• 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!

Republicans mount shock comeback, erase Democrats’ edge in eyes of Americans

calamity said:
It shows the economy rapidly recovering up until 2004 and then diving to the depths of unheard of levels thereafter. That's three years of accelerating growth and 4 years of deceleration, followed by a year of extreme contraction. Obama, OTOH, has shown accelerated improvement after six months in office and nothing but growth after a year in office. In other words, my graph shows Conservative's assertion in post 408 to be full of ****.
Click to expand...

Let's see how good your math is. I can beat you to death all day with actual numbers


Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product
[Billions of dollars]
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Last Revised on: November 07, 2013 - Next Release Date December 05, 2013

Line * 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
1 Gross domestic product 10289.7 10625.3 10980.2 11512.2 12277 13095.4 13857.9 14480.3 14720.3
Click to expand...
Feel free to calculate the GDP by year and get back to me. From BLS.gov

2001-32o billion
2002-350 billion
2003-360 billion
2004-530 billion
2005-760 billion
2006-870 billion
2007-630 billion
2008-240 billion

Your support for Obama is part of the 40% and shows how intellectually challenged you are
 
calamity said:
It shows the economy rapidly recovering up until 2004 and then diving to the depths of unheard of levels thereafter. That's three years of accelerating growth and 4 years of deceleration, followed by a year of extreme contraction. Obama, OTOH, has shown accelerated improvement after six months in office and nothing but growth after a year in office. In other words, my graph shows Conservative's assertion in post 408 to be full of ****.
Click to expand...
Where is this graph you're looking at? Because I don't see that on the one I looked at.

I see growth rate climbing in 2003, peaking @~4% in the first months of 2004, then falling slightly to around 3% and holding there til mid-2006, where it again falls slightly to around 2% and holds until the later months of 2007 (apart from a brief drop to ~1% for about a month in early 2007).

The large drop in growth rate (bottoming @ growth rate of about -4.5%) begins in late 2007/early 2008 and continues into mid-2009, which as I understand things, corresponds to the end of Bush's last term and the beginning of Obama's first.

By mid-2010 the growth rate has shot back up to 2nd-term bush levels, and holds at that level with small fluctuations until the end of the graph.


Edit: But I would think that more info than just growth rate would be necessary to get a full picture - after all, with a -4.5% growth rate for a bit, you would need a couple years or so of +2% growth to return to the GDP levels prior to the fall.
 
The Mark said:
Where is this graph you're looking at? Because I don't see that on the one I looked at.

I see growth rate climbing in 2003, peaking @~4% in the first months of 2004, then falling slightly to around 3% and holding there til mid-2006, where it again falls slightly to around 2% and holds until the later months of 2007 (apart from a brief drop to ~1% for about a month in early 2007).

The large drop in growth rate (bottoming @ growth rate of about -4.5%) begins in late 2007/early 2008 and continues into mid-2009, which as I understand things, corresponds to the end of Bush's last term and the beginning of Obama's first.

By mid-2010 the growth rate has shot back up to 2nd-term bush levels, and holds at that level with small fluctuations until the end of the graph.


Edit: But I would think that more info than just growth rate would be necessary to get a full picture - after all, with a -4.5% growth rate for a bit, you would need a couple years or so of +2% growth to return to the GDP levels prior to the fall.
Click to expand...

Correct, Bush saw some growth. He pulled out of the recession at a nice clip until that accelerated rate of growth petered out in 2004. He then saw a significantly decreased growth rate for three more years until the rapid decline of 2008, which crashed the economy.

That crash bottomed out about six months into Obama's term---surely you don't blame Obama for that crash, do you? And, thanks to Obama and despite the GOP's best efforts to squash the recovery, the fall in GDP rapidly comes to an end and begins to accelerate resulting in the positive GDP growth rate returning by 2010, where it has stayed.
RolllingGDP.jpg
 
calamity said:
Correct, Bush saw some growth. He pulled out of the recession at a nice clip until that accelerated rate of growth petered out in 2004. He then saw a significantly decreased growth rate for three more years until the rapid decline of 2008, which crashed the economy.

That crash bottomed out about six months into Obama's term---surely you don't blame Obama for that crash, do you? And, thanks to Obama and despite the GOP's best efforts to squash the recovery, the fall in GDP rapidly comes to an end and begins to accelerate resulting in the positive GDP growth rate returning by 2010, where it has stayed.
RolllingGDP.jpg
Click to expand...

Squash the recovery? What economic policy did Obama want that he didn't get? Stimulus? Obamacare? How in the hell can you support this incompetent and ignore the actual results?
 
Conservative said:
Squash the recovery? What economic policy did Obama want that he didn't get? Stimulus? Obamacare? How in the hell can you support this incompetent and ignore the actual results?
Click to expand...

Rather amazing that adding 6.5 trillion to the debt and all that govt spending that GDP growth never exceeded 3%. Obviously such low expectations on your part. Worst recovery in history
 
calamity said:
Correct, Bush saw some growth. He pulled out of the recession at a nice clip until that accelerated rate of growth petered out in 2004. He then saw a significantly decreased growth rate for three more years until the rapid decline of 2008, which crashed the economy.

That crash bottomed out about six months into Obama's term---surely you don't blame Obama for that crash, do you? And, thanks to Obama and despite the GOP's best efforts to squash the recovery, the fall in GDP rapidly comes to an end and begins to accelerate resulting in the positive GDP growth rate returning by 2010, where it has stayed.
RolllingGDP.jpg
Click to expand...
I don't know that I blame any single person for the crash, or for that matter, anyone at all.

Our economic system seems to have these pits every so often, and we recover after a bit. Not sure if that's a good point or a bad point, really.
 
Conservative said:
Let's see how good your math is. I can beat you to death all day with actual numbers



Feel free to calculate the GDP by year and get back to me. From BLS.gov

2001-32o billion
2002-350 billion
2003-360 billion
2004-530 billion
2005-760 billion
2006-870 billion
2007-630 billion
2008-240 billion

Your support for Obama is part of the 40% and shows how intellectually challenged you are
Click to expand...

What good is all the growth when the end result is a crash which ruined the economy for a decade? You cons never cease to amaze me though. I actually found one who is defending Bush's job with the economy. :lol:
 
The Mark said:
I don't know that I blame any single person for the crash, or for that matter, anyone at all.

Our economic system seems to have these pits every so often, and we recover after a bit. Not sure if that's a good point or a bad point, really.
Click to expand...

I'd say the crashed economy is more Bush's fault than the slow recovery is Obama's. Bush presided over and in fact encouraged teh housing bubble which caused the crash. That is not disputable. Obama wanted to push through a bigger stimulus package and the GOP handcuffed him with austerity instead. Also indisputable.
 
calamity said:
I'd say the crashed economy is more Bush's fault than the slow recovery is Obama's. Bush presided over and in fact encouraged teh housing bubble which caused the crash. That is not disputable. Obama wanted to push through a bigger stimulus package and the GOP handcuffed him with austerity instead. Also indisputable.
Click to expand...
I don't recall anyone complaining much about the housing bubble when it was a bubble.

Thus I don't blame anyone in particular for letting it expand til it popped.

I find it ironic that you're seemingly attempting to view the events from a perspective that casts blame in one direction (Bush), while at the same time calling other people on doing the same thing in the other direction (Obama).
 
The Mark said:
I don't recall anyone complaining much about the housing bubble when it was a bubble.

Thus I don't blame anyone in particular for letting it expand til it popped.

I find it ironic that you're seemingly attempting to view the events from a perspective that casts blame in one direction (Bush), while at the same time calling other people on doing the same thing in the other direction (Obama).
Click to expand...
Well, Obama is trying to drive a car that the previous president smashed into a tree. So, you figure it out.
 
calamity said:
Well, Obama is trying to drive a car that the previous president smashed into a tree. So, you figure it out.
Click to expand...
And Bush was driving the same car that previous presidents smashed into other trees and then had haphazardly repaired.

Not to mention it always gets repaired by a committee of mechanics that know nothing about how to fix said car.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
What good is all the growth when the end result is a crash which ruined the economy for a decade? You cons never cease to amaze me though. I actually found one who is defending Bush's job with the economy. :lol:
Click to expand...

Ask the Democrats who controlled the legislation and the purse strings. Interesting that you blame Bush for the crash and ignore the Obama failed recovery. Bush had a Democrat Congress as did Obama. Based upon the Obama results it is easy to defend the Bush results. Problem is results don't matter to people like you. BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury have the data that you want to ignore.

Notice the GDP growth in 2003-2004-2005-2006 when Republicans controlled the Congress. Too bad results don't register with people like you
 
calamity said:
Well, Obama is trying to drive a car that the previous president smashed into a tree. So, you figure it out.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with people like you? I cannot believe how brainwashed you are and how poorly informed you are when it comes to civics and economics. Your support for Obama is misguided at best and to hypocrisy at its worst.
 
Conservative said:
Let's see how good your math is. I can beat you to death all day with actual numbers



Feel free to calculate the GDP by year and get back to me. From BLS.gov

2001-32o billion
2002-350 billion
2003-360 billion
2004-530 billion
2005-760 billion
2006-870 billion
2007-630 billion
2008-240 billion

Your support for Obama is part of the 40% and shows how intellectually challenged you are
Click to expand...

Number of days Obama was president in 2008 = 0.
 
Conservative said:
What is wrong with people like you? I cannot believe how brainwashed you are and how poorly informed you are when it comes to civics and economics. Your support for Obama is misguided at best and to hypocrisy at its worst.
Click to expand...

Right. I imagine that in your mind Bush handed Obama a booming economy that socialist policies ran into the ground.
 
Conservative said:
Ask the Democrats who controlled the legislation and the purse strings. Interesting that you blame Bush for the crash and ignore the Obama failed recovery. Bush had a Democrat Congress as did Obama. Based upon the Obama results it is easy to defend the Bush results. Problem is results don't matter to people like you. BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury have the data that you want to ignore.

Notice the GDP growth in 2003-2004-2005-2006 when Republicans controlled the Congress. Too bad results don't register with people like you
Click to expand...
Yeah, Right. The D's ruined the economy and the people voting them in and throwing out the GOP over the past 6 years are all misguided. Only you know the truth. :roll:
 
Conservative said:
Your support for Obama is part of the 40% and shows how intellectually challenged you are
Click to expand...

I'd rather have the Obama support level rather than the GOP kKongressional support level..
 
calamity said:
Yeah, Right. The D's ruined the economy and the people voting them in and throwing out the GOP over the past 6 years are all misguided. Only you know the truth. :roll:
Click to expand...
Did you know when the Dems won the House in 2006, the Republicans crippled the Post Office?
 
ernst barkmann said:
oh I see, so your the explainer of my actions,;) and of all things ..I seems you have rummaged through johnny carson's old boxes of goods and found this old karnak hat.
Click to expand...

When you are so blatant... so obvious .... so without any sense of subtlety - its rather easy. Ray Charles could see what you are doing and he has the handicaps of being both blind and dead.
 
More legacy stuff from the decade of disaster..
pbrauer said:
Did you know when the Dems won the House in 2006, the Republicans crippled the Post Office?
Click to expand...
Front-loading a pension instead of the usual back-loaders that will bankrupt us..
We are stuck with this Cantor/Ryan fix, as we are with one or 41 GOP Senators
putting the economy on hold when they want to, just for kickers .
 
Kobie said:
Number of days Obama was president in 2008 = 0.
Click to expand...

Number of days in fiscal year 2008 that Democrats controlled the legislative process and the purse strings, 365. Number of days Democrats held the WH and the Congress in 2009-2010 730. You have a point?
 
calamity said:
Right. I imagine that in your mind Bush handed Obama a booming economy that socialist policies ran into the ground.
Click to expand...

Nope, Bush handed Obama a recession and a 10.6 trillion dollar debt. Today that debt is 17.1 trillion and the economic growths stagnant. 22 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers are in a depression.
 
calamity said:
Yeah, Right. The D's ruined the economy and the people voting them in and throwing out the GOP over the past 6 years are all misguided. Only you know the truth. :roll:
Click to expand...

I posted the GDP growth by year, prove them wrong. You see, results don't matter in your world, that is why Obama is doing a good job and 40% support him today
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom