• 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.

Why would anyone want the economy to continue as it has under Obama?

What's pathetic is that we're expected to believe that just by electing someone else - someone with many of the same policies - things are magically going to turn wonderful.

We've had two pathetic Presidents in a row. You're telling me that you want #3?

I've seen the difference a change in President can make. Maybe you have not. Our history is chock-full of differences made by switching Presidents.

Does not mean that this will be one such election, and aftermath. But your post carries no intellectual weight. You essentially do not know what you are talking about, and you are trading thoughts with someone who does.
 
Why would anyone want the economy to continue as it has under Obama

Well....actually....thousands of reasons that I'm sure your partisan blinders keep you from seeing....but this is a good one.

64fb6v.jpg

For all those who haven't been brainwashed by the rightwing propaganda machine, does this chart (from the Federal Reserve Bank in St. Louis) look downward trending to YOU?

It does to republicans.

Is Romoney trying desperately to deceive people when he claims that "job numbers have declined since Obama took office"? In a sort of technical way, he is right, although as the job numbers continue to rise under Obama, he won't be even 'technically' right for long. But, as he tries to very sneakily imply to the public that job numbers are declining now when if fact they have been rising pretty steadily for the last three years, he seeks to hide certain very important aspects of the real world situation by trying to get everyone to ignore both what was already happening four years ago when Obama took office and also all of the positive things that Obama has managed to accomplish since then, mostly over the unified obstructionism of all of the Republicans in Congress. The number of new jobs would have gone up even faster if it weren't for that organized partisan obstructionism that sought to deny Obama any achievements no matter what the cost to the country or to the middle class.

Remember, Obama came into office with the economy in the tank, the banking system and the auto industry about to collapse, American corporations getting tax breaks for moving jobs offshore which, combined with the rapidly snowballing Bush recession, was causing a loss of 800,000 jobs per month, so unemployment was already skyrocketing* after eight years of Bush Admin. mismanagement that had taken the country from a $230 billion dollar surplus when Clinton left office to a $1.3 trillion dollar deficit when Bush left office. It takes a while to turn the economy around and recover after a train wreck like Bush left behind but quite obviously progress is being made on recovery. If the corrupt republican greed freaks and plutocratic power trippers get back into control, expect to see this chart in the coming years look even worse than it looks here in 2009. The ride will be a lot rougher than the Bush years. If Romoney and Lyin' Ryan win, expect to see more wars in the Mideast, huge gas price hikes, more tax cuts for the super rich and the corporations, higher taxes for the middle class and even the poor, more profitable (for them) destruction of the economy and exporting of jobs, a ban on legal abortion and suppression of the availability of contraception supplies and information, more prisons (lots more prisons), more police to enforce the draconian anti-abortion laws, more assaults on everyone's freedoms and rights, more packing the judiciary with far right wing ideologues which means more twisting of the laws to favor the top 1% at the expense of the rest of us. Give Obama a chance and the recovery seen here will continue and grow stronger. Let's give him a majority in the House and a 60 plus majority in the Senate while we're at it and the things we need to happen to grow our economy and compete in the global market can get done without all of the organized Republican obstructionism that we've all seen for the last four years. The right wing has shown a willingness to see the country go down the tubes rather than let Obama accomplish anything. In spite of that, he's accomplished quite a lot.

* "unemployment already skyrocketing" - FactCheck.org reports this:
Repeated Job Loss Claim Romney's claim that Obama "stood watch over the greatest job loss in modern American history" is also wrong, as we've noted before. The truth is more jobs were lost under Bush than Obama, and most of the jobs lost since he took office have now been regained. Since we wrote about this last year, the BLS has revised its statistics slightly for improved accuracy, as it does every year. The latest data show that "total nonfarm employment" (the standard measure of jobs) declined by nearly 8.8 million between its most recent peak in January 2008 and when the job slump bottomed out more than two years later, in February 2010. Of those lost jobs, nearly 4.5 million disappeared while Bush was president, and just over 4.3 million vanished during Obama's first 13 months in office. And since the job totals hit bottom there have been slow and steady gains, totaling nearly 3.6 million jobs. The total for March (released April 6) stood just 740,000 short of where it was in January 2009 when Obama was inaugurated.
 
Last edited:
Well....actually....thousands of reasons that I'm sure your partisan blinders keep you from seeing....but this is a good one.

View attachment 67136326

For all those who haven't been brainwashed by the rightwing propaganda machine, does this chart (from the Federal Reserve Bank in St. Louis) look downward trending to YOU?

It does to republicans.

Is Romoney trying desperately to deceive people when he claims that "job numbers have declined since Obama took office"? In a sort of technical way, he is right, although as the job numbers continue to rise under Obama, he won't be even 'technically' right for long. But, as he tries to very sneakily imply to the public that job numbers are declining now when if fact they have been rising pretty steadily for the last three years, he seeks to hide certain very important aspects of the real world situation by trying to get everyone to ignore both what was already happening four years ago when Obama took office and also all of the positive things that Obama has managed to accomplish since then, mostly over the unified obstructionism of all of the Republicans in Congress. The number of new jobs would have gone up even faster if it weren't for that organized partisan obstructionism that sought to deny Obama any achievements no matter what the cost to the country or to the middle class.

Remember, Obama came into office with the economy in the tank, the banking system and the auto industry about to collapse, American corporations getting tax breaks for moving jobs offshore which, combined with the rapidly snowballing Bush recession, was causing a loss of 800,000 jobs per month, so unemployment was already skyrocketing* after eight years of Bush Admin. mismanagement that had taken the country from a $230 billion dollar surplus when Clinton left office to a $1.3 trillion dollar deficit when Bush left office. It takes a while to turn the economy around and recover after a train wreck like Bush left behind but quite obviously progress is being made on recovery. If the corrupt republican greed freaks and plutocratic power trippers get back into control, expect to see this chart in the coming years look even worse than it looks here in 2009. The ride will be a lot rougher than the Bush years. If Romoney and Lyin' Ryan win, expect to see more wars in the Mideast, huge gas price hikes, more tax cuts for the super rich and the corporations, higher taxes for the middle class and even the poor, more profitable (for them) destruction of the economy and exporting of jobs, a ban on legal abortion and suppression of the availability of contraception supplies and information, more prisons (lots more prisons), more police to enforce the draconian anti-abortion laws, more assaults on everyone's freedoms and rights, more packing the judiciary with far right wing ideologues which means more twisting of the laws to favor the top 1% at the expense of the rest of us. Give Obama a chance and the recovery seen here will continue and grow stronger. Let's give him a majority in the House and a 60 plus majority in the Senate while we're at it and the things we need to happen to grow our economy and compete in the global market can get done without all of the organized Republican obstructionism that we've all seen for the last four years. The right wing has shown a willingness to see the country go down the tubes rather than let Obama accomplish anything. In spite of that, he's accomplished quite a lot.

* "unemployment already skyrocketing" - FactCheck.org reports this:
Repeated Job Loss Claim Romney's claim that Obama "stood watch over the greatest job loss in modern American history" is also wrong, as we've noted before. The truth is more jobs were lost under Bush than Obama, and most of the jobs lost since he took office have now been regained. Since we wrote about this last year, the BLS has revised its statistics slightly for improved accuracy, as it does every year. The latest data show that "total nonfarm employment" (the standard measure of jobs) declined by nearly 8.8 million between its most recent peak in January 2008 and when the job slump bottomed out more than two years later, in February 2010. Of those lost jobs, nearly 4.5 million disappeared while Bush was president, and just over 4.3 million vanished during Obama's first 13 months in office. And since the job totals hit bottom there have been slow and steady gains, totaling nearly 3.6 million jobs. The total for March (released April 6) stood just 740,000 short of where it was in January 2009 when Obama was inaugurated.

Now that is liberal spin that ignores the real numbers that matter, 22.7 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers, 5.6 trillion added to the debt, 48 million on food stamps, 46 million below the poverty level, and 1.3% GDP growth which is lower this year than last which was lower last year than the year before.

When will you figure out that if things were as good and improving like you say that Obama wouldn't be losing in Gallup by 7% points

Is this leadership in your world?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/09/obama-keeping-meetings-with-congress-few-and-far-between/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/18/welfare-spending-jumps-32-percent-four-years/
 
Last edited:
To answer the OP, because we need Obama's strong leadership to get the rich to pay their fair share, to create more union and government jobs...

You sound like the kind of poster who'd worry that your neighbor drove a nicer car than you.
 
It does look like the electorate is catching on and doesn't want four more years of results like the last four. Notice the dates of the polls that are factored into the Realclear Politics 1% point lead by Romney and you can see why Obama supporters are in panic mode.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

On MSDNC's "Morning Joe" program this morning they speculated on the possibilitpy that Romney might win the popular vote but lose the Electoral college and the election to Obama.

Disturbing thought.
 
On MSDNC's "Morning Joe" program this morning they speculated on the possibilitpy that Romney might win the popular vote but lose the Electoral college and the election to Obama.

Disturbing thought.

I don't believe that will happen, heard today that the Washington Examiner has Romney up by 4 in Pa. If that happens it will be a landslide for Romney as it should be
 
Now that is liberal spin that ignores the real numbers that matter,
Now here is some reality denying rightwing spin that ignores the fact that the economic crash Obama has been pulling us out of for the last four years resulted from the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration: the tax cuts for the wealthy, the unfunded wars, the deregulation of Wall Street and the lack of proper oversight in many areas, etc., etc., etc.. Obama has been struggling to rescue the middle class and save the economy in spite of Republican refusal to cooperate in accomplishing those things. The chart on jobs numbers that I just posted makes it quite plain that Obama has managed to stimulate job growth after Bush crashed the economy to a far lower level than it is today.




When will you figure out that if things were as good and improving like you say that Obama wouldn't be losing in Gallup by 7% points
You reality deniers live in your own little bubble, don't you? I guess it's what people call the 'rightwingnut media echo chamber'. In the real world though.....

Latest Presidential Polls: Obama Winning in Key Swing States as Romney Steps Up Spending
10/19/12
(excerpts)
In a race that is that is still too close to call, President Obama is maintaining his lead in the all too critical battleground states. Obama is maintaining his lead amongst likely woman voters, and the decline in the unemployment rate continues to bolster his chances of winning the battleground states. ...the aggregate poll site numbers finds that eight of the ten listed battleground states have Obama leading in the polls, including, Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16), and Ohio (18). Those three states represent 54 electoral votes which brings Obama’s total to 255. According to RCP if the race were to end today Obama would win with a projected 294 electoral votes to Romney’s 244. According to the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll conducted this week (Mon – Wed), Obama is maintaining his lead in Iowa and Wisconsin. In Iowa, which represents six electoral votes, Obama has an eight-point lead on Romney. 51% of likely Iowan voters favor Obama to 43% for Romney. In Wisconsin, which represents 10 electoral votes, Obama is ahead by six points amongst likely voters with 51% to Romney’s 45%. NBC’s battleground state maps shows that if Obama wins Iowa and Wisconsin then his path to 270 electoral votes comes down to a 3-2-1 formula. Obama would win by either winning 1) Just Ohio 2) A combination of New Hampshire and Virginia or 3) A combination of Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire. NBC’s battleground state map has Obama leading Romney 243 electoral votes to Romney’s 191 with eight battleground states representing 104 electoral votes.

In Iowa Obama’s lead is bolstered by early voting and a double-digit lead amongst women voters. According to NBC, “34% of likely voters in the poll say they have already cast their ballots, and the president is winning those people, 67 percent to 32%.” Amongst Iowan women Obama leads Romney 57% to 38%. In Wisconsin, Obama also has a double digit lead amongst woman, 57% to Romney’s 39%. Iowa and Wisconsin voters also feel that Obama’s economic policies are working. NBC reports that in Iowa, 48 percent of likely voters say the country is headed in the right direction, which is up five points from September. In Wisconsin, 45 percent believe it’s headed on the right track, up six points. The Huffington Post reported that based on eight new polls released on Thursday Obama “continues to lead by statistically meaningful margins of 2 percentage points or better in states like Ohio, Nevada, Wisconsin and Iowa. These states would combine to give Obama a total of 277 electoral votes (seven more than needed to win) when combined with other states showing him leading by larger margins.” HuffPost’s pollster tracking model has Obama winning 277 electoral votes to Romney’s 206. Rasmussen Reports 2012 Electoral College Scoreboard has Obama leading 237 electoral votes to Romney’s 196 electoral votes with nine battleground states representing 105 electoral votes. Rasmussen polls have Obama leading in New Hampshire (4 electoral votes), Nevada (6 electoral votes) and Ohio (18 electoral votes). The 28 votes would bring Obama’s total to 265 electoral votes based on Rasmussen projections. In Nevada, Rasmussen reports Obama hit the 50% mark for the first time since July.






Is this leadership in your world?
After Bush/Cheney misled the country into an illegal unjustified war that has caused enormous suffering and a huge death toll and cost our nation trillions of dollars while massively cutting the taxes of the super rich, destroying the environment and putting the country into (almost) another Great Depression, Obama's leadership in saving the country from the economic collapse started by Bush and then turning the country around and putting it on a better path, has been excellent. America doesn't need or want another disaster of a plutocrat like Bush to lead the country even further into ruin and Romoney/Lyin' Ryan in office would be even worse than Bush/Cheney.
 
Now here is some reality denying rightwing spin that ignores the fact that the economic crash Obama has been pulling us out of for the last four years resulted from the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration: the tax cuts for the wealthy, the unfunded wars, the deregulation of Wall Street and the lack of proper oversight in many areas, etc., etc., etc.. Obama has been struggling to rescue the middle class and save the economy in spite of Republican refusal to cooperate in accomplishing those things. The chart on jobs numbers that I just posted makes it quite plain that Obama has managed to stimulate job growth after Bush crashed the economy to a far lower level than it is today.





You reality deniers live in your own little bubble, don't you? I guess it's what people call the 'rightwingnut media echo chamber'. In the real world though.....

Latest Presidential Polls: Obama Winning in Key Swing States as Romney Steps Up Spending
10/19/12
(excerpts)
In a race that is that is still too close to call, President Obama is maintaining his lead in the all too critical battleground states. Obama is maintaining his lead amongst likely woman voters, and the decline in the unemployment rate continues to bolster his chances of winning the battleground states. ...the aggregate poll site numbers finds that eight of the ten listed battleground states have Obama leading in the polls, including, Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16), and Ohio (18). Those three states represent 54 electoral votes which brings Obama’s total to 255. According to RCP if the race were to end today Obama would win with a projected 294 electoral votes to Romney’s 244. According to the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll conducted this week (Mon – Wed), Obama is maintaining his lead in Iowa and Wisconsin. In Iowa, which represents six electoral votes, Obama has an eight-point lead on Romney. 51% of likely Iowan voters favor Obama to 43% for Romney. In Wisconsin, which represents 10 electoral votes, Obama is ahead by six points amongst likely voters with 51% to Romney’s 45%. NBC’s battleground state maps shows that if Obama wins Iowa and Wisconsin then his path to 270 electoral votes comes down to a 3-2-1 formula. Obama would win by either winning 1) Just Ohio 2) A combination of New Hampshire and Virginia or 3) A combination of Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire. NBC’s battleground state map has Obama leading Romney 243 electoral votes to Romney’s 191 with eight battleground states representing 104 electoral votes.

In Iowa Obama’s lead is bolstered by early voting and a double-digit lead amongst women voters. According to NBC, “34% of likely voters in the poll say they have already cast their ballots, and the president is winning those people, 67 percent to 32%.” Amongst Iowan women Obama leads Romney 57% to 38%. In Wisconsin, Obama also has a double digit lead amongst woman, 57% to Romney’s 39%. Iowa and Wisconsin voters also feel that Obama’s economic policies are working. NBC reports that in Iowa, 48 percent of likely voters say the country is headed in the right direction, which is up five points from September. In Wisconsin, 45 percent believe it’s headed on the right track, up six points. The Huffington Post reported that based on eight new polls released on Thursday Obama “continues to lead by statistically meaningful margins of 2 percentage points or better in states like Ohio, Nevada, Wisconsin and Iowa. These states would combine to give Obama a total of 277 electoral votes (seven more than needed to win) when combined with other states showing him leading by larger margins.” HuffPost’s pollster tracking model has Obama winning 277 electoral votes to Romney’s 206. Rasmussen Reports 2012 Electoral College Scoreboard has Obama leading 237 electoral votes to Romney’s 196 electoral votes with nine battleground states representing 105 electoral votes. Rasmussen polls have Obama leading in New Hampshire (4 electoral votes), Nevada (6 electoral votes) and Ohio (18 electoral votes). The 28 votes would bring Obama’s total to 265 electoral votes based on Rasmussen projections. In Nevada, Rasmussen reports Obama hit the 50% mark for the first time since July.







After Bush/Cheney misled the country into an illegal unjustified war that has caused enormous suffering and a huge death toll and cost our nation trillions of dollars while massively cutting the taxes of the super rich, destroying the environment and putting the country into (almost) another Great Depression, Obama's leadership in saving the country from the economic collapse started by Bush and then turning the country around and putting it on a better path, has been excellent. America doesn't need or want another disaster of a plutocrat like Bush to lead the country even further into ruin and Romoney/Lyin' Ryan in office would be even worse than Bush/Cheney.

absolutely amazing, please tell me how long you are going to blame Bush for the economy Obama inherited and tell me when you get your first job if you think your boss will allow you that same amount of time,

I see no justification to vote for obama unless of course you want a nanny state and to fundamentally change the economy of the United States
 
absolutely amazing, please tell me how long you are going to blame Bush for the economy Obama inherited and tell me when you get your first job if you think your boss will allow you that same amount of time,

I see no justification to vote for obama unless of course you want a nanny state and to fundamentally change the economy of the United States

yawn.:funny
 
Right, no problem since you are probably one of those 47% of income earners that aren't paying any FIT thus no debt service on the debt you are helping to accumulate.

Yeah!! And i,m in Houston Texas sucking on the federal tit while bitching about others scaten around the taxman.:lamo
 
Yeah!! And i,m in Houston Texas sucking on the federal tit while bitching about others scaten around the taxman.:lamo

Jealousy and envy doesn't become you. I look forward to you providing me with that so called taxpayer assistance that you claim I am getting here. My bet is I pay more in FIT than you earn so if I am getting any federal funds back it is coming from my contribution to the govt. It really would be easier if they just let me keep it in the first place. Guess you don't understand the concept
 
Conservative

I look forward to you providing me with that so called taxpayer assistance that you claim I am getting here.

Whatca going to do with that big ole(SS) raise that kicks in on Jan 01,2013?


My bet is I pay more in FIT than you earn so if I am getting any federal funds back it is coming from my contribution to the govt.

Lotsa people make more dough then me con.


It really would be easier if they just let me keep it in the first place.

To late now;guess your,ll just have to snuggle up to that ole gov tit and enjoy the ride.:2wave:
 
Now that is liberal spin that ignores the real numbers that matter, 22.7 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers, 5.6 trillion added to the debt, 48 million on food stamps, 46 million below the poverty level, and 1.3% GDP growth which is lower this year than last which was lower last year than the year before.

When will you figure out that if things were as good and improving like you say that Obama wouldn't be losing in Gallup by 7% points

Is this leadership in your world?

Obama meetings with Congress few and far between, as post-election challenges loom | Fox News

Welfare spending jumps 32% during Obama's presidency - Washington Times

Exactly... Democrats want to label the dead cat bounce as proof of Obama's great job making growth... The trouble is they dont see how merely getting the economy to level off over 4 years after adding $5.4T to the debt in additional expenditures to barely do so is not a major accomplishment.... It's likely what would've occured even without the $5.4T in the natural course of a business cycle... Only they've stiffled additional growth... and burdened us with an immense amount of additional debt...

Judging the economy ignoring 2009, from the lowest point to its peak, the tragectory of its growth is slower than the same period of growth under Bush that the Democrats all complained wasnt fast enough... So if their guy has created a slower growing economy than Bush, while spending 33% more than him (also Bush's was even sustained over longer period 5 years before decline compared to 2 under Obama)... than he ought to be voted out of office... Rather than countering that argument, the fool you responded to would like to mischaracterize the argument conservatives have been making as that the economy is declining because its lower than when Obama took office... rather than accurately noting that it's lower than it was in the last 3 quarters which have all been declining... and looks to be headed to a double dip... and is growing slower than the rate of inflation, which is already really low and will be increasing...

Thats also missing out on the fact that the very growth theyre talking about occured under an extension of the Bush Tax Cuts... not under taxaggedon... which would completely prevented any growth, further than their already stiffling conditions...
 
Last edited:
Exactly... Democrats want to label the dead cat bounce as proof of Obama's great job making growth... The trouble is they dont see how merely getting the economy to level off over 4 years after adding $5.4T to the debt in additional expenditures to barely do so is not a major accomplishment.... It's likely what would've occured even without the $5.4T in the natural course of a business cycle... Only they've stiffled additional growth... and burdened us with an immense amunt of additional debt...

Judging the economy ignoring 2009, from the lowest point to its peak, the tragectory of its growth is slower than the same period of growth under Bush that the Democrats all complained wasnt fast enough... So if their guy has created a slower growing economy than Bush, while spending 33% more than him (also Bush's was even sustained over longer period 5 years before decline compared to 2 under Obama)... than he ought to be voted out of office... Rather than countering that argument, the fool you responded to would like to mischaracterize the argument conservatives have been making as that the economy is declining because its lower than when Obama took office... rather than accurately noting that it's lower than it was in the last 3 quarters which have all been declining... and looks to be headed to a double dip... and is growing slower than the rate of inflation, which is already really low and will be increasing...

Thats also missing out on the fact that the very growth theyre talking about occured under an extension of the Bush Tax Cuts... not under taxaggedon... which would completely prevented any growth, further than their already stiffling conditions...

Let's not pretend that after 2009 the country was 100% fixed and obama then brought it to the ground...no, thats not a realistic narrative at all.
The large debt is in part contributed by decreased tax revenue--BECAUSE of the recession
The Tax Cuts were renewed for the middle class..the Rich don't need that extra tax break to "create Jobs" because they are sitting on 40 TRILLION dollars in worth.
Just look at the trajectory of our GDP and compare that to the Euroes...Obama has kept us above the curve
 
Let's not pretend that after 2009 the country was 100% fixed and obama then brought it to the ground...no, thats not a realistic narrative at all.
The large debt is in part contributed by decreased tax revenue--BECAUSE of the recession
The Tax Cuts were renewed for the middle class..the Rich don't need that extra tax break to "create Jobs" because they are sitting on 40 TRILLION dollars in worth.
Just look at the trajectory of our GDP and compare that to the Euroes...Obama has kept us above the curve

LMFAO... yes... compare our trajectory with the Bush Tax Cuts in place... verse Europe's (which is filled with social democracies that share the same policies that Obama and most Democrats espouse)... I agree... please, do... Our fiscally conservative principles and economic freedoms allow us better chances to recover, despite efforts of the government...

You still have to mischaracterize the argument... I'm not pretending anything... I'm taking the exact same peak and valley comparison... The economy wasn't 100% recovered in 2002 either... You ignore the fact that Bush dealt with the dotcom bust and the 9/11 attacks during the recession of 2000-2002... so 2003-2007 we had growth... If you use 2011-2012... we still lag behind the Bush economy... It's not the 2009 and 2010 periods that are responsible for that... If the 2010 and 2011 period of growth could've been sustained it wouldve been on par with Bush... but its the recent slowing of the economy which is the problem... Q4 2011, Q1 2012, Q2 2012 have all declined... Q3 2012 is supposed to be a slight improvement on Q2 2012 but is still expected to be lower than Q1 2012... That's got nothing to do with 2009... It's got to do with Bailout and ARRA funds running out and it failing to jumpstart the economy... and the stiffling regulations, tax uncertainty, and the expected cost increases from ObamaCare...

So again, what can you say to account for the declining economy of 2011-2012 and the lack of all the stimulus spending to create a lasting recovery that wasn't just a hollow government propped up one?
 
LMFAO... yes... compare our trajectory with the Bush Tax Cuts in place... verse Europe's (which is filled with social democracies that share the same policies that Obama and most Democrats espouse)... I agree... please, do... Our fiscally conservative principles and economic freedoms allow us better chances to recover, despite efforts of the government...

You still have to mischaracterize the argument... I'm not pretending anything... I'm taking the exact same peak and valley comparison... The economy wasn't 100% recovered in 2002 either... You ignore the fact that Bush dealt with the dotcom bust and the 9/11 attacks during the recession of 2000-2002... so 2003-2007 we had growth... If you use 2011-2012... we still lag behind the Bush economy... It's not the 2009 and 2010 periods that are responsible for that... If the 2010 and 2011 period of growth could've been sustained it wouldve been on par with Bush... but its the recent slowing of the economy which is the problem... Q4 2011, Q1 2012, Q2 2012 have all declined... Q3 2012 is supposed to be a slight improvement on Q2 2012 but is still expected to be lower than Q1 2012... That's got nothing to do with 2009... It's got to do with Bailout and ARRA funds running out and it failing to jumpstart the economy... and the stiffling regulations, tax uncertainty, and the expected cost increases from ObamaCare...

So again, what can you say to account for the declining economy of 2011-2012 and the lack of all the stimulus spending to create a lasting recovery that wasn't just a hollow government propped up one?

Bush oversaw the worst post-recession recovery since WWII, and that's not even including the disastrous crash of the financial system or the bursting of the real estate bubble. And even the small gains that were logged from '02 to '07 were almost entirely the result of the inflation of the real estate bubble, i.e., they were completely illusory.
 
Bush oversaw the worst post-recession recovery since WWII, and that's not even including the disastrous crash of the financial system or the bursting of the real estate bubble. And even the small gains that were logged from '02 to '07 were almost entirely the result of the inflation of the real estate bubble, i.e., they were completely illusory.

there were gains that were naturally occuring in every field under the bush growth period... even in areas which would have no relation to housing... thats such a sad state of affairs... when you're trying to assume a naturally occuring growth period was illusory, but a recovery based on $1T rise in government spending is a worthy one of continuing... :roll:

Even still, I'd much rather have more housing bubble recover that spread across to everyone than more shovel ready projects and food stamp handout sprees... at the expense of those who have been successful....
 
there were gains that were naturally occuring in every field under the bush growth period... even in areas which would have no relation to housing... thats such a sad state of affairs... when you're trying to assume a naturally occuring growth period was illusory, but a recovery based on $1T rise in government spending is a worthy one of continuing... :roll:

Even still, I'd much rather have more housing bubble recover that spread across to everyone than more shovel ready projects and food stamp handout sprees... at the expense of those who have been successful....

You are simply wrong, as even Bush's economic advisors now admit.

The number of jobs in the nation increased by about 2 percent during Bush's tenure, the most tepid growth over any eight-year span since data collection began seven decades ago. Gross domestic product, a broad measure of economic output, grew at the slowest pace for a period of that length since the Truman administration. And Americans' incomes grew more slowly than in any presidency since the 1960s, other than that of Bush's father.

Bush and his aides are quick to point out that they oversaw 52 straight months of job growth in the middle of this decade, and that the economy expanded at a steady clip from 2003 to 2007. But economists, including some former advisers to Bush, say it increasingly looks as if the nation's economic expansion was driven to a large degree by the interrelated booms in the housing market, consumer spending and financial markets. Those booms, which the Bush administration encouraged with the idea of an "ownership society," have proved unsustainable.

"The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades - washingtonpost.com
 
The OP is flawed. You mistakenly believe the vast majority of Obama supporters CARE about the GDP. All they care about is the magic beans, skin color, and the promise of free cheese and their Obamaphones (not necessarily in that order).
 
Back
Top Bottom