Now, for some reason, Obama gets all the credit for creating this disastrous situation in the first place. He didn't. We started off in 2000 with a budget surplus thanks to Clinton. There was even talk of taking down the deficit clock in Times Square. However, thanks to Bush's unbelievably bad policies, we started into a period of very high deficits and a period of low jobs growth. Bush's lowering of taxes didn't increase tax income. Bush's lowering of taxes didn't improve job growth. Bush did help accelerate the housing bubble.
Obama is trying to pick up the pieces and all he's gotten for the trouble is a bunch of whining from racist Tea Baggers. Given the "wonderful" job that the Republicans did when they had control, I'm dumbfounded that the electorate might actually consider putting them back in power. Talk about a short attention span. Or maybe its just that they would rather have a crappy government than one run by a nigger.
Obama is joke-and anyone with a working brain 2 years ago knew that. And his color had nothing to do with his lack of qualifications in one sense and had everything to do with him being a contender. a white guy with a similarly thin resume would have never won the election
First of all, the economy was doing quite well as the GDP and employment numbers showed right up to the time that the Democrats took control of the Congress and thus all the oversight committees. Obama was in that Congress in case you forgot. Now it does seem that the only ones that want to re-write history or revise history are the Democrats and Obama supporters.
The financial crisis came to a head in the late summer of 2008 and at that time unemployment also started rising. Bush's Treasury Secretary put a bailout plan in place, the 700 billion dollar TARP program. Bush spent 350 billion of it and left 350 billion for Obama to spend. That stabilized the markets and keep us from going into that depression many claimed we were headed for.
Bush then put together a loan for the auto industry to keep it affloat after some disasterous decisions made by management including some very poorly negotiated union contracts.
Obama was elected President and given the 350 billion dollar TARP money to use for any other banking problems. Today there is still about 200 billion dollars of that fund left to spend meaning that Obama used another 150 billion and the problem was solved. There were no pieces of the financial problem to pick up.
Banks then started paying back the TARP loans with interest. Much of the 500 billion that was actually loaned has been paid back but Obama didn't use the money to pay down the deficit then went and blamed Bush for an inherited deficit which of course is a lie on a number of fronts.
Obama then took over GM/Chrysler because for the sole purpose of bailing out the unions. Then Obama put together a stimulus plan, 862 billion dollars that was supposed to keep unemployment from exceeding 8%. Obviously that was another Obama lie because all it did was bailout union pension plans, support teacher's unions, and other Democrat constituent groups. It totally failed to do what it was intended to do which was to create jobs.
Then he put together a financial package that ignored the two biggest problems that helped create the financial problem, Freddie and Fannie. They were omitted and Obama and his supporters claim success. only true idiots believe that it is going to prevent another financial meltdown.
Most liberals here aren't used to being challenged with facts. I am going to post the economic and unemployment numbers up to the present and all can see that Obama supporters are full of total BS. Yet they never stop, the claims that Clinton had a surplus is another lie, it was a projected surplus that didn't take into account the recession that Clinton left Bush and 9/11 which GAO claims cost a trillion dollars. So Bush;s "incredibly bad policies" weren't nearly as bad as the liberals want the country to believe and that is evidenced by the incredible declining Obama poll numbers as the Obama lies are catching up with him.
I don't know where you get your information but obviously you have no use for facts. Tax revenue went up after the Bush tax cuts. You can get that information from the non partisan bea.gov. 8.5 million jobs were created during the first 7 years of the Bush Administration and that includes 2001-2002 recession/911 years and you will see that below. I don't know why liberals have such a problem with people keeping more of their own money and why anyone would buy that tax cuts are an expense to the govt.
What we continue to have is liberal revisionist history. Obama has put Bush spending on steroids. He didn't apply the TARP repayment to the 2009 deficit and had a 1.4 trillion deficit in that year and a 1.29 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2010. He took over with unemployment at 12 million and today it is over 16 million. He witnessed the end of the recession according to NBER in June 2009 and yet every month of 2010 the unemployment has been higher than it was in each month of 2009. His economic growth is 1/6% annualized.
I understand you don't like being challenged with actual facts and thus aren't used to it but you really ought to do better research to verify what the leftwing is telling you. You simply don't know what you are talking about.
Gross Domestic Product by year
Unemployment by year
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400
2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599 14860 14767
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209
Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784 15970 15976 0 0 0
Now for your handy numbers.
Bush's first year: Jan 2001 - number of unemployed 6.023M
Bush's second year: Jan 2002 - number of unemployed 8.182M or a 36% increase in the number of unemployed
Obama's first year: Jan 2009 - number of unemployed 11.919M
Obama's second year: Jan 2010 - number of unemployed 14.837M or a 24.5% increase in the number of unemployed
The real damage was done in the last year of Bush's reign when the number of unemployed jumped by 56% (according to your numbers). And yes, relative numbers make sense (when a loaf of bread cost $1 and you are making $100, it is relatively more expensive than when bread cost $2 and you are making $500).
I suppose that since Bush inherited a surplus and, as you say, tax revenue went up, then it is just an affirmation of Bush's (and the Republican Congress') stewardship that the deficit started growing like crazy under Bush? Bush handed Obama a pile of crap and and Republicans are unwilling to accept that they are AT LEAST as culpable for this mess as the Democrats and much more responsible for this mess than is Obama.
BTW, things are bad enough without your exaggerations. Your own numbers show that the current Unemployed+Discouraged is coming down and today is not "over 16M". I'm also not able to see why the Sept 2010 number of 15.976M U+D is higher than, say, the Oct 2009 value of 16.42. Maybe you meant so say "on a month by month basis" and not "each month"
Finally, why are you trying to compare Bush's 8 years against the 18 months of Obama? According to budget projections, the the deficit for the next fiscal year will be less of a percentage of GDP than it was during the typical Bush year. Bush started off with everything in good fiscal shape, Obama didn't. If you just look at the start of his administration and at the end, Bush totally screwed it up. And claiming it was all because Democrats were in control of Congress (but not the Senate) for the last two years of Bush's administration is just total bull**** (the fact that Lieberman caucused with the Democrats didn't make him a Democrat as his support of McCain in 2008 proved).
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.