Some facts for the Obama haters

rr165892

brianlux said:

rr165892 said:

Wagon wheel baby!

I love it when some of these threads get twisted or unravel. It's like a knitters nightmare sometimes... but I like it! :-D

Brian it is like a river. Sometimes a tiny object can divert the flow creating a new stream in a new unexpected direction.Its Evolution Baby!!!

WhatYouTaughtMe

i_lov_it said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

I have not being an outspoken Obama hater. I don't think he's been a good president. And I have been against the bailouts and Obamacare. That being said, wasn't it under his watch that unemployment rose to over 10%? So it would seem natural that the trend would have to come back down. Just like Reagan, when you cause high rates of unemployment, at some point it's going to drop. The economy is cyclical. It's gets really bad, then bounces back. The surprise here to me is that Obama got to see a second term, most presidents that have screwed the economy don't get that chance.

You have a tenuous grasp on the financial collapse and resulting recession if you think that Obama "screwed the economy."

I don't blame Obama alone. GW didn't help matter and Clinton started the mess.

I agree and there all just as bad as each other...some more so then others.

I wish more people realized they are both pretty much the same thing. Different arms of the same war machine.

Last-12-Exit

Just to be clear, where I didn't blam Obama outright for the economic collapse, he holds blame. He is responsible for almost doubling the national debt.

Bentleyspop

Last-12-Exit said:

Just to be clear, where I didn't blam Obama outright for the economic collapse, he holds blame. He is responsible for almost doubling the national debt.

Posts like this one spread misinformation.
A very little bit of research in under 1 minute finds the actual factual truth.

In 2009 shortly after Obama took over the national debt was just under 12 trillion.
As of 3 months ago it was just under 18 trillion.
If I do my basic elementary math correctly that is a 50% increase not 200%.

In checking recent history its easy to find that in 2000 the debt was around 5.5 trillion and by late 2008 the debt was 10.5 trillion.
Once again doing basic elementary math that means during the Cheney/Rove regime the debt increased 190%.

Yes it is a much higher dollar amount and yes it is bad. But, the overall percent increase is much less than during the previous govt.

Last-12-Exit

Excuse you for spreading that misinformation. The national debt on the first day of Obamas presidency was $10.626 trillion. Today, the national debt is just over $18 trillion. Like I said, he has almost doubled the national debt.

Gern Blansten

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

I have not being an outspoken Obama hater. I don't think he's been a good president. And I have been against the bailouts and Obamacare. That being said, wasn't it under his watch that unemployment rose to over 10%? So it would seem natural that the trend would have to come back down. Just like Reagan, when you cause high rates of unemployment, at some point it's going to drop. The economy is cyclical. It's gets really bad, then bounces back. The surprise here to me is that Obama got to see a second term, most presidents that have screwed the economy don't get that chance.

You have a tenuous grasp on the financial collapse and resulting recession if you think that Obama "screwed the economy."

I don't blame Obama alone. GW didn't help matter and Clinton started the mess.

Yeah that damn surplus that Clinton left Bush just screwed the pooch

Last-12-Exit

The housing "boom" started under Clinton. He has even said after the fact that he should have stepped in and regulated those loans that were carelessly given out. Yes, under Clinton, the economy flourished mainly under the internets dot com boom. But Clinton's policies to hand loans out to anyone was the start of what happened in 2007-2008. I supported bill Clinton. He was the only president that I voted for. But that doesn't mean his share of the blame shouldn't be addressed.

hedonist

brianlux said:

rr165892 said:

Wagon wheel baby!

I love it when some of these threads get twisted or unravel. It's like a knitters nightmare sometimes... but I like it! :-D

It's the cat lover in you

Indifference

Bentleyspop said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Just to be clear, where I didn't blam Obama outright for the economic collapse, he holds blame. He is responsible for almost doubling the national debt.

If I do my basic elementary math correctly that is a 50% increase not 200%.

.

Basic elementary math says if something has doubled it is up 100% not 200%.

Bentleyspop

Last-12-Exit said:

Excuse you for spreading that misinformation. The national debt on the first day of Obamas presidency was $10.626 trillion. Today, the national debt is just over $18 trillion. Like I said, he has almost doubled the national debt.

Okay then....
When the Cheney/Rove regime started the national debt was 5.8 trillion.
At the end it was 11.9 trillion.
An increase of 6.1 trillion
An increase of 105%

Using your figures the actual percentage increase during the Obama presidency is 59%.

Last I checked their is a large difference between 105% and 59%.
105% is actually more than double.

But I'm sure you'll come back with potato and I'll say potato and in the long run it won't really matter. But maybe some people will read these posts and take a couple of minutes and do some research and get the facts.

mikepegg44

What did people think would happen to an economy when 3 trillion dollars is pumped into the banking system? You see a rise in investment activity. Shocking.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/29/fed-quietly-ends-stimulus-hard-work

I don't remember, can someone let me know if the same amount of money, adjusted for inflation of course, was spent by the Federal reserve in the early 80's?

For those who care, unemployment was calculated differently in the 80's too. Comparing unemployment rates should be done with the same numbers don't you think? Anyone got a link to a graph that does that? I have had trouble finding one, but I do know that if you take off all the people unemployed for more than 52 weeks from Reagan's numbers they can't help but improve.



Statistics --- allowing democrats and republicans to both be wrong about the same thing for, well, forever.

I feel dirty trying to defend a president I dislike with a passion, one that did so many horrible things, but to compare these economic "recoveries" is like comparing apples and oranges. The target federal funds rate was double digits in Reagan's first two years of office. Obama's was damn near zero. For those that don't know the Fed.Fund Rate is the rate that banks trade balances to meet reserve requirements (obviously it is a little more complicated than that). Said simply, it makes money more expensive to borrow depending on how high it is. The amount of inflation inherited, the interest rate problems inherited were much much different for Reagan. A housing bubble/banking crisis is not the same as inflation and interest rate problems. If we look at real GDP growth between the two it isn't close...

Real GDP Growth Rate
and again I say, statistics, whoever wants to can usually make them say something completely different.

The system has been "fixed" by plugging holes with fictionally low interest rates and cash, but that was not by his design. He should not get a lot of praise for the success of the economy, no president should alone, that includes Reagan. When the next president takes office and the repercussions of all the free money begin to be felt, Obama should not be blamed for those either as it wasn't him that was continuing QE for 6 years.

President Obama has done some great things, but he has also done some shitty stuff and pretending that he hasn't done either good or bad is kind of silly (not saying anyone in this thread is doing that)

Last-12-Exit

Bentleyspop said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Excuse you for spreading that misinformation. The national debt on the first day of Obamas presidency was $10.626 trillion. Today, the national debt is just over $18 trillion. Like I said, he has almost doubled the national debt.

Okay then....
When the Cheney/Rove regime started the national debt was 5.8 trillion.
At the end it was 11.9 trillion.
An increase of 6.1 trillion
An increase of 105%

Using your figures the actual percentage increase during the Obama presidency is 59%.

Last I checked their is a large difference between 105% and 59%.
105% is actually more than double.

But I'm sure you'll come back with potato and I'll say potato and in the long run it won't really matter. But maybe some people will read these posts and take a couple of minutes and do some research and get the facts.

No, I'll come back with I don't give a fuck about George Ws contribution to the national debt. You brought up GW, not me. My point was and still is that Obama took the debt from 10.6 trillion to over 18 trillion. Which can be described as almost doubling.

know1

What did Obama personally do that lowered the unemployment rate? I just don't think the President has as much influence as some give them credit for.

Gern Blansten

know1 said:

What did Obama personally do that lowered the unemployment rate? I just don't think the President has as much influence as some give them credit for.

So you blame him for unemployment being high but no credit for when it's low?

That might make sense....just asking

Same theory as why everybody bitches about Obama when gas is high but when it's low he had nothing to do with it.

If liberals followed the GOP talking point theory they would be on the news every day yapping about how Obama lowered gas prices.

Jason P

Arguing over how Bush or Obama handled the national debt is like debating between which NFL team has a more competent offense, the Jaguars or the Raiders ...

brianlux

Jason P said:

Arguing over how Bush or Obama handled the national debt is like debating between which NFL team has a more competent offense, the Jaguars or the Raiders ...

There's ever been a team with an offense less competent than the current Raiders?

)

Bentleyspop

brianlux said:

Jason P said:

Arguing over how Bush or Obama handled the national debt is like debating between which NFL team has a more competent offense, the Jaguars or the Raiders ...

There's ever been a team with an offense less competent than the current Raiders?

)

Tampa Bay their first 2 years?

Last-12-Exit

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

Jason P said:

Arguing over how Bush or Obama handled the national debt is like debating between which NFL team has a more competent offense, the Jaguars or the Raiders ...

There's ever been a team with an offense less competent than the current Raiders?

)

Tampa Bay their first 2 years?

Lol. The first 2? That's quite generous.

know1

Gern Blansten said:

know1 said:

What did Obama personally do that lowered the unemployment rate? I just don't think the President has as much influence as some give them credit for.

So you blame him for unemployment being high but no credit for when it's low?

That might make sense....just asking

Same theory as why everybody bitches about Obama when gas is high but when it's low he had nothing to do with it.

If liberals followed the GOP talking point theory they would be on the news every day yapping about how Obama lowered gas prices.

No - I'm not blaming him for anything. I'm saying that I don't think Presidents in general deserve as much praise or as much blame as they get. I don't think they do that much.

Gern Blansten

Jason P said:

Arguing over how Bush or Obama handled the national debt is like debating between which NFL team has a more competent offense, the Jaguars or the Raiders ...

Actually it's not. Bush cut taxes and took us into multiple wars.