Obama's Economic Record (McCain, wage, healthcare, dollar)

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by BigHouse9

Based on what was written in another post on what Obama will run on and someone brought up his econmic record. Here is a breakdown of the foundation of his economic record.

The Democrats officially took over Congress on January 3rd 2007. The Democrats had a majority for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. Many people believe they took over in January 2009 when Obama took office. It seems to be the liberal chant that everything is Bush's Fault for the failure of the economy and our Dear Leader certainly seems to have played that card multiple times.

Let's review, shall we?

On January 3, 2007:

1. The Dow closed at 12,621
2. The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
3. The unemployment rate was 4.6%
4. Bush's economic policies set a record of 52 straight months of job creation
5. Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee

15 months later we had the economic meltdown due to 5-6 trillion dollars of bad loans being dumped on the economy from the Fannie and Freddie fiascos. Oh yeah, Bush asked Congress 17 times to complete oversight on FM & FM since it was risky for the US economy. Barney Frank blocked it and said it was a "Chicken Little Philosophy" and we all know what happened to that sky. Who else fought against Fannie & Freddie reforms? Obama and the Democratic congress. And Obama was the third highest receiver of money from those organizations as well.

The lefties have controlled Congress and its budgets since 2007. During the first year, they were forced to compromise on spending with Bush. From then on it was a free for all, passing a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget. And remember who was a member of that Congress? None other than Barack Obama who voted for all of those massive spending increases. When the Dems actually took over in 2007, they were dealing with the last Republican budget and that deficit was the lowest in 5 years. So in review, Obama inherited a deficit that he voted for and then voted to expand that deficit. Obama inherited this from himself and the Democrats are the ones to blame for the economic problems we face and that their policies continue to exacerbate.

So how is all of this Bush's fault? How can anyone not see that these policies are caustic?

It is Bush's fault because Liberals are areally loud and redfaced when they scream "ITSBUSHSFAULT!!!"

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by Ferd

It is Bush's fault because Liberals are areally loud and redfaced when they scream "ITSBUSHSFAULT!!!"

Well, until they realize the deaf ears they're dealing with.

[BigHouse9]

Originally Posted by subsound

The "facts" were already refuted and you seem to have willfully ignored that several times. The only reason surmised that you would refuse to see anything that doesn't agree with your worldview is that you are not being reasonable. That's not an attack, that is a simple statement of fact.

Why continue to show things to you that you refuse to see?

Why continue using reason when the only response is the complete refusal to acknowledge it has even been said?

Really, you refuted the original message with some "facts"? Hmmm, those seem to be missing as most liberal logic is. Can you possibly go back and look at the OP and dsiprove any of the points in there?

[JazzyTallGuy]

Originally Posted by BigHouse9

Based on what was written in another post on what Obama will run on and someone brought up his econmic record. Here is a breakdown of the foundation of his economic record.

The Democrats officially took over Congress on January 3rd 2007. The Democrats had a majority for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. Many people believe they took over in January 2009 when Obama took office. It seems to be the liberal chant that everything is Bush's Fault for the failure of the economy and our Dear Leader certainly seems to have played that card multiple times.

Let's review, shall we?

On January 3, 2007:

1. The Dow closed at 12,621
2. The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
3. The unemployment rate was 4.6%
4. Bush's economic policies set a record of 52 straight months of job creation
5. Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee

15 months later we had the economic meltdown due to 5-6 trillion dollars of bad loans being dumped on the economy from the Fannie and Freddie fiascos. Oh yeah, Bush asked Congress 17 times to complete oversight on FM & FM since it was risky for the US economy. Barney Frank blocked it and said it was a "Chicken Little Philosophy" and we all know what happened to that sky. Who else fought against Fannie & Freddie reforms? Obama and the Democratic congress. And Obama was the third highest receiver of money from those organizations as well.

The lefties have controlled Congress and its budgets since 2007. During the first year, they were forced to compromise on spending with Bush. From then on it was a free for all, passing a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget. And remember who was a member of that Congress? None other than Barack Obama who voted for all of those massive spending increases. When the Dems actually took over in 2007, they were dealing with the last Republican budget and that deficit was the lowest in 5 years. So in review, Obama inherited a deficit that he voted for and then voted to expand that deficit. Obama inherited this from himself and the Democrats are the ones to blame for the economic problems we face and that their policies continue to exacerbate.

So how is all of this Bush's fault? How can anyone not see that these policies are caustic?

There are several logical inconsistencies with your post. First you want to blame President Obama for the bad economy during his term. But you are willing to give President George W. Bush a free pass based on your perspective "The Democrats Took Control of Congress in 2007".

If your analysis was REALLY objective you would include the realtiy that no budget gets enacted into law UNTIL THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SIGNS IT! The President has the power to veto a budget or sign it. He or She is an active participant in the legislative process. The President holds the power of the veto and the bully pulpit. If a President signals he or she wont' sign a specific budget proposal that is a signal for Congress to either come up with another proposal or gather enough support in Congress to override the President's veto.

If your analysis was REALLY objective you'd also show all the economic data for President ENTIRE TERM IN OFFICE from January 2001 until at least December 2008.

Why did you leave it out?

Because we both know it does NOT paint a pretty picture in terms of President George W. Bush stewardship of the American economy.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.

Here’s a look at job creation under each president since the Labor Department started keeping payroll records in 1939. The counts are based on total payrolls between the start of the month the president took office (using the final payroll count for the end of the prior December) and his final December in office.

Because the size of the economy and labor force varies, we also calculate in percentage terms how much the total payroll count expanded under each president. The current President Bush, once taking account how long he’s been in office, shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by BigHouse9

Really, you refuted the original message with some "facts"? Hmmm, those seem to be missing as most liberal logic is. Can you possibly go back and look at the OP and dsiprove any of the points in there?

First of the many facts presented:

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Size of private sector payroll, Jan 2001: 111.63 million
Size of private sector payroll, Jan 2009: 110.98 million, and rapidly falling (Population and civilian labor force grew by 10%)
Link

In 2009 dollars,
Federal Tax Revenue, 2000: $2.5 Trillion (20.6% of the GDP). GDP in 2000: $12.1T
Federal Tax Revenue, 2009: $2.1 Trillion (15.1% of the GDP, lowest since 1950). GDP in 2009: $13.9T
Link

[mco65]

Is it too late to join in the finger pointing contest??

dammit!

[BigHouse9]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

First of the many facts presented:

Your facts basically prove my point too considering you used 2009 data! Thanks. Obama supporters really don't read (or think) all that well.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by BigHouse9

Your facts basically prove my point too considering you used 2009 data! Thanks. Obama supporters really don't read (or think) all that well.

What is wrong with 2009 data? Bush policies, spending were in full effect at the time, as was the economy. Do you think losing (an unprecedented) 800K plus jobs in just one month had no effect for months? That is as many jobs lost in one month as were added in first 59 months of Bush presidency.

[JazzyTallGuy]

Originally Posted by BigHouse9

Based on what was written in another post on what Obama will run on and someone brought up his econmic record. Here is a breakdown of the foundation of his economic record.

The Democrats officially took over Congress on January 3rd 2007. The Democrats had a majority for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. Many people believe they took over in January 2009 when Obama took office. It seems to be the liberal chant that everything is Bush's Fault for the failure of the economy and our Dear Leader certainly seems to have played that card multiple times.

Let's review, shall we?

On January 3, 2007:

1. The Dow closed at 12,621
2. The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
3. The unemployment rate was 4.6%
4. Bush's economic policies set a record of 52 straight months of job creation
5. Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee

15 months later we had the economic meltdown due to 5-6 trillion dollars of bad loans being dumped on the economy from the Fannie and Freddie fiascos. Oh yeah, Bush asked Congress 17 times to complete oversight on FM & FM since it was risky for the US economy. Barney Frank blocked it and said it was a "Chicken Little Philosophy" and we all know what happened to that sky. Who else fought against Fannie & Freddie reforms? Obama and the Democratic congress. And Obama was the third highest receiver of money from those organizations as well.

The lefties have controlled Congress and its budgets since 2007. During the first year, they were forced to compromise on spending with Bush. From then on it was a free for all, passing a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget. And remember who was a member of that Congress? None other than Barack Obama who voted for all of those massive spending increases. When the Dems actually took over in 2007, they were dealing with the last Republican budget and that deficit was the lowest in 5 years. So in review, Obama inherited a deficit that he voted for and then voted to expand that deficit. Obama inherited this from himself and the Democrats are the ones to blame for the economic problems we face and that their policies continue to exacerbate.

So how is all of this Bush's fault? How can anyone not see that these policies are caustic?

There are a couple of facts you've conveniently left out.

Recently I took the Bureau of Economic Analysis statistics for GDP quarterly percent change from one year ago and compared two term presidential administrations. I took the quarterly GDP change for each quarter and each two term administration starting with the Eisenhower Administration and averaged them. Here's what I found:

Average quarterly GDP change year over year
Eisenhower - 3.0063%

Kennedy-Johnson - 4.8625%

Nixon-Ford - 2.803%

Reagan - 3.403%

Clinton - 3.869%

Bush - 2.1%

Overall the Republican administrations don't do as good a job at growing the economy as the Democratic administrations do. What the Republican Party is good at is making sure corporate interest and the rich keep their wealth. The Democrats are better at is growing the whole economic pie and reducing poverty in the process.

Second, the number of Americans below the poverty level increase at a faster rate under the Bush 43 Administration than under any two term presidential Administration since they started keeping records of this information in 1959.

Bush 43
Americans Below The Poverty Level
2001 - 32.907 million 2008 - 39.829 million - increase 21.04%

Overall Population Growth
2001 - 281.475 million 2008 - 301.041 million - increase 6.95%

During the Bush 43 Administration poverty INCREASED three times faster than rate of population growth.

Clinton
Americans Below The Poverty Level
1993 - 39.265 million 2000 - 31.581 million - decrease 19.57%

Overall Population Growth
1993 - 259.278 million 2000 - 278.944 million - increase 7.58%

During the Clinton Administration poverty DECREASED 2.5 faster than the population grew.

Reagan
Americans Below The Poverty Level
1981 - 31.822 million 1988 - 31.745 million - decrease 0.24%

Overall Population Growth
1981 - 227.157 million 1988 - 243.53 million - increase 7.21%
During the Reagan Administration poverty was relatively flat compared to population growth.



Nixon-Ford
Americans Below The Poverty Level
1969 - 24.147 million 1976 - 24.975 million - increase 3.43%

Overall Population Growth
1969 - 199.517 million 1976 - 212.303 million - increase 6.41%

During the Nixon - Ford Administrations poverty INCREASED about half as fast as the population grew.


Kennedy-Johnson
Americans Below The Poverty Level
1961 - 39.628 million 1968 - 25.389 million decrease 35.93%

Overall Population Growth
1961 - 181.277 million 1968 - 197.628 million increase 9.02%

During the Kennedy-Johnson Administration poverty DECREASED about four times faster than the population grew.

An strong argument could be made the economic stewardship of the Bush 43 Administration was the worst of any President post World War II.

On top of everything else based on the information from the link YOU PROVIDED.

Here are the expenditure figures from George W. Bush Jr's first and last year in office: The numbers are in trillions of dollars


2001: 1.862846 2008: 2.982544 Increase of 63.18%

Here are the Tax Receipts Figures from the same time period

2001: 1.991082 2008: 2.523991 Increase of 27.56%


Not only did spending significantly increase it far outpaced any revenue increases. Spending increased 2.29 FASTER than tax receipts.
In fact the administration of George W. Bush Jr. has one of the poorest records of Tax Receipt increase of any two term presidential administration.

To REALLY appreciate how bad the stewardship of hte economy was under George W. Bush Jr. lets compare it to President Bill Clinton and his first and last years in office in terms of tax receipts and outlays.

Outlays

1993: $1.409386 2000: $1.788950 Increase 27.00%

Here are the Tax Receipts Figures from the same time period


1993: $1.154335 2000: $2.025191 Increase 75.44%

Tax Receipts grew 2.79 FASTER than outlays under the Clinton administration.


What becomes apparent is two things. The Bush Tax cuts DID NOT SPUR SIGNIFICANT GDP GROWTH. I've already posted sources that confirm THAT JOB GROWTH OUNDER GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST SINCE THEY STARTED KEEPING JOB GROWTH INFORMATION. Second you can complained about Democrats in Congress all you'd like but President Bush SIGN OFF ON THOSE BUDGETS IN HIS ADMINISTRATION.

You can do the same comparison with other two term Presidents or look at the terms individually if you'd like. If you use AN OBJECTIVE COMPARISON TO OTHER ADMINISTRATIONS THE BUSH 43 ADMINISTRATION RANKS NEAR THE BOTTOM IN IT'S ABILITY TO GROW TAX RECEIPTS AND CONTROL OUTLAYS.

The reason the American economy has been in such a mess since the fourth quarter of 2008 is it was under a presidential administration with one of the worst records of economic stewardship in the 100 years.

[bchris02]

Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt

It is not fair to judge Obama on the economy starting from inauguration day. No reasonable person would expect the economy to immediately start getting better before the President even has a chance to pass any legislation or have it take effect. The fairest way to look at this is with graphs that show the trajectory of the economy before Obama was elected to present.

Liberals of your ilk had no problem blaming the 2001 recession on Bush, even though it began only two months after he took office and before any of his policies were put into place. There were warning signs all throughout 2000 that recession was coming, yet it was still Bush's fault. Now, here we are 4 years into Obama's presidency. This country is still an economic disaster with little economic improvement since bottom in March 2009, and its still 100% Bush's fault? Obama could have been doing stuff to actually help the economy and instead spent all his political clout on Obamacare and ending Don't Ask Don't Tell. The rise in the stock market can be totally attributed to Helecopter Ben and his money printing. Obama has done NOTHING for this economy.