican was president, I had children in school and my husband was laid off for 3 full years. It was pure hell.

Todays recession that started when Bush, a Republican, was president.

Can someone explain to me, a person that has lived during all 3, how that philosophy works for the good of this country? Because I sure can't understand it.


Well the republicans charge things to the future, run up huge deficits and then deny they had anything to do with it, when it comes time to pay the piper. Believe your own eyes and experience and forget the rhetorice the right pumps out to cover their ---, well try to. Now they are blaming Obama who has been in office a short time, even though George Bush ran the country for 8 years, into the ground, imo.

[Lady_Jean_La]

If it started under Bush, why call it the Obama recession? He inherited it and is trying to bring it under control.Because President Obama has to deal with it. jmo