Chart of the day
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
Man, Bush really did a number on us, didn't he? Good thing Obama came along to stop the slide and even things out.
Only a lib (assuming we have a lib President) can look at that chart and declare victory.
Who is declaring victory? Everybody loses. I just find it comical how much you blame Obama and not Bush. Has the recovery been slow? Sure. But why was a recovery necessary? And who was in charge?
Yeah, it would have been much better if that chart just continued along its nosedive, along with everything else.
That is a statement totally unverifiable. Except for radicals, I don't know any reasonable people so twisted. Who is to say that a hands off policy and let the market work would not have been more effective? I don't see any lasting effect from any of the policies initiated by Obama/ Reid/ Pelosi. If that money would have been even split among all taxpayers, it would have had more lasting impact, IMO.
Blaming Bush for the sub prime mess is laughable. Both parties were at fault with the CRA passed under Clinton primarily to blame. The U.S. has recovered after every recession in our history so no President gets any special commendation for the coutry coming out of recession. This recovery is the absolute weakest in our history and is directly attributable to our very poor economic and fiscal policies. Not to mention the added $8T in debt.
You can't even cherry pick charts decently anymore. How is that supposed to make Obama look bad? It makes Bush look bad and Obama look good.
Also I'm somewhat surprised at the red line considering the baby boomer have gone from 45-63 when Obama started to 51-69 today, i.e., more of them are at the age where they are not working by choice. And yet the civiliam employment to population ratio has still increased? I'm surprised to see that.
Your ignorance of economics is breathtaking. We haven't recovered from the recession at a pace even close to all previous recessions. We have a record number of civilians out of the work force. Wages have fallen. Low wage and part time jobs are the norm. Poverty is hitting record numbers. The middle class is getting killed. As any knowledgable person will tell you, the sub prime mess was a very, very bipartisan affair.
You put up a graph covering a GOP and a Democrat POTUS and the Democrat POTUS did much better. Don't blame for for your faux pas.
Again, your ignorance of basic economic history is stunning. Can you identify any other U.S. recession where our emergence has been so putrid? Obama has had 6 years in office and we are essentially stagnant and liberals still blaming Bush, lol. I don't recall conservatives blaming Carter 6 years into Reagan's presidency.
There haven't been any U.S. recessions like the one that Obama inherited since before World War II so there's nothing really to compare it to.
The economy Reagan inherited is nothing like what Obama inherited. The freaking WORLD ECONOMY was on the brink of collapse. When Obama took over the economy was losing jobs at the rate of 750,000 PER MONTH! Geesh!
Obama likely didn't create any policies nor has any other POTUS. They have economic experts to advise them.
I don't know specific policies. I'm not in the meetings with them nor do I peruse and memorize every news release.
Name some economic policies for me with which you are familiar.
Obama designed the nearly $1T stimulus. He wanted cash for clunkers. He increased taxes and regulations. TARP was a Bush Administration design. Naturally, the Fed instituted monetary policies, which are outside the control of any Administration, including a dramatic increase in the Fed balance sheet.
The stimulus didn't stimulate as even Obama recognized when he observed that the shovel ready jobs weren't shovel ready. Krugman blasted the stimulus as a waste of money (he didn't think it large enough). Cash for clunkers didn't work according to almost every economist. And raising taxes and regulations is never a good idea during a recession.
During Reagan's tenure, unemployment hit 10.8%, higher than under Obama. Inflation hit 13.5%. Interest rates hit an astonishing 21.5%. The oil embargo decimated the economy. So, I do not buy the argument that Reagan had it easier. But he took a very different path toward recovery that generated the largest expansion in American history. He lowered individual and corporate taxes and severely curtailed regulations. The exact opposite course that Obama took.
Can we just be honest here for a second? The only and I mean only reason everyone isn't absolutely out for his head is that he's black and SO many people actually believed to their core he was going to be different.
This buffoon has been an absolute embarrassment. Coming on the heels of the last *** that was in office you would think we could at least be somewhat objective. The office could have been vacant for the past 6 years and things would be better.
This buffoon has been an absolute embarrassment. Coming on the heels of the last *** that was in office you would think we could at least be somewhat objective. The office could have been vacant for the past 6 years and things would be better.
The total increase in jobs in the first three years of the Obama economic recovery was 1.72 percent.
In contrast, the total increase in jobs during the first three years of Ronald Reagan’s “trickle-down” economic recovery was 8.97 percent.
