Regardless of how at fault Bush may or may not be (one wonders how long that excuse will continue to be trotted out), it's impossible to argue that Obama's economic "stimulus" has been anything but a failure.

Last time I checked, politicians don't get a "pass" because things were worse than they expected. Bush certainly didn't.

Well if you're honest which nobody in the political debate arena is, then Bush will share the blame for a long, long time. Clinton deserves the blame for much of this. Why? He adopted if I recall correctly the subprime mortgage lending legislation which stimulated lenders to lend to those whom they wouldn't ordinarily make loans to. Bush deserves the blame for continuing this, and Obama's policies which promote such wackiness also deserve reproach.

Really? Actually, I think it is impossible to argue it has been anything one way or the other, as the actual effect of the stimulus most certainly won't be known for a long time, likely years. There is no possible way you can substantiate a claim that it "has been anything but a failure" at this point in time.

And pointing out that Bush has a high degree of fault for our state of affairs isn't an "excuse" so much as a fact.

But they also fail to point out Clinton's role in the Subprime Market fiasco. It does seem to swing only one way. It's possible to argue that if one over-emphasizes the role of your predecessor, you can deflect attention from your own political failings. Every party does it, but arguing Obama won't fall prey to it, is again dishonest. He does and he will. He will not own up to his failures. It is political suicide to do so. But the electorate should hold the party which took such a tremendous risk liable for failure. They have already held the Republicans liable in ousting them and in failing to elect its party nominee.

I am not sure what you are arguing. If you are arguing that Obama's administration should be held liable if the stimulus proves to be a disaster, then I agree (and it will be). If it proves to be helpful, I would assume you agree that he should be given credit for it (and I don't think anyone will know if it helped or hurt for a long time, despite Tex's very premature and naive ramblings).

I disagree on one point. Of course, this being economics, we won't "know" anything for certain, but with that caveat, or recognition in place, we should see if something so massive is having any corrective effect. What we can't "know" is what aspects of the current malaise are attributable to worldwide economic downturn, the collective failed policies of the past and or some misadventure by virtue of the failure of these policies.

If things continue to spiral downward, eventually the public will tire of his spin and there will be some liability heaped upon his administration. However, he appears to be a teflon man in that no blame sticks to him currently. Let's hope the teflon wears off.

Heh, I think the group guilty of premature and naive ramblings here is Obama's economic team.

Everything is now Obama's fault. Blaming the Bush administration is what pussies do.

Is this the same Il Padrin Yewt who blamed the Bush recession Clinton?

Link?

So if two planes crash into two skyscrapers in the month of July, that will be Obama's fault, right? Enough time has passed that it is no longer feasible to blame the Bush administration?

Obama is the President.

If I follow your analogy, I'm not sure I've heard Obama make a lot of speeches touting how much safer he's made America.

But let's be fair here: presidents don't actually deserve as much credit or blame for economic gyrations as they get. Nonetheless, the political reality is that if you're in the Oval Office, you carry the burden. And Obama embraced this. No one forced Obama to propose a huge pork-spending bill, call it a stimulus plan, and sell it on the basis that it would reduce unemployment increases by as much as 2% over projections.

The truth is, if things improve he'll take credit for it, and if they worsen he'll blame Bush. S.O.P. for both parties. Considering how Bush was treated, especially in the wake of 9/11's economic impact, il Pad is completely within proper (political) bounds to say Obama should now "own" this economy.

There is the reality that we don't understand the correlation to historical events, despite our willingness to make attribution, and the political reality, that once you're in power, you get the praise, probably unjustifiably so, for those things which prosper, and the blame for those things which fail.

Public perception is not based upon scholarly investigation of correlative factor and complex causative analysis.

Allow me to unscramble your gobbledeegook:
http://s72.photobucket.com/albums/i1...rs_lawyers.jpg
1. We'll don't know the effect of the stimulus.
2. If the economy tanks so will Obama.

While you're at it, would you mind interpreting this economic data for me?

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i1...rs_lawyers.jpg

I think it's something to do with lawyers and the economy.

Thanks in advance.

Chino, just accept the fact that your political hero made a bad economy worse.

Actually, the hero born of women has crushed the serpent with his heel. He repaired credit markets so credit is flowing again. Soon, industrial will be back up and so will employment.

We'll be back in business pretty soon

And although such analyses are useful, if you want me or anybody else to believe they are conclusive in establishing causation, then blow it out your ass.

Liquidity has not been adequately restored to the credit markets, the toxic assets have been over-valued. If you believe otherwise, try getting a loan in Vegas.

So you studied economics at BYU where we're not exactly at the top of the food chain in that arena. And by most estimations, economics, though fascinating in explaining emotional human behavior, is far from a physical science. The explanations are interesting and studies can be fashioned based on one's biases to explain what the scholar "believes" is occurring based upon the techniques of the industry, which is overal skewed toward a Keynsian format.

You'll get no argument from me that a country will benefit more from a culture which encourages engineers and peoples building and manufacturing goods. My own children are geared for that very reason toward engineering and architecture. A developed nation which has no industrial and technological base has no future in my opinion. Ours is obviously dwindling.

So would you argue against that a country that expends its talent in lobbying the government, seeking special favors, and transferring wealth around without peoples building and manufacturing goods has no future?

by the way, try getting a loan outside of Las Vegas and Phoenix. Much easier. I got a home loan for 5.375%.

fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

Who cares about byu economists any way.

All right, then, but let's be consistent. If Obama now gets all of the blame for the bad economy, then Bush should get all of the blame for the worst attack upon American Soil since Pearl Harbor.

Let's dump on them all.

1. How do you know undergrad economics is low on the food chain? By what metric?
2. What makes you think I've stopped at BYU?

1. I've seen the rankings and BYU ranks lowly in most things unfortunately. Administration doesn't give a damn about improving its rankings. Administration only cares about its devotionals.

2. Who cares? Don't even respond. Mormon wannabes are silly. Let me know when a BYU related graduate actually wins a Nobel Prize in Economics. And that person happens to be you.

This reminds me of the silly but fun discussion about Obama's scholastic achievements. BYU's rankings have been on an upward trajectory since they've had rankings. They've plummeted recently, but rankings are a noisy time series. Anyhow, take a look at BYU's economics department:

Mark Showalter: Sr. Economist, White House Council of Economic Advisers

James Kearl: Special Asst. to the Secretary of Defense, Special Asst. to US Trade
Representative , National Bureau of Economic Research

James McDonald: pioneer in distribution families

Val Lambson: among leading pure theorists

Kerk Philips: U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee

great representation in policymaking, data collection, empirics and theory

Based on what?

That impresses you? You're too easily impressed. Go look at a real economics department. Of course, they're mostly socialists, Keynsian economists and what not, but that's not much. I may be mistaken, but it seems I know Kearl, and he's not a bad guy if I remember correctly.

Except in Accounting and Engineering, BYU has plummeted in most departments. BYU law is in shambles, when it was once a proud school headed upwards. Our most recent Dean is a guy, who is probably a great human being, but with limited or no outside connections, as opposed to past Presidents.

Its students stay too frequently in Utah. It is too concerned with the appearnce of religiositiy rather than the actual devotion to spirituality and devotion to humanity.

BYU's research aim is pathetic, (what is it research in comparison to let's say, University of Texas at Austin?) it will never achieve Ivy League status and hires too frequently from within. Its staff ris limited in what it can publish and administration does nothing to promote its successful professors.

We need to stop hiring GAs as university presidents. They don't belong there!

Currently, the strength of the school is the academic quality of the students. But our culture seems to be stifling their academic and scholastic progression. We shall lament the lack of scholastic progression as a collective, not speaking individualistically. Certainly, individuals fight the trend and work outside the mold but our culture only promotes the "enter to learn about earning, and go forth to earn" mentality.

This is very frustrating because we as a people are not reaching our potential.

I honestly have no idea what impresses you, other than fitness. You have said multiple times that attending Harvard, Yale, Oxford, etc. are not impressive. You also don't think BYU is impressive. Exactly what is impressive? Can Chino's resume honestly only impress you if he wins a Nobel Prize in Economics (as you suggested)? If so, I am going to say you have unusually high standards for being impressed.

Note to our Archaea: Most schools will never reach Ivy League status. In fact, all schools currently not Ivy League will never reach Ivy League status.

Note to Archaea: BYU is primarily an undergraduate teaching institution.

Your research comparisons are pathetic, since BYU is primarily an undergrad teaching school. Your ramblings about GAs and research is inane. It was his epiphany at MIT that made him decide to pull undergrads into research.

Ever since Bateman we've been heading up and up. We're still pumping out more PhD candidates than anyone else. All this "we're too religious" nonsense, bla bla ba, that's the point of a religious university, duh. The raters at US News don't care anyway.

I am unusually grumpy right now, so it has nothing to do with Chino or his attitude. BYU is pissing me off with their provincial attitudes, but that's another matter.

Why doesn't BYU seek out and hire at Nobel Prize winners for some of its departments? Why is our research budget so f..ing limited?

Why don't you donate some of your rent-seeking income so we can have more research dollars?

my BYU education placed me so far behind my peers I am spending the rest of my life catching to them if I had gone elsewhere.

Fair enough, and I also wish they would expand more into research.

It's rare that anything ever reaches his standard for excellence. At least that's what I've gathered from several years of reading his posts. I suppose that can be both good and bad in many ways, but it has to lead to a high grumpiness factor.

Yeah, it's kinda strange. He is impressed with Bart Ehrman and superstars from disciplines with low average GRE scores.

I love BYU, or what it could be.

It has a good body of intelligent students, whom if guided properly could be motivated to do great things. Instead we often encourage them toward mediocrity so that they can remain in Happy Valley living ordinary lives and failing to bless the lives of our world.

Since Bushman, I have been quite discouraged with the direction of BYU. The current law school seems to have lost its direction, as opposed to its leadership under Hawkins and Rex Lee.

It just seems they wish to remain a glorified church seminary, promoting us to seek money but almost nothing else. Interesting irony.

BYU, never publish nor research, for fear of coming to a knowledge of the truth. That seems to be our motto.

Not recent, but the first of what I found about Economic Department rankings.

http://www.econphd.net/rank/rallec.htm