One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: Randy131
Page: <<prev 1 ... 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 next>>
Jun 2, 2015 07:12:30   #
Yeah, that was terribly that GHWB pardoned six people who were only obeying the orders of their President the term before GHWB's Presidency. Funny how you attack the Iran/Contra episode of nearly thirty years ago, but say nothing of the B******i incident that Obama was having the exact same thing being done through Libya/Syria via Turkey, which FOIA e-mails from the State Department and Hillary Clinton are proving was being done under Obama's orders, the Obama administration having to be sued for their release because Obama refused to let the State department release them. Then there are all the proven boldfaced lies that Obama has told the American people, that you also don't complain about, which is happening right under your nose, but you have to go back twenty and thirty years to complain about some things that helped our country and the world, instead of what is decimating our country and making the world so unsafe today, and allowing the genocide of Christians throughout the Middle East, Obama. Keep it all to yourself, I don't want to hear anymore of you complaining hypocrisy about what was successful and helped the USA and it's people, while the Muslim dictator in the White House is destroying the USA and it's people, while promoting Islam and importing hundreds of thousands of Muslim Jihadist refugees into the USA to threaten and k**l more Americans, while you say nothing about it.

jelun wrote:
Nice try.
The story of Iran/Contra that let the greatest American president off the hook for responsibility was the dark hole VP in the person of George HW Bush.
http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_28.htm
Go to
Jun 1, 2015 17:11:26   #
The Iran/Contra affair was under Ronald Regan's Presidency, not GWHB's Presidency, 'Read my lips, no new taxes', was a promise he failed to keep, because both Houses of Congress was controlled by the Democrats, which was about to pass a tax raise of 4 times what GWHB negotiated them down to, if he would promise to sign it, and not veto it, as they knew he would have the larger tax increase, and they didn't know for sure if they could over-ride his veto, and he didn't know if it could be sustained, so he capitulated to the Democrats lower tax increase, his war was paid for but you're scared to check out what I told you because it would prove you wrong, and what do you think he had to do with his son's Presidency, which he wasn't used in the campaign because he was beaten by the Vice President, who was running against his son, and his son wanted to win on his own merits, as being the Governor of Texas. Don't bother me any more, go ahead and revise history all you want, if anyone here doesn't already know the t***h, then they deserve to be snookered by your propagandized revision of history. Just leave me alone, for I'm tired of your BS, and your ignorance of historical events.

jelun wrote:
No thanks.
I didn't say that your figures were wrong. It could have been GHWB' gov't lying in either instance.
We know he would say anything at any point in time to get what he wanted.
Iran/Contra... Read my Lips... this war... his baby boy's e******n...
So Stupid One, now what?
Go to
Jun 1, 2015 16:12:03   #
Look at the date of your report stupid, and compare it to the dates I commented about. Then check with the US Treasury records of when and how much Kuwaiti Dinar they sold after the Kuwaitis revalued it. It's just that simple. Do you really think from a year of a huge budget deficit, the next year the federal government could come up with a huge budget reserve? I'll bet you never even thought about how that huge t***sition from a very large deficit, to next year a very large reserve, occurred. Someone is "fibbin", and they're very lazy and stupid too.

jelun wrote:
Somebody is fibbin'.
http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat7/145082.pdf
Go to
Jun 1, 2015 14:51:05   #
President George Bush #1 stated that the war was paid for, and it was through the revaluation of the Kuwaiti Dinar, which the USA bought hundreds of billions of at two cents a Kuwaiti Dinar, in order to give the Kuwaitis money to run their country until they could restart their government, put out the oil well fires, and start pumping and selling oil again, which took them about six years to do, and then they revalued the Kuwaiti Dinars to almost four dollars a Kuwaiti Dinar, which when they revalued during Bill Clinton's Presidency, the Kuwaiti Dinars owned by the US treasury were then exchanged for US Dollars, and was used to help balance Bill Clinton's budgets for all those years they were balanced, and created a reserve each year too. Meanwhile that Gulf War to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein and Iraq ended two years before Bill Clinton became President, and had nothing to do with Bill Clinton's recession of his first two years and approximately 9 months in office, and what lies are you claiming that was told about that war, being what George Bush #2 was called a liar about the Iraqi War, for telling the American people what all our intelligent agencies and security agencies, as well as all our allies agencies, were telling him, including those of Russia and China, which they all own-up to and admitted spreading that information as the t***h as they knew it. But because none were found immediately after the war, which just last year they were found and the New York Times printed an article telling everyone about what was found and apologized to George Bush #2 for calling him a liar. Everyone that was paying any attention to the news before the start of the Iraqi War, knew about the bumper to bumper convoy of 16 wheeler rigs that headed to Syria right before the war had started, and knowing that Syria had no poisonous gas manufacturing facilities, where do you suspect they may have obtained all the poisonous gas they've been known to use, and the poisonous gas the rebels, upon capturing Syrian military facilities, were also known to have used? Do you think that Russia provided them with all that poisonous gas, against international agreements that the Russians signed? Contact the New York Times and ask for a copy of their article from last year that tells about those WMDs that were found, and the apology they gave George Bush #2.

[quote=jelun]Free Kuwait?
You seem to forget that the t***h came out about that war as well that lies supported our involvement then.
Do you think that President Bush1's war was free?
People are on assistance because there are fewer jobs. Is that really so difficult to understand?
Private sector jobs are nil and people need to live.[/quote
Go to
May 31, 2015 18:55:58   #
And if you don't believe the BS that the Federal Reserve Board is independent from the federal government, who ordered them to spend $85 billion a month to buy US Treasury Bonds in order to cover Obama's record setting deficits of each year he's been President, and calling it 'Quantitative Easing', which is suppose to be stimulating the economy by making money available for loans to be used to expand business. And why does this have to be done when according to Obama the US economy has been in a recovery for six full years, staring when Obama claimed in June 2009? The doubling of the national debt from when the Democrats won majority control of the US Congress, all law making abilities, and the yearly budgets, which cause the yearly deficits, which add to the national debt, in George Bush's last midterm e******n eight years and six months ago, and eleven months later started what the Democrats like to call the 'Great recession', which they are the ones who caused it, and which eventually destroy the US economy, dollar, and government, probably very soon too. Also the things that Raygun (President Ronald Reagan) and Newt Gingrich's 'Contract with America' did was to put the American people back to work and caused two terrible recessions to turn into economic booms, and made much money for all the American people, who never had it as good as during the times that resulted from the polices that were implemented under Reagan and the 'Contract with America'. Besides, your history lines are so far off nobody can believe anything you say, which I certainly don't, especially about you once being a Republican, for which I have never been, but an Independent who can't v**e for any Democrat because I'm a Christian, and their policies are all failures anyway, except for those of JFK, who acted like a Republican and cut the American people to stimulate his economy which also started in a recession, which turned around immediately after he cut taxes for all Americans..

Nickolai wrote:
I'm also a retired construction contactor and also live through the same period but it's interesting how differently we view the same events. I had been a registered Republican since 1958 and had been loyal to that tribe for 30 years until I began to waver after Watergate and then Iran Contra. By the time of Newt Gingrich's Contract for America I saw it as a contract on America , and Raygun's trickle down as trickle on Americans of the lower middle class variety and with the collapse of the Soviet Union predicted that US capitalism would meet the same fate probably in about 20 years and the financial collapse of 2008 seemed to bear that prophecy out but the Federal Reserve put off dooms day with $11 trillion in loans and guarantees of toxic assets and through purchasing $ 85 billion a month of federal treasuries to keep interest rates low so the banks can barrow the depositors money a zero and loan it at 6 % or better. That another go round for a while longer. I like my take on history better than yours
I'm also a retired construction contactor and also... (show quote)
Go to
May 31, 2015 18:44:50   #
Tell him Vernon, he's revising history all over the place, and moving events around to other time lines that they never existed in.

vernon wrote:
bulls**t.
Go to
May 31, 2015 18:29:15   #
Boy, you write your own history don't you, by revising the factual history. The Gulf War to free Kuwait started in January of 1991, and ended in February 1991, and Bill Clinton didn't become President until January 1993, so the Gulf War affected Bill Clinton's economy in no way, since it ended two years before Bill Clinton became President. The US didn't start using all it's borrowing power to fund welfare until Bill Clinton became President, because as Obama and every Democrat does, he increased the number of people on welfare, in order to make more people dependent on the federal government, so as to garner their v**es in order to assure they can keep collecting the welfare. But the middleclass' taxes were paying for this, as well as everything the federal government could borrow money from, so they elected the Republicans as majority in the US Congress, to stop it with what they had put in the 'Contract with America. It's all just that simple, and the rest has become history.

Nickolai wrote:
We were in a two year recession caused by the collapse of the S&L's , If the US was using all its barrowing power to fund welfare why did we go to war in Kuwait, Clinton raised taxes with the tie v**e in the Senate broken by Al Gore. That was the reason tax revenues increased. The interest rates were lowered by the Federal Reserve using their usual techniques to help stimulate the economy. And with the national deficit shrinking and interest falling the economy was stimulated. It didn't have s**t to do with welfare. one way or the other.
The flood of i*****l i*******ts began after the bracero program was stopped in 1964. Under that program Mexican workers were brought here to work and were issued green card signed a contract and had to return to Mexico when the work or picking season ended. After 1964 Latinos began jumping the boarder flooding into the US and working year round. Certain industries such as meat packing actively recruited workers in Mexico to be brought here to bust the unions. I*****l i*********n is not a recent phenomena It's been going on for the last 50 years. IN the San Francisco bay area once a manufacturing and construction union strong hold the unions have been wiped out from this activity, The only areas still union is the commercial construction in silicon valley and in the city of SF. What few houses built are built with scab immigrant labor, people who can't afford to buy the homes they build. In the 195's 60's and 70's workers in housing were all covered with wages, vacation pay, health insurance, and a pension plan. That's all gone with the wind. Today if a worker doesn't like the price to contractor want's to pay he can keep moving and the next hungry son a b***h that comes stumbling down the road will take it with no benefits.
We were in a two year recession caused by the coll... (show quote)
Go to
May 31, 2015 17:48:12   #
You're so laughably ridiculous! According to all the economic indicators during Bill Clinton's Presidency, the first two years, plus an unknown number of months, the US economy was in a recession. If it was caused by the 1984 banking deregulation of Ronald Reagan, why did it take 10 years to effect the economy adversely, while it caused Jimmy Carter's recession to turn into Ronald Reagan's booming economy. Since no laws were passed to correct that banking deregulation that you claim started Bill Clinton's recession, then what caused the recession to end? You're just making up stuff without any proof. Google the history of that time period and learn the t***h, which I believe you already know, but don't want it confirmed by looking it up. So you come out with this liberal progressive defense posture for failed Democratic policies of Bill Clinton and his Democratic majority controlled US Congress, which are indefensible, and for which the Republicans majority control of the US Congress, passing the 'Contract with America', stopped Bill Clinton's recession, and started the economic boom, with balanced budgets that the Republicans created, but the Democrats want credit for, just because Bill Clinton was President, while he fought balancing the budget, and everything the Republicans passed that Bill Clinton eventually had to sign, to make and keep the economy booming, and that is historical fact, not the made up BS that you're trying to get people to believe.

Nickolai wrote:
Bill Clinton didn't have a recession That recession was the result of the 1984 banking deregulation that led to the collapse of the S&L industry a prelude to the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933 that in turn led to the financial crises of 2008 so the Recession of the early 1990's was not a Clinton caused recession but a Reagan caused one. Reagan was also a believer in the laffer Curve and the middle class especially the lower middle class has been paying for it
Go to
May 31, 2015 13:56:22   #
What turns out to be so interesting about this is her complaint of the $89 million being skimmed from the public school budget, which I assume is going to pay for these new programs that the Republicans want to institute. This person believes it's the amount of money in the system that educates the children, which is a patently false assumption, and is proven over and over again by statistics. For example, the Chicago public school system spends more money per child in it's system than any public school system in the USA, yet that same public school system graduates just over 39% of the students that attends the Chicago public school system, and then there is the Washington DC public school system which spends the second highest amount of money per child in it's system than any public school system in the USA, second only to Chicago, and it only graduates just over 40% of the students that attends the Washington DC public school system. Then one should look at the religious school systems in the USA, that graduates over 92% of the students that attend their schools, and when the religious school's averaged test scores are compared to the averaged test scores from the public school system, they grade out at nearly twice what the public school systems do, and when compared to the amount of money the spend per student for educating their students, it averages half that what the public school systems do. These are amazing statistics, and seem that they would be impossible to allowed to exist, but they are real and accurate, showing it isn't the amount of money that is being spent on the educational system, but the accountability the person who is doing the job is held to, and the dedication of those doing the job, which the public school systems have absolutely no accountability, because of union contracts, and in most of the public school system teachers the dedication is no longer for the students, but for their unions, that keep their wages high with no accountability, and makes those who run those unions very rich off the backs of uneducated children. What the Democrats are actually complaining about is not the education of the children, but the lack of funds for the teachers' unions, who pad the Democrats' campaign funds, and send people to work to help get them elected, just so those unions can keep digging deeply into the pockets of the taxpayers with the help of the Democrats that they help get elected, so the unions can become rich at the expense of children, who aren't getting the education they deserve.

jimahrens wrote:
Wisconsin State Senator Lena Taylor, a Democrat from Milwaukee, has a big problem with the budget cuts being proposed by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature. So big a problem, in fact, that she was inspired to compare it to violent sexual assault.

“For years, individuals who sit on this committee and in this building have known that they have been raping the children of MPS,” said Taylor. “I get it. The word ‘rape’ sounds offensive, but when you consider the fact that 15 out of 100 kids can read on grade level while $89 million have been skimmed from the education of kids, and that you don’t invest it, in even the crisis areas, who are you fooling?”

Republicans accused her of adding fuel to an already incendiary debate, but Taylor stuck to her comparison amidst the controversy. One might think that Wisconsin conservatives were trying to re-institute segregation or perhaps put corporal punishment back in public schools. But no. Taylor is upset because the legislature wants to impose a state takeover of the lowest performing schools and turn them into private schools or charter schools. They also want to expand school choice programs, giving Wisconsin families a bigger voice in their children’s’ education. Oh, and they want to make students pass a civics test before they graduate. The horror!
- See more at:[ http://totalconservative.com/democrat-compares-school-choice-to-rape/#sthash.FAZBeJuL.dpuf]

You know what pisses her off. Unions lose out . Oh Boo Hoo. Not a hard choice Children lean Union lose.
Wisconsin State Senator Lena Taylor, a Democrat fr... (show quote)
Go to
May 30, 2015 17:38:10   #
Your 1990 recession statistics are being averaged, look at just the first two years of Bill Clinton's Presidency and you will see how bad the recession was at that time, and how it affected Bill Clinton's first midterm e******n. I am retired at this time and very happy that the Republicans 'Contract with America' worked for our economy during Bill Clinton's terrible recession, and got majority control of the House for the Republicans for the first time in 44 years (there had to be a reason for that, and it took more than just Republicans to make that happen, that landslide was made possible by Independents and many Democrats too), and majority control of the Senate for the Republicans also.

jelun wrote:
You seem to be reflecting on the wrong period. Or perhaps your business suffered a downturn that nobody else did. We won't speculate on that.
Please note that the short recession came almost immediately AFTER the full implementation of the Contract AGAINST America.



CALCULATORSCAREER GUIDEINVESTINGPERSONAL FINANCEECONOMYWHAT CAN YOU DO WITH YOUR DEGREECREDITDEBTCAREEREDUCATION
YOU ARE HEREHome &#8594; Economy &#8594; Recessions in the US Since the 20th Century and Wh ...
Recessions in the US Since the 20th Century and What Caused Them
By Staff on October 3, 2013 Economy 0 comments


Recession is defined as the deterioration of a country’s economic activity for two successive quarters. The United States, although widely considered as an economic power, has not been immune to the scourge of recession. In fact, the nation has experienced a number of economic setbacks since the beginning of the 1900s. Here are the various instances of recession that took place in the US since the start of the 20th century and the reasons why they happened.



The Great Depression

Occurring from August 1929 to March 1933, the Great Depression was regarded to by experts as the worst downturn in the history of the United States. Lasting for a total of 43 months, the GDP declined by a whopping -26.7%, while the unemployment rate skyrocketed to 24.9%. The Great Depression was brought about by these factors: the crash of global stock markets, the collapse of American banks, and the emergence of new and extensive tariffs.

Recession in 1937 to 1938

While it is not as worse as the Great Depression, this 13-month event is considered as one of the most dreadful slumps of the 20th century, given the -18.2% decline in GDP, and the 19% peak unemployment rate. Three reasons are cited for this recession: tight fiscal policy after the New Deal, as a means to balance the budget; the Federal Reserve’s tight monetary policy; and the decline in business profits, resulting to a dwindling in investments.

Recession in 1945



Spanning from February to October 1945, this 8-month period saw a -12.7% decline in GDP, and a 5.2% rate of unemployment. This “end of the war” recession was caused by the t***sition from a battle period economy to a peacetime economy.

Recession in 1949

Although it was a brief and minor downturn, the recession of 1949 caused a minimal -1.7% decrease in GDP and a 7.9% hike in unemployment rate. Economists blame this 11-month spiral on the “Fair Deal” reform of President Harry Truman, as well as tensed government spending.

Recession in 1953

With a -2.6% drop in GDP and a peak unemployment rate of 6.1%, the 1953 recession is said to be caused by the separation of the Federal Reserve from the U.S. Treasury in 1951. As a result, the former implemented stricter policies which led to the 10-month depression.

Recession in 1958

Caused by the tightened monetary policy of 1955 and its subsequent easing in 1957, the 1958 recession resulted to sad economic figures, such as a peak unemployment rate of 7.5%, and a -3.7% decline in GDP.

Recession in 1960 to 1961

When the Federal Reserve decided to hike its interest rates, what t***spired next was the 10-month recession which started in April 1960 and ended in February 1961. While the GDP only decreased by -1.6%, the unemployment rate shot up to 7.1%.

Recession in 1969 to 1970

Considered as a mild recession, this 11-month period brought about only a minimal -0.6% decline in GDP. However, the unemployment rate remained high at 6%. Causes of this downturn are numerous, but to name a few– the rising inflation rate resulting from increased deficits, the fiscal tightening secondary to Vietnam war budget deficits, and the tightening of monetary policies or the Federal Reserve’s policy of increasing interest rates.

Recession in 1973 to 1975

This downturn, which spanned for 16 months, saw a -3.2% decline in GDP and a 9% hike in unemployment rate. The recession was brought about by OPEC’s decision to quadruple oil prices, as well as the heightened government spending for the Vietnam War. Further exacerbating the predicament was the oil crisis of 1973, and the stock market crash of 1973-1974.

Recession in 1980



This short recession, which started in January 1980, again was a result of the Federal Reserve’s plan to raise interest rates, to combat the inflation of the 1970s. While the GDP falloff was only -2.2%, the unemployment rate was considered high at 7.8%.

Recession in the Early 1980s

Lasting 16 months, the early 1980s downturn is what economists call as a “double dip” or “W-shaped” recession, which is characterized by a slump, followed by a brief period of growth, and another downturn before the economy manages to recover.

The cause of this recession is mainly the 1979 energy crisis, which forced a sharp hike in oil prices because of the new regime in Iran. The country also imposed a tightened monetary policy which decreased business spending, as an attempt to curb inflation.

As a result, the GDP shrunk by -2.7%, while the unemployment rate peaked at 10.8%, which is the highest rate by far in the history of American recessions.

Recession in the Early 1990s

A brief downturn lasting only 8 months, the recession of the early 1990s was characterized by a -1.4% depreciation in GDP and an increased unemployment rate of 7.8%. Three factors contributed to this event: the 1980’s debt accumulation, the oil price shock of the 1990s, and the rising rate of consumer pessimism.

Recession in the Early 2000s

Putting a halt to the economic growth of the 1990’s was this shallow 8-month recession, which led to a 6.3% increase in unemployment rate and a minute -0.3% decrease in GDP. Here are the factors that triggered this event, to name a few: the September 11 attacks, the Dot-com bubble collapse (Y2K scare), and the decrease in investments and business outlays.

The Great Recession

The downturn of December 2007 to June 2009 was one of the darkest chapters in the American economy, only next to the Great Depression. The GDP declined by as much as -5.1%, while the unemployment rate shot up to 10%.

The biggest cause of the Great Recession was the subprime mortgage crisis, which stabbed the American housing bubble. This, alongside increased food and oil prices, contributed to a global monetary crisis. As a result, the automobile industry collapsed, as well as several financial institutions, such as Lehman Brothers, AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and Bear Stearns. In response to the 18-month downturn, the government came up with a fiscal stimulus package amounting to $787 billion and a bank bailout costing $700 billion.

References

http://www.cnbc.com/id/20510977
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/econhist.htm
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/thomas-lisack/2011/07/15/history-of-economic-recessions-in-america
http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-HISTORY-OF-RECESSION-IN-by-mike-kohr-090213-845.html
http://respuestas.gobiernousa.gov/system/selfservice.controller?
You seem to be reflecting on the wrong period. Or ... (show quote)
Go to
May 30, 2015 17:29:29   #
Your information for the early 1990's recession is being averaged, look at only the first two years of Bill Clinton's Presidency.

jelun wrote:
You seem to be reflecting on the wrong period. Or perhaps your business suffered a downturn that nobody else did. We won't speculate on that.




CALCULATORSCAREER GUIDEINVESTINGPERSONAL FINANCEECONOMYWHAT CAN YOU DO WITH YOUR DEGREECREDITDEBTCAREEREDUCATION
YOU ARE HEREHome &#8594; Economy &#8594; Recessions in the US Since the 20th Century and Wh ...
Recessions in the US Since the 20th Century and What Caused Them
By Staff on October 3, 2013 Economy 0 comments


Recession is defined as the deterioration of a country’s economic activity for two successive quarters. The United States, although widely considered as an economic power, has not been immune to the scourge of recession. In fact, the nation has experienced a number of economic setbacks since the beginning of the 1900s. Here are the various instances of recession that took place in the US since the start of the 20th century and the reasons why they happened.



The Great Depression

Occurring from August 1929 to March 1933, the Great Depression was regarded to by experts as the worst downturn in the history of the United States. Lasting for a total of 43 months, the GDP declined by a whopping -26.7%, while the unemployment rate skyrocketed to 24.9%. The Great Depression was brought about by these factors: the crash of global stock markets, the collapse of American banks, and the emergence of new and extensive tariffs.

Recession in 1937 to 1938

While it is not as worse as the Great Depression, this 13-month event is considered as one of the most dreadful slumps of the 20th century, given the -18.2% decline in GDP, and the 19% peak unemployment rate. Three reasons are cited for this recession: tight fiscal policy after the New Deal, as a means to balance the budget; the Federal Reserve’s tight monetary policy; and the decline in business profits, resulting to a dwindling in investments.

Recession in 1945



Spanning from February to October 1945, this 8-month period saw a -12.7% decline in GDP, and a 5.2% rate of unemployment. This “end of the war” recession was caused by the t***sition from a battle period economy to a peacetime economy.

Recession in 1949

Although it was a brief and minor downturn, the recession of 1949 caused a minimal -1.7% decrease in GDP and a 7.9% hike in unemployment rate. Economists blame this 11-month spiral on the “Fair Deal” reform of President Harry Truman, as well as tensed government spending.

Recession in 1953

With a -2.6% drop in GDP and a peak unemployment rate of 6.1%, the 1953 recession is said to be caused by the separation of the Federal Reserve from the U.S. Treasury in 1951. As a result, the former implemented stricter policies which led to the 10-month depression.

Recession in 1958

Caused by the tightened monetary policy of 1955 and its subsequent easing in 1957, the 1958 recession resulted to sad economic figures, such as a peak unemployment rate of 7.5%, and a -3.7% decline in GDP.

Recession in 1960 to 1961

When the Federal Reserve decided to hike its interest rates, what t***spired next was the 10-month recession which started in April 1960 and ended in February 1961. While the GDP only decreased by -1.6%, the unemployment rate shot up to 7.1%.

Recession in 1969 to 1970

Considered as a mild recession, this 11-month period brought about only a minimal -0.6% decline in GDP. However, the unemployment rate remained high at 6%. Causes of this downturn are numerous, but to name a few– the rising inflation rate resulting from increased deficits, the fiscal tightening secondary to Vietnam war budget deficits, and the tightening of monetary policies or the Federal Reserve’s policy of increasing interest rates.

Recession in 1973 to 1975

This downturn, which spanned for 16 months, saw a -3.2% decline in GDP and a 9% hike in unemployment rate. The recession was brought about by OPEC’s decision to quadruple oil prices, as well as the heightened government spending for the Vietnam War. Further exacerbating the predicament was the oil crisis of 1973, and the stock market crash of 1973-1974.

Recession in 1980



This short recession, which started in January 1980, again was a result of the Federal Reserve’s plan to raise interest rates, to combat the inflation of the 1970s. While the GDP falloff was only -2.2%, the unemployment rate was considered high at 7.8%.

Recession in the Early 1980s

Lasting 16 months, the early 1980s downturn is what economists call as a “double dip” or “W-shaped” recession, which is characterized by a slump, followed by a brief period of growth, and another downturn before the economy manages to recover.

The cause of this recession is mainly the 1979 energy crisis, which forced a sharp hike in oil prices because of the new regime in Iran. The country also imposed a tightened monetary policy which decreased business spending, as an attempt to curb inflation.

As a result, the GDP shrunk by -2.7%, while the unemployment rate peaked at 10.8%, which is the highest rate by far in the history of American recessions.

Recession in the Early 1990s

A brief downturn lasting only 8 months, the recession of the early 1990s was characterized by a -1.4% depreciation in GDP and an increased unemployment rate of 7.8%. Three factors contributed to this event: the 1980’s debt accumulation, the oil price shock of the 1990s, and the rising rate of consumer pessimism.

Recession in the Early 2000s

Putting a halt to the economic growth of the 1990’s was this shallow 8-month recession, which led to a 6.3% increase in unemployment rate and a minute -0.3% decrease in GDP. Here are the factors that triggered this event, to name a few: the September 11 attacks, the Dot-com bubble collapse (Y2K scare), and the decrease in investments and business outlays.

The Great Recession

The downturn of December 2007 to June 2009 was one of the darkest chapters in the American economy, only next to the Great Depression. The GDP declined by as much as -5.1%, while the unemployment rate shot up to 10%.

The biggest cause of the Great Recession was the subprime mortgage crisis, which stabbed the American housing bubble. This, alongside increased food and oil prices, contributed to a global monetary crisis. As a result, the automobile industry collapsed, as well as several financial institutions, such as Lehman Brothers, AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and Bear Stearns. In response to the 18-month downturn, the government came up with a fiscal stimulus package amounting to $787 billion and a bank bailout costing $700 billion.

References

http://www.cnbc.com/id/20510977
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/econhist.htm
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/thomas-lisack/2011/07/15/history-of-economic-recessions-in-america
http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-HISTORY-OF-RECESSION-IN-by-mike-kohr-090213-845.html
http://respuestas.gobiernousa.gov/system/selfservice.controller?
You seem to be reflecting on the wrong period. Or ... (show quote)
Go to
May 30, 2015 17:25:20   #
It's all real and true recent American history, please look it up and confirm it for yourself, and if you find anything that I posted is not true, then please post that proof that would prove me wrong, which I don't believe you'll find any, because I lived through all that I've posted while running my own construction business. I am retired at this time and very happy that the Republicans 'Contract with America' worked for our economy during Bill Clinton's terrible recession, and got majority control of the House for the Republicans for the first time in 44 years (there had to be a reason for it, and it took more than just Republicans to make that happen), and majority control of the Senate for the Republicans too. Please look up the records and find out the t***h for yourself, and don't take for the t***h that Bill Clinton turned around that economy, look for what really turned it around, by studying the time the 'Contract with America' was implemented, and it's results.

jelun wrote:
You have an interesting twist on that first post.
Go to
May 30, 2015 17:11:11   #
There weren't any jobs to be had, we were in a two year terrible recession, being caused by the federal government using all the borrowing power in the USA to fund the welfare state, but when the 'Contract with America' destroyed that welfare state by kicking 90% of the people off the welfare and food stamp rolls, that money was no longer needed to be borrowed by the federal government, and when those people searched for jobs, and started finding them, it started bringing more taxes for the federal government, again providing more money that the federal government didn't have to borrow, making much money available for US businesses to borrow, and at lower rates, to expand their businesses and hire even more people, like a snow ball being rolled down hill and growing as it picked up more snow, becoming much larger than when it was started to be rolled downhill. Recently two independent economic reports from different sources have come out: The first stating that all the 'Net Jobs' created in the USA over the last seven years have all gone to immigrants, both legal and illegal; The second from, a different source, stated that all the legal and i*****l i*******ts who have entered the USA the last ten years, number more than twice all the jobs created in the USA over that same ten year time period. The Obama administration reports that there are over 98 million American citizens of working age that are no longer included in the 'US Workforce', over 17 million of them losing their job during the seven years and 5 months of Obama's Presidency, who couldn't find a job in a year, so Obama had them dropped from the 'US Workforce', and then there are also over 9 million American citizens of working age that the Obama administration admits are unemployed, yet still allowed to be kept in the 'US Workforce', and when added to those working aged American citizens who are no longer counted in the 'US Workforce', total over 107 million people of working age in the USA that are unemployed, out of a US population estimated to be about 350 million people, which include those younger than the working age, and those over 65 years old, considered to be over the working age, and yet Obama brags about an 'Unemployment Rate' of just 5.4%, and if you believe that, then your either very naïve and gullible, or very stupid. Obama keeps bragging about all the jobs he has created, yet the percentage of working aged American citizens in the 'US Workforce' is at it's lowest in the last 38 years, all the way back to 1978 when the US population was less than 2/3rds of what the 2010 census tallied to be five years ago. So why can't these over 107 million working aged people find a job that they need so badly, is it because they are all being taken by Obama's and the Democrats i*****l i*******ts, that they consider their future Democratic v**ers that will keep them in power, while the American citizens, their children and grandchildren, are left jobless?

lpnmajor wrote:
Fortunately for them - there WERE jobs to be had. Today? Not so much. As with almost everything, there are two sides to the issue. Needing jobs - jobs to be had and that equation isn't so easily solved.

It would be like saying that the solution to prison over crowding - is for folks to stop committing crimes. Sounds good, looks good on paper - but is hardly actionable. The vast bulk of the jobs added in the last several years have been part-time jobs and even of those, not nearly enough have been created. So, saying " you're off welfare - get a job" sounds good on paper and would be a step in the right direction - if there were enough jobs to be had. There aren't.

The Gov. will simply have to stop spending money it doesn't have - on things we don't need. More F35's isn't the answer. More drones isn't the answer. Congressional pay raises aren't the answer.
Fortunately for them - there WERE jobs to be had. ... (show quote)
Go to
May 30, 2015 16:38:02   #
Then you don't know much, because that is recent history that I lived through while running my own construction business, and all that lived through that period in the USA know that is the t***h, and as matter of fact, when the Republicans passed the 'Contract with America', 23 separate items passed in less than 30 days, for which the liberal biased media said was a record, for not one campaign promise of even a single item was ever passed before this, in thirty days or less, and Bill Clinton signed 21 of those items into law, and vetoed just two, the partial birth a******n ban, and the right for voluntary prayer in our public schools. If you think this is a fantasy or lies, I challenge you to look up the record and publish what you find about what I have said on this web site. Also, after Bill Clinton signed those 21 items into law, a Democratic Senator came on national TV and said Bill Clinton should be impeached, because the Democrats had the v**es to uphold a P**********l veto, and that Obama should have vetoed all those Republican laws, but Obama just saw a national landslide victory for the Republicans, using this 'Contract with America', and knowing he would be running for re-e******n in less than two years, was afraid to veto what the American people apparently v**ed for, and by the time Clinton's re-e******n came around, those 21 items had turned his first two years of his terrible recession into an economic boom, that put all Americans back to work, but at the time they were not competing with over 22 million i*****l i*******ts. And four years later the Republicans did impeach Obama for lying to a Grand Jury, but Democrats in the Senate saved him by making sure there wasn't enough v**es to convict him of his lie, again no accountability for a Clinton breaking a law that would have seen any common American serving prison time for doing the exact same thing. And that is all the GOD's honest t***h, prove me a liar if you can, with something other than your 'I SAY SO'.

jelun wrote:
What I know is that your version of events and the way they unfolded is fantasy.
Nice sell, though.
Go to
May 30, 2015 08:13:17   #
It happened when the Republicans passed the 'Contract with America', after winning majority control of the House, for the first time in 44 years, and the Senate, during Bill Clinton's first midterm e******n, which that contract threw 90% of the people that were receiving welfare off the welfare rolls, turned around Bill Clintons dire recession of two years and instituted a tremendous economic boom that Bill Clinton took credit for. Yet you think it won't work today. What it did, it stopped the federal government from having to pay out billions of dollars every month in welfare, and the people who used to receive that money had to go out and get jobs to survive, and as they did, they started paying into the federal government billions of dollars in taxes instead. With this huge amount of more money for the federal government to meet it's bills, it balanced the yearly budget, and the economy started booming, and even though Bill Clinton fought against the Republican controlled US Congress balancing of the budgets, he was the first to take credit for it.

jelun wrote:
We really have to wonder how these leaders, and I use the term loosely, believe that they can take a state economy that is struggling at poverty level and give it less and expect it to survive.
Righties love to compare government spending to household spending. Using that model, if a head of household decides to tell the boss that he doesn't need as large a paycheck even though the family expenses remain the same how does that help the family?
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.