Likewise, the total increase in real (inflation adjusted) GDP per capita in the first three years of Obama’s economic recovery was 4.34 percent.
In contrast, the total increase in real GDP per capita in the first three years of Reagan’s economic recovery was 15.36 percent.
Further, and contrary to the frequent misrepresentation about the economic winners and losers during the Reagan years, the aforesaid growth in real GDP per capita produced across-the-board pay increases in every income quintile.
During the Reagan years, reports the Census Bureau, real household income increased by 11 percent, from $37,000 in 1981 to $41,000 in 1989, reversing a drop of $1,000 in real median household income from 1973 to 1981.
Turning around the income declines at the bottom, the poorest 20 percent of Americans had a six percent gain in real income during the Reagan 1980s, reversing a five percent decline in real income among the poorest 20 percent during the 1970s.
In the pre-Reagan years of 1973-1981, real median household incomes in the two highest income quintiles increased while the two poorest quintiles had decreases in real family income.
In contrast, reports the Census Bureau, all five income quintiles, from the richest to the poorest, had increases in real household incomes in the “trickle-down” years of Reaganomics, 1981-1989.
In contrast, the total increase in jobs during the first three years of Ronald Reagan’s “trickle-down” economic recovery was 8.97 percent.
Likewise, the total increase in real (inflation adjusted) GDP per capita in the first three years of Obama’s economic recovery was 4.34 percent.
In contrast, the total increase in real GDP per capita in the first three years of Reagan’s economic recovery was 15.36 percent.
Further, and contrary to the frequent misrepresentation about the economic winners and losers during the Reagan years, the aforesaid growth in real GDP per capita produced across-the-board pay increases in every income quintile.
During the Reagan years, reports the Census Bureau, real household income increased by 11 percent, from $37,000 in 1981 to $41,000 in 1989, reversing a drop of $1,000 in real median household income from 1973 to 1981.
Turning around the income declines at the bottom, the poorest 20 percent of Americans had a six percent gain in real income during the Reagan 1980s, reversing a five percent decline in real income among the poorest 20 percent during the 1970s.
In the pre-Reagan years of 1973-1981, real median household incomes in the two highest income quintiles increased while the two poorest quintiles had decreases in real family income.
In contrast, reports the Census Bureau, all five income quintiles, from the richest to the poorest, had increases in real household incomes in the “trickle-down” years of Reaganomics, 1981-1989.
I find it even more comical that libs like yourself keep pretending that Obama hasn't been the President for the past 6+ years. Reagan got handed a pretty bad situation but he took responsibility and fixed it in less than 6 years. Why does Obama get a pass on EVERYTHING? With the exception of George Washington, all Presidents have had someone come before them. Obama's problem is that he is an empty suit and all of his lemmings keep defending him.
Take a look at the GDP rate and the rate at which jobs were being lost for each when they took over. The state of the two economies wasn't even close. When Reagan took over the economy had been chronically weak abut it wasn't spiraling downwards at least. And in fact it even got worse when Reagan first took over. It got worse when Obama first took over but that's because it was spiraling downwards as opposed to weal but level for Reagan. (Actually the GDP was improving when Reagan took over.)
I seriously doubt Obama designed the stimullus. I think you underestimate the role the economists play. Politicians are more decision makers and salesmen than designers.
Yeah, Reagan lowered the top marginal tax rate, from 70% to 50%. Tax rates were already much lower when Obama took over.
Much to your chagrin the economy isn't really doing that badly.
My God are you uninformed. The economy Reagan inherited was bad and getting much worse. The huge recession started in 1981 and continued into 1982 due to Nixon and Carter policies. Unemployment hit 10.8%, higher than under Obama. Reagan lowered the rates from 78% to just 28%. Reagan stopped the massive government regulation. We had the largest peace time expansion in history with growth dwarfing Obama's. The only policy that Obama enacted was his stimulus. Blaming the stimulus on others is simply ridiculous. This was all Obama's. Facts are stubborn things.
Reagan became POTUS in 1981. The GDP was up sharply in the last quarter of 1980 (Carter's last full quarter) and the first quarter of 1981 (1/4 Carter, 3/4 Reagan). In analagous quarters of W/O the GDP was down sharply.
Also, Reagan initially lowered the top tax rate from 70% to 50%, which is still much higher than it has ever been under Obama. It wasn't until 1988 that he lowered tax rates to 28%.
The fact remains that the 1981 and 1982 recession was devastating. Reagan enacted the largest tax cut in history. Corporate taxes were lowered and regulations eliminated. This led the way for a continuous 92 month economic expansion, the largest in history. Growth under Reagan absolutely dwarfs Obama's record. Obama's policies of massive government spending and much heavier regulations haven't worked. Under Reagan, middle class incomes rose while under Obama, they have fallen. Obama had Reagan's blueprint for success but chose the far left plan instead. We will pay for this folly for a very long time.
Late arriving, but let me add a couple things. I do believe Reagan's tax policies included a little incentive to induce people to invest. Cap Gains tax was nearly cut by 1/3. Investors had quit investing in capital building to expand the economy. Interest rates were 20%+. People could not afford to borrow money to invest in plant and equipment. They were better off investing in savings or other money instruments paying 12-15% and no risk of losing. Also increased depreciation rates to write off the new investments faster.
Opie is looking at that scale that showed the economy that was high and improving status until the downturn in 2008 when there were two consecutive quarters resulting in a technical recession. Admittedly, it did freefall like an anchor which was bad. But how can you see anything positive from Obama only able to maintain a near flatline at the bottom of that falling anchor? That line had to be inclining to indicate anything positive from Obama policy. Did Opie (or anyone) think we would lose 750,000 jobs a month forever? Employment rate was still at 93%+. The trend was bad, but the actual numbers were not catastrophic.
Bush's last year operated with a deficit in $400 billions range(largest of his term). After 6 years Obama has only had one year that approached that (little?)while running up $8-9 trillion Debt while doing no better than flatlining the absolute depth of GWB reign. It is hard to make a positive argument for Obama looking at your graph.
Opie is looking at that scale that showed the economy that was high and improving status until the downturn in 2008 when there were two consecutive quarters resulting in a technical recession. Admittedly, it did freefall like an anchor which was bad. But how can you see anything positive from Obama only able to maintain a near flatline at the bottom of that falling anchor? That line had to be inclining to indicate anything positive from Obama policy. Did Opie (or anyone) think we would lose 750,000 jobs a month forever? Employment rate was still at 93%+. The trend was bad, but the actual numbers were not catastrophic.
Bush's last year operated with a deficit in $400 billions range(largest of his term). After 6 years Obama has only had one year that approached that (little?)while running up $8-9 trillion Debt while doing no better than flatlining the absolute depth of GWB reign. It is hard to make a positive argument for Obama looking at your graph.
In Bush's final year the deficit was $1.4 trillion, the largest in history. The fiscal year begins Oct 1 and Oct 1, 2008 to Sep 30, 2009 counts as Bush's last year. By the time the new guy comes in on Jan 20, 2009 almost 4 months of the fiscal year is gone and a lot of the spending for the rest of the fiscal year has already been committed to.
As a percentage of GDP, which is the measure that matters most, the deficit is smaller now than during most of the time Reagan was in office.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYFSGDA188S
Sorry, that is not very thoughtful. The only thing Bush spent of that recovery was part of the (don't remember the four letter stimulus) to buy bank debt. Bush(as lame duck) offered his budget in Feb '08. Reid/Pelosi rejected and elected to operate on CRs. Obama finally signed the '09 budget in March of that year. Obama/Reid/Pelosi spent like the proverbial drunken sailor thru Sept 09 running up a deficit of $1.4trillion. Last year that Bush had any control was fiscal '08.
I linked the the site listing the deficit as a percentage of GDP. Sorry those numbers pisses you off so much. Facts are stubborn things though.
They truly are stubborn and Obama is still the largest deficit spender in history. And keep in mind that Reagan had a huge spending Dem congress to appease. Obama had no such issue. After Republicans won the house, Reid used CR's to fund the government. Obama's deficits were his own design.
http://m.research.stlouisfed.org/fred/series.php?sid=FYFSGDA188S&show=obs&allobs=1
Even using your stat per GDP,
Since raw numbers is what matters with you, the US GDP is larger now than ever before and about 4 times as much as at any point during the Reagan years. Hey, you're the one that set the standard of using absolute numbers.
Let's see if I get this straight. Obama's deficits are the largest in history both from a raw number standpoint and from a percentage of GDP. Do you want to try another measure to make Obama look less incompetent?
http://m.research.stlouisfed.org/fred/series.php?sid=FYFSGDA188S&show=obs&allobs=1
Last edited: