Who has done better in economic growth, Bush II or Obama? Think carefully befor

1. 85

   My Esotericposted 12 years ago

   Who has done better in economic growth, Bush II or Obama?  Think carefully before answering.
   
   Using 4th Q 2009 through 1st Q 2012 GDP figures, after things stabilized somewhat from the debacle of the 2008 recessions, as a baseline for Obama, and comparing to the 6 similarly long periods from Bush's Presidency, begining in 4thQ 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 2005, and 2006, in which ones did Obama do better.  Obviously Obmama clobbered Bush the starting in 2006, but how about the others?

   replyreport
2. 61

   dpsimswmposted 12 years ago

   Bush led us down this hole.  Obama has been clawing his way out the hole the entire time. 
   
   Remember, Hank Paulson, as Treasury Secretary destroyed the financial markets by taking over Fannie and Freddie.  Two months earlier, he told investors they were fine.  TARP originated partly because of the exposure of banks to Fannie and Freddie preferred stocks that were wiped out.  The Treasury told the banks to buy this stuff and then made a conscious choice to destroy them.  Paulson was a Bush Administration appointee.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      My Esotericposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yes he did/yes he has, but by 2010, Obama made it most of the way back, just not employment;most recessions of this type don't; Reagan certainly didn't. Nevertheless, the answer I am wanting would be 1 (a given), 2, 3, 4, 5 or all 6 slices of time.

      replyreport
3. 58

   Jean.Paraisonposted 12 years ago

   President Obama, I think, has done a better job when it comes to economic growth. Why? Because he inherited an economic crisis created, at least in large part, by the previous administration.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      My Esotericposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      True, true, but do you think Obama has done a better job, growth-wise in the last 10 quarters once out of possible 6 slices of time(a given), 2, 3, 4, 5 or all 6?

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Lions Den Mediaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      How can fewer jobs, lower growth, lower home prices, and a smaller job universe = a better economy? The fact is Bush's spending policies helped create the problem, just as Obama's policies have exasperated the problem.

      replyreport
   3. 85

      My Esotericposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Look at my answer to my question on the lower growth, Obama's first time jobless claims are in line with the last six presidents before him and better than Bush IIs now, home prices are not far from where they should be if it weren't for the bubble.

      replyreport
4. 80

   junksellerposted 12 years ago

   Asking who is a better pilot based upon altitude gained is really only a valid question when both pilots start with the same plane in the same position.
   
   When one starts with a perfectly good high-flying jet and the other with one plunging to earth in a death dive, it doesn't seem very comparable.
   
   But being that the first guy took the high flying rising jet and plunged it into the death dive and the second guy pulled it out of the death dive I'd much rather fly with the second guy than the first.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      My Esotericposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I know what you are saying junkseller, but even Bush started with a sinking economy helped along with 9/11 and our response to it.  They you have his own bungling.  Nevertheless, the answer would be 1 (a given), 2, 3, 4, 5 or all 6 slices of time.

      replyreport
   2. 80

      junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Well, I don't want to fly with either, but even if you consider it a valid comparison, it could still be argued that Bush II's growth was simply riding the housing bubble which then burst. That's not good economics.

      replyreport
5. 61

   Lions Den Mediaposted 12 years ago

   Obviously you are an Obama supporter. So I'm not going to argue any points...I will only point out that in 2011 there were 130,000 fewer millionaires. More Americans are now leaving and renouncing American citizenship than at any time in history under the Obama Marxist socialist regime.
   http://rt.com/usa/news/leaving-us-america-country-289/
   http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/ … UF20120416
   
   And now the LARGEST TAX IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND is being imposed on the American people due to Obamacare, which Obama declared was NOT a TAX, but which was declared by the Supreme Court as a TAX.
   
   So do you think your home is worth more know than when Bush left office, are you earning more money, can your kids find a job, is 8.2 percent unemployment less than 5 percent unemployment (which existed under Bush), can you keep your current doctor and healthcare plan, will you be one of the people the government decides to kill (like the British did last year in which they killed 130,000 people) and in General -- Are you better off today than you were Under Bush?
   
   http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 … americans/
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmNLJ0AVff0
   
   VP Biden said it best -- he called the Obama economy a "depression". So let us dispense with the attempts at appearing to be smarter than one truly is and accept the brutal facts that the current economy under Obama is comparible to the Great Depression.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      CMerrittposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      High five to Lions Den!!
      
      I think he said it all very well.
      
      

      replyreport
   2. 85

      My Esotericposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yep, I am. No doubt you are right, but I bet there are more millionaires today than there were say in Oct 2009 when the Bush recession finally hit bottom.  Actually, my home is, about $20,000 more after losing $200,000 under Bush.

      replyreport
   3. 61

      Lions Den Mediaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks CM. E - Instead of personal anecdotes lets stick with  facts of the general market. Reality: real estate will not return for another 5 years minimum. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdes … g-dow.html

      replyreport
   4. 80

      junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "Stick with the facts" from a guy talking about the "Obama Marxist socialist regime." That's a good laugh.

      replyreport
   5. 61

      Lions Den Mediaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Junk -- what's your point? My point is economic based on the following facts: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13606990
      Prove Obama isn't a socialist...Fact Obama did place 1/6th of the US economy under gov control and force you to do anything.

      replyreport
   6. 85

      My Esotericposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly what parts of the economy put "under gov't control"?  I am not aware of any.  If you are talking about Obamacare, show me specifically what parts of it that are now under gov't control that wasn't before.  As I read it, there isn't any.

      replyreport
   7. 80

      junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Even if part of the economy is under gov't control, gov't control of the economy is not socialism, unless the control was fully exercised by the people and was for their benefit. Which it isn't.

      replyreport
   8. 61

      nightwork4posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      as a Canadian all i can say is you bush loving, obama hating people are hilarious. bush almost destroyed your country in so many ways and you folks are too blind to see it.

      replyreport
   9. 61

      Lions Den Mediaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      ME; EPA regs putting coal industry out of business. Obamacare is a tax. one sixth of the economy is health care. use your head. The mind is like a parachute - it must be open to work. The "commerce Clause" controls what? Commerce = economy

      replyreport
   10. 60

       kenjmoposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       What to do with Health care, solution: blow it up start all over. Does anyone believe that will work easier or quicker. We had a surplus when Clinton left Bush came, spent unconstitutionally furthermore how can we expect 8 years to be undone in 4.

       replyreport
   11. 85

       My Esotericposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       So you think the founder made a mistake including the Commerce Clause in Article 1 of the Constitution?  Given your opinion of EPA regs, you prefer acid rain, a dead Lake Erie, and a smog blanket over Los Angeles ... things the EPA made industry fix.

       replyreport
   12. 61

       Lions Den Mediaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       ken - there was no such surplus. Bush came into office after Clinton with a national debt of over $4 trillion. How is that a surplus...is that new math?

       replyreport
   13. 80

       junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Surplus refers to the deficit, not the debt. Bush II started with a surplus and than proceeded to nearly double the federal budget. Bush II increased spending and deficits more than any other modern president.

       replyreport
   14. 61

       Lions Den Mediaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Junk: your point is like claiming you have money in the bank because even though you're in debt, you have a capital surplus because you have a bunch of checks. Fact Clinton started w/$4trillion left $5.9 trillion in debt. The rest is semantics.

       replyreport
   15. 85

       My Esotericposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Sorry Lion, Junk has you on this one.  He is talking apples - annual budgets, you are talking oranges - debt.  In fact, if Bush had stayed Clinton's course, the actual debt would have come down because of the budget surpluses Clinton got going.

       replyreport
   16. 80

       junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       By definition a surplus is having a budget where revenue exceeds spending, which existed at the end of Clinton's term. Bush changed that to a massive deficit and Rep's force it to stay that way by refusing revenue increases or fair spending cuts.

       replyreport
   17. 61

       Lions Den Mediaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Junk I don't disagree and refuse to defend Bush's spending as I'm one of the few conservatives consistently rip Bush. There was no surplus because the interest alone would eat that up. And plus there were other issues with the methodology used.

       replyreport
   18. 85

       My Esotericposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       No, a surplus means a surplus.  For the last one or two years of Clinton and the first year of Bush, the federal government took in more in revenue than it spent in outlays which included interest payments on the debt.

       replyreport
   19. 61

       Lions Den Mediaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Arguing with irrational thought? If you have $10,000 in your pocket, but owe $100 million - do you have a cash surplus? Using that same logic-would a private company using Clinton's #s be profitable or bankrupt?

       replyreport
   20. 80

       junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       You are still talking about assets rather than budgets. An entity can have debt but still be taking in more money than they outlay. Paying on the debt is simply part of its outlays. I doubt you'll find many organizations who don't have any debt.

       replyreport
   21. 85

       My Esotericposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Lol, accounting 101 by comment, I have the same problem with my business partner.  "Cash in pocket" and a debt of $100 mil are both balance sheet accounts and have nothing to do with profit and loss.  If income exceeds expenses, you are profitable.

       replyreport
6. 70

   Sullen91posted 12 years ago

   I think you should think carefully before asking your question.
   
   The president presiding over good/bad economic times does not mean that the president is the cause of a prosperous/unprosperous economy.  Fiscal policy conducted by the government has far less influence on the economy than monetary policy conducted by the Federal Reserve.
   
   More to the point, the government cannot effect economic outcomes in a society where "free market capitalism" reigns free.
   
   The ugly recession of 2008 was not caused by one single factor; but it's fair to say deregulation was a major contributing factor vis a vis the collapse in "mortgage backed securities" -- which are derivatives.
   
   Wall Street was opposed to the regulation of derivatives and still remains opposed to the regulation of derivatives -- for somewhat obvious reasons. After all, people on wall street don't want outsiders scrutinizing the absurdity associated with various financial products that are concocted for the sole purpose of generating profits (rewards) and at the risk of the taxpayer, where if the banks are unable to make true on their so called "commitments" they threaten financial Armageddon to strong arm bailout money from the citizens.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Sullen91posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Today, nothing has changed. People talk about punishing those responsible for the crash of 2008, but what's the sense in punishment if the underlying behavior has not even been corrected? Short of major reforms to the financial industry, these crises

      replyreport
   2. 85

      My Esotericposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You speak the truth, of course, but the question is very relevant because of the propaganda war the Right is winning against the President on this issue.  Only facts can defeat them by pealing away from their ranks those who actually think.

      replyreport
   3. 61

      Lions Den Mediaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Regulations and gov demands for banks to loan to unqualified borrowers via threat of criminal prosecution on discrimination charges. "Opposed regulation"? The financial services industry is the most regulated industry.

      replyreport
7. 60

   pythian2posted 12 years ago

   It all depends on how the economic debacle has impacted your life, and your personal politics. For someone who is a staunch Republican the question is irrelevant. If Obama made everyone a millionaire they would complain it's socialism gone mad.
   
   If you're a struggling family some members suffering with unemployment you'd blame the Republicans for letting the banks have complete freedom to do what they wanted to do in the name of freedom.
   
   Probably more so with American politics, emotion has a higher weighting than hard facts. So facts might indicate you draw one conclusion but emotion will get in the way so you take a contrarian view.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Lions Den Mediaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The fact is that socialism does not create millionaires, unless you are part of the political power structure. Second - it is NOT about money - it is about Liberty and the constitutional principles. I disdain Bush and Obama because of their policies.

      replyreport
8. 85

   My Esotericposted 12 years ago

   OK, I got a lot of good comments, but no answers.  So, here is the answer, actually two of them depending on which set of stats you like best.  The first is a little more straight forward but both answers aren't too different from each other.
   
   In terms of annual GDP, there were seven, 10 quarter time slices, one beginning in 2001 incrementing by one year through 2006, then jumping past the recession years to 2009, Obama's 10 quarters.
   
   LOOK #1: Averaging the 10 quarterly % growth or declines together - 2002, 2003 were the best; 2001, 2005. 2009 were the next best, and way behind are 2006 and 2007.
   
   LOOK #2:  Subtracting each Bush yearly slice from the Obama baseline and averaging the resulting differences - Bush beats Obama in 2002 and 2003; 2001 and 2004 were a tie; Obama beats Bush in 2005 and clobbers him in 2006.
   
   And 'dems da facts.

   replyreport