• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

S&P 500 up 61% since Obama took office

Harshaw said:
What could I possibly say to you if you sincerely believe the economy is "improving rapidly"? It would be like trying to convince you gravity exists when you insist it doesn't.
Click to expand...

So are you claiming that the numbers I am presenting are false? Or that you think that your gut instinct is a better measure of economic success than economic indicators? Or what exactly is your position now?
 
teamosil said:
So are you claiming that the numbers I am presenting are false? Or that you think that your gut instinct is a better measure of economic success than economic indicators? Or what exactly is your position now?
Click to expand...

"Now"? This implies I somehow made a change to something.

As for "numbers" you're presenting, which ones support your claim of a "rapidly improving" economy?
 
Harshaw said:
"Now"? This implies I somehow made a change to something.
Click to expand...

Right. Before you were working the "its just a coincidence" angle, now you seem to have switched to "numbers are lies!" angle.

Harshaw said:
As for "numbers" you're presenting, which ones support your claim of a "rapidly improving" economy?
Click to expand...

Amongst others, a 61% jump in the stock market, 24 straight months of positive job creation and 11 consecutive quarters of positive GDP growth.
 
teamosil said:
The S&P 500 has risen 61% since Obama took office and it has doubled since it's low, which was just a few weeks after he took office.

By comparison, over the course of Bush's two terms it fell 38%.

Obama is outperforming Bush by a much larger margin than Democrats normally outperform Republicans, but on average Democratic presidents have always radically outperformed Republicans economically. Between 1927 and 1998 the stock market has performed 6.3 times better under Democratic presidents on average.

Income growth is similarly skewed with Democrats again totally destroying Republicans. If you are at the 20th percentile for income, between 1948 and 2005, your income increased an average of 2.64% a year under Democrats, but only 0.43% under Republicans. At the 60th percentile, it was 2.47% under Democrats, but only 1.13% under Republicans. Even if you're at the 95th percentile, the Democrats still beat the Republicans 2.12% to 1.9%. In fact, the GDP grew 2.78% under Democrats, but only 1.64% under Republicans.
Click to expand...


Quick, far-righties, run to your talking point masters and get some misleading information to post in this thread...
 
teamosil said:
Right. Before you were working the "its just a coincidence" angle, now you seem to have switched to "numbers are lies!" angle.
Click to expand...

And where did I do this, exactly?


Amongst others, a 61% jump in the stock market, 24 straight months of positive job creation and 11 consecutive quarters of positive GDP growth.
Click to expand...

The stock market is not a measure of the overall economy, and both job numbers and GDP growth have been extremely weak -- the number of months is meaningless; it's not even keeping up with population growth. "Rapid recoveries" usually show growth in the 5-6% realm, not the paltry, hardly-moving ~2% we've been seeing. As for employment, it usually improves around 7% in a typical recovery; under Obama, that, too, has been around 2%.

You can see this charted here:

Obama's 'Extraordinary' Economic Recovery Actually 6.5 Million Jobs Below Average - Investors.com

WEBrec053012_345.gif.cms


But like I said, if you sincerely believe we've been experiencing "rapid recovery," then there's very little I can say -- one normally can't crack a tightly-held delusion.

Then again, you apparently don't even know what I say, as you seem to think I said things I didn't.
 
Harshaw said:
You can see this charted here:
Click to expand...
LOL......as if this was an "average" recession! If it was, the you and IBD would have a point....but it isn't, so you don't.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
LOL......as if this was an "average" recession! If it was, the you and IBD would have a point....but it isn't, so you don't.
Click to expand...

This recession was no deeper than that of the late '70s/early '80s. When recovery finally happened then, it really was "rapid" and robust.

But nonetheless, it's irrelevant. teamosil is saying we're experiencing "rapid recovery" right now. If you want to say that of course it's slow-going because it was so deep, then you undermine HIS points, not mine.
 
it seems every discussion here is a partisan circle jerk, with little interest in actually discussing policy or it's ramifications.


Quite amazing, to be honest.
 
Harshaw said:
The stock market is not a measure of the overall economy
Click to expand...

Of course it is. That is essentially what investors think the overall economy is worth.

Harshaw said:
and both job numbers and GDP growth have been extremely weak -- the number of months is meaningless; it's not even keeping up with population growth.
Click to expand...

That's not true... Where did you hear that lol?


Harshaw said:
"Rapid recoveries" usually show growth in the 5-6% realm, not the paltry, hardly-moving ~2% we've been seeing. As for employment, it usually improves around 7% in a typical recovery; under Obama, that, too, has been around 2%.

You can see this charted here:

Obama's 'Extraordinary' Economic Recovery Actually 6.5 Million Jobs Below Average - Investors.com
Click to expand...

Er, what is the average recovery? Are you talking about just recoveries from minor recessions? The Bush recession is second only to the Great Depression which took many years and a world war to recover from. Of course we bounce out of minor recessions quicker.
 
Last edited:
Wait a minute, is this the ones who hate the so-called wallstreeter 1%, saying that President Obama has been good for those rich rapists of the poor and middle class? Looks like someone was asleep during their class warfare training seminar. :mrgreen:
 
teamosil said:
Of course it is. That is what investors think the overall economy is worth.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what the stock market is, apparently.

And this is a rather amusing claim among the wailings of your political brethren that the "recovery" is benefiting Wall Street and leaving Main Street behind.

(Which, if you want to use the stock market as a measure of the economy, it obviously is.)


That's not true... Where did you hear that lol?
Click to expand...

:roll:

Everyone says so. Even the NYT:

Obama's Magic Number? 150,000 Jobs Per Month - NYTimes.com

Look, it's simple. Looking at ONLY the months of job growth, the average has been about 138K per month. The NYT says it needs to be 150K to keep up with population growth. Thus, it's not keeping up.

But in reality, the US population increases about 2 million per year, which averages out to 167K per month, even higher than the 150K the NYT says. Again, thus, it's not keeping up.

It's not like these numbers are anything new to anyone who's actually been paying attention.


Er, what is the average recovery? Are you talking about just recoveries from minor recessions? The Bush recession is second only to the Great Depression which took many years and a world war to recover from. Of course we bounce out of minor recessions quicker.
Click to expand...

Oh, so the recovery hasn't been "rapid" after all. Good to see you come around.
 
Harshaw said:
You have no idea what the stock market is, apparently.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about kiddo? The market capitalization of a company is what it would cost to buy that entire company. The total value of the stock market is what it would cost to buy all the publicly traded companies. What did you think it was lol?

Harshaw said:
:roll:

Everyone says so. Even the NYT:

Obama's Magic Number? 150,000 Jobs Per Month - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...

You understand we've been well above 150,000 jobs gained per month almost every month, right? Your link points that out, so I guess you didn't read it? And have just been generally oblivious to the news for a couple of years now?

You might be thinking of the average including the first year when we were still slowing the bleeding Bush left us with.

Harshaw said:
But in reality, the US population increases about 2 million per year, which averages out to 167K per month, even higher than the 150K the NYT says. Again, thus, it's not keeping up.
Click to expand...

You understand that not everybody seeks work, right? Small business people, students, homemakers, people with young children, people who take a year off to go backpacking around Europe, etc.

Harshaw said:
Oh, so the recovery hasn't been "rapid" after all. Good to see you come around.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you're getting confused. This stuff isn't that tough...
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
This recession was no deeper than that of the late '70s/early '80s. When recovery finally happened then, it really was "rapid" and robust.

But nonetheless, it's irrelevant. teamosil is saying we're experiencing "rapid recovery" right now. If you want to say that of course it's slow-going because it was so deep, then you undermine HIS points, not mine.
Click to expand...

The 2008 recession caused far more drop in GDP than anyother since the great depression. As you can see from this chart, GDP has continued to lag which is what is slowing job growth.
The minimizing of the depth of the recession by the GOP again shows their ineptitude at even understanding the U.S. economy no less actually improving it. The record of GOP administrations is even more damning though. More jobs were created during Clintons 8 years than under Presidents Reagan, Bush AND Bush2 put together. With Romney promising nothing but more of the same policies as Bush (except Bush's record hiring of Govt. workers that Romney wants to fire)) anyone who expects anything more than dismal job growth is the definition of insane.


AVERAGE NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED PER MONTH BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION: 20,000

AVERAGE NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED PER MONTH BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION EXCLUDING THE DISASTROUS LAST YEAR: 65,000

NUMBER OF MONTHS IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IN WHICH THERE WERE 500,000 OR MORE JOBS CREATED: 0.
Click to expand...
Read more: Number Of Jobs Created Per Month By George Bush - Business Insider

20110730_WOC311.gif
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
What are you talking about kiddo? The market capitalization of a company is what it would cost to buy that entire company. The total value of the stock market is what it would cost to buy all the publicly traded companies. What did you think it was lol?
Click to expand...

Ah, "kiddo." Nice. Especially when you're demonstrating that no, you really don't know what you're talking about.

If this were all true, it still wouldn't be a measure of the economy.


You understand we've been well above 150,000 jobs gained per month almost every month, right?
Click to expand...

No, I don't "understand" this, because it isn't correct. The monthly average since job growth began has been less than 140K.

Graph: Total nonfarm payroll employment (seasonally adjusted)



Your link points that out, so I guess you didn't read it? And have just been generally oblivious to the news for a couple of years now?

You might be thinking of the average including the first year when we were still slowing the bleeding Bush left us with.
Click to expand...

No, I'm thinking you see what you want to see. But that's been apparent through this exchange.


You understand that not everybody seeks work, right? Small business people, students, homemakers, people with young children, people who take a year off to go backpacking around Europe, etc.
Click to expand...

So what? I didn't say they did. I said that the "recovery" hasn't kept up with the pace of population growth (which is a standard measure of economic health), and I showed it. Stay with the actual conversation.


Not sure where you're getting confused. This stuff isn't that tough...
Click to expand...

There's nothing "confusing" about it all, except that you may be confused about what you're arguing. First, it's "rapid recovery," then it's "of course it's slow, because the recession was deep."

You want it both ways; it doesn't work like that.
 
iguanaman said:
The 2008 recession caused far more drop in GDP than anyother since the great depression. As you can see from this chart, GDP has continued to lag which is what is slowing job growth.
The minimizing of the depth of the recession by the GOP again shows their ineptitude at even understanding the U.S. economy no less actually improving it. The record of GOP administrations is even more damning though. More jobs were created during Clintons 8 years than under Presidents Reagan, Bush AND Bush2 put together. With Romney promising nothing but more of the same policies as Bush (except Bush's record hiring of Govt. workers that Romney wants to fire)) anyone who expects anything more than dismal job growth is the definition of insane.



Read more: Number Of Jobs Created Per Month By George Bush - Business Insider

20110730_WOC311.gif
Click to expand...

And how do you think this support's teamosil's claim that the economy is showing "rapid recovery"?
 
Last edited:
why are Obama fans braying about this when so many of them are hostile towards investment income?
 
So, what is more important to most American voters?

That the S&P 500 is way up since Obama took over?

Or that the unemployment rate has gone from 6.8% the the last full month under GWB to 8.2% now (and rising) - and really over 9.7% if you take into account the non-retiree related drop in the participation rate?


I am guessing the latter is more important to most Americans...much more.

We shall see in November.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
why are Obama fans braying about this when so many of them are hostile towards investment income?
Click to expand...

Probably just the daily talking point handed out by the Chicago office. Surprised Mr T did not start this thread.
 
lord awmighty.. one day it's wall street is evil, the next your cheering it on like it's you best buddy

pick a narrative.. just one.. but for the love of all things holy,make up your goddamned minds.
 
DA60 said:
...the unemployment rate has gone from 6.8% the the last full month under GWB to 8.2% now...
Click to expand...

*cough* bullshyte *cough*

Sorry about that. Got a tickle in my throat just as I was about to post this Bureau of Labor Statistics graph from this very page located on the bls.gov webiste:


art02.jpg​


Obama could have done so much better but when it comes to statistics... lets stick to the facts not pulled out of one's own arse.
 
AdamT said:
He ended the recession sooner than it would have ended without the stimulus and auto bailouts. He probably averted a full-blown depression. The recovery would be stronger if the Republicans didn't oppose every measure to improve it.
Click to expand...

What could Republicans block during the supermajority?
 
poweRob said:
*cough* bullshyte *cough*

Sorry about that. Got a tickle in my throat just as I was about to post this Bureau of Labor Statistics graph from this very page located on the bls.gov webiste:




Obama could have done so much better but when it comes to statistics... lets stick to the facts not pulled out of one's own arse.
Click to expand...
I got my stats from the following site:

United States Unemployment Rate


But I will refer to the BLS stats instead:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

They show the unemployment rate for Dec. '08 (the last full month of GWB's presidency) as 7.3%.

Today it is 8.2% and growing.

Plus, including the non-retiree related drop in the participation rate from Dec. '08, the rate is over 9.7% (this number is based on BLS.gov statistics).
And I am being generous with this rate as it is going on the assumption that half of those that dropped out of the workforce's participation rate did so strictly due to retirement.
If the actual difference in the participation rate is used - compared to Dec. '08 - the unemployment rate today is over 10.7%.


Once again, which do you think most American voters will care about...a better stock market or a worse (and worsening) unemployment rate (plus far less average resale housing value, far more national debt and more people on food stamps)?

I am thinking the latter.
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
So is your contention just that you think the success under Obama has been a coincidence? Or that the entire last 80 years where Democratic presidents outperformed Republican presidents six to one have all been a massive string of mindboggling coincidences?

As for what Obama has done that has stimulated the economy, obviously the stimulus was #1 by a mile, but restoring regulatory integrity and the payroll tax cut were obviously huge boosts too.

Fundamentally, what Republican economics misses is that consumer spending is crucial. We can't shift the tax burden to the middle class and expect the economy to grow. That's why Democrats always come out on top economically- more consumer spending from the middle class.



"Real" unemployment being some new standard for measuring unemployment that Republicans suddenly prefer because it is, and has always been, a higher number than the actual unemployment rate....

Again:

View attachment 67129783
Click to expand...


How did Obama restore "regulatory integrity" when the banks that caused the crisis grew bigger after the crisis supposedly ended? (Study Shows Too-Big-To-Fail U.S. Banks Grew After Crisis: Video - Bloomberg)

How did Obama restore "regulatory integrity" when his entire economic team had links to the very same banks that caused the economic crisis? (Obama's Bailout Bunch Brings Us More of the Same: Jonathan Weil - Bloomberg)

Also, I must ask, what is the source of that image and where does it get is info from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom