Debt under Obama: money well spent (mostly)

[Freewill]

Look at this chart and tell me what happened in 2007.

OK, I'll tell you.

1. The Bush tax cuts were increasing revenue as advertised.
2. The Democrats took over Congress.
3. The Democrat controlled Congress ignored the lame Duck Bush.
4. The economy started its tail spin we are still in although trillions were spent by DEMOCRATS.
5. The liberal left decided to blame the minority party regardless of the evidence.

You can't just say "democrats took control of congress" and never say any policy or bill passed that changed anything...there needs to be some kind of alteration to make a difference.

Also the bulk of the Tax Cuts were enacted in 2002. The revenue continues to fall until much later. Your theory is debunked.

Showing Federal Revenue as a % of GDP isn't accurate, especially with the dot.com bubble and the minor recession that occurred late in 2001. GDP would have slowed while the tax rate remained the same, thus giviing the illusion of an increase in your chart.

O-I-C, I imagine if you see a fire you need to know exactly how the fire started before you believe it is actually a fire. Of course not, you see the results you don't need to know the cause. Same with the economy. I didn't say what the democrats did because no one ever tells me, other then the wars, what GWB did. I look at the results and see a fire. I see things going up to 2007 and the democrat take over ignoring Bush from then on in. I see a decline in revenue which according to you should not have decreased because the GDP took a big hit. So what I am telling you, if you see fire it is real it is hot. If you look at the chart there is only one conclusion. The democrats have controlled 2/3s of the government since 2007, it is time to place blame where it belongs the MAJORITY party not the minority. But then again the left has always had a problem with minorities.

 

[Billy000]

Look at this chart and tell me what happened in 2007.

OK, I'll tell you.

1. The Bush tax cuts were increasing revenue as advertised.
2. The Democrats took over Congress.
3. The Democrat controlled Congress ignored the lame Duck Bush.
4. The economy started its tail spin we are still in although trillions were spent by DEMOCRATS.
5. The liberal left decided to blame the minority party regardless of the evidence.

You can't just say "democrats took control of congress" and never say any policy or bill passed that changed anything...there needs to be some kind of alteration to make a difference.

Also the bulk of the Tax Cuts were enacted in 2002. The revenue continues to fall until much later. Your theory is debunked.

Showing Federal Revenue as a % of GDP isn't accurate, especially with the dot.com bubble and the minor recession that occurred late in 2001. GDP would have slowed while the tax rate remained the same, thus giviing the illusion of an increase in your chart.

O-I-C, I imagine if you see a fire you need to know exactly how the fire started before you believe it is actually a fire. Of course not, you see the results you don't need to know the cause. Same with the economy. I didn't say what the democrats did because no one ever tells me, other then the wars, what GWB did. I look at the results and see a fire. I see things going up to 2007 and the democrat take over ignoring Bush from then on in. I see a decline in revenue which according to you should not have decreased because the GDP took a big hit. So what I am telling you, if you see fire it is real it is hot. If you look at the chart there is only one conclusion. The democrats have controlled 2/3s of the government since 2007, it is time to place blame where it belongs the MAJORITY party not the minority. But then again the left has always had a problem with minorities.

If you are so convinced that democrats in power ruin the economy, how do you explain the fact that 2.5x more jobs have been created in Obama's 5 years than in Bush's 8?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well, we don't honestly expect that Dear Leader's water is going to carry itself, do we?

Brilliant retort (sarcasm alert) to a factual and interesting post. I would be concerned if you posted anything more.

 

[Billy000]

Look at this chart and tell me what happened in 2007.

OK, I'll tell you.

1. The Bush tax cuts were increasing revenue as advertised.
2. The Democrats took over Congress.
3. The Democrat controlled Congress ignored the lame Duck Bush.
4. The economy started its tail spin we are still in although trillions were spent by DEMOCRATS.
5. The liberal left decided to blame the minority party regardless of the evidence.

^^^This

Honesty is not a Leftist's strong suit.

You are in such denial.

 

[Darkwind]

And the stimulus....5 years later has turned out to be a huge failure.

Ummm...what? Are you suggesting we should've just let the economy tank? Do you have conclusive proof of this claim? Do you know for certain what would've happened had the companies not been bailed out? would the recession have turned into a depression? Do we really know? Do we want to know?

The economy had already tanked according to the progressives.

But yes, if you research what the economists of 2009 were saying, they forecasted an economic recovery by the summer of 2010.....


Then Obama got involved.

Of the hundreds of ways that the economy could have been helped, Bush and Obama chose the worst possible one.

 

[Billy000]

And the stimulus....5 years later has turned out to be a huge failure.

Ummm...what? Are you suggesting we should've just let the economy tank? Do you have conclusive proof of this claim? Do you know for certain what would've happened had the companies not been bailed out? would the recession have turned into a depression? Do we really know? Do we want to know?

The economy had already tanked according to the progressives.

But yes, if you research what the economists of 2009 were saying, they forecasted an economic recovery by the summer of 2010.....


Then Obama got involved.

Of the hundreds of ways that the economy could have been helped, Bush and Obama chose the worst possible one.

Hmm except that the stimulus package did in fact create many jobs through the unemployment benefit extensions. 2.5x more jobs have been created under Obama's 5 years than all of Bush's 8.

More jobs would have been created if the stimulus was as big as it was supposed to be.

 

[Avatar4321]

Must better using tax money to fund Democrat campaigns than to rely on the people and use our money to actually benefit the nation.

 

[Billy000]

Must better using tax money to fund Democrat campaigns than to rely on the people and use our money to actually benefit the nation.

Our tax money has greatly benefited the nation. You cons seem to have it in your minds that the founding fathers never fought for and won taxation WITH representation.

 

[Avatar4321]

Must better using tax money to fund Democrat campaigns than to rely on the people and use our money to actually benefit the nation.

Our tax money has greatly benefited the nation. You cons seem to have it in your minds that the founding fathers never fought for and won taxation WITH representation.

I know you think paying back Obama's campaign contributors is a benefit to the nation. But I think our tax money would be much more useful in the hands of the tax payers.

 

[Vox]

Ummm...what? Are you suggesting we should've just let the economy tank? Do you have conclusive proof of this claim? Do you know for certain what would've happened had the companies not been bailed out? would the recession have turned into a depression? Do we really know? Do we want to know?

The economy had already tanked according to the progressives.

But yes, if you research what the economists of 2009 were saying, they forecasted an economic recovery by the summer of 2010.....


Then Obama got involved.

Of the hundreds of ways that the economy could have been helped, Bush and Obama chose the worst possible one.

Hmm except that the stimulus package did in fact create many jobs through the unemployment benefit extensions. 2.5x more jobs have been created under Obama's 5 years than all of Bush's 8.

More jobs would have been created if the stimulus was as big as it was supposed to be.

no, it did not. teachers and firefighters which were not laid off is NOT creating new and PRODUCTIVE jobs ( by that I mean the jobs, which are not paid by taxpayers money)

 

[ShawnChris13]

Ummm...what? Are you suggesting we should've just let the economy tank? Do you have conclusive proof of this claim? Do you know for certain what would've happened had the companies not been bailed out? would the recession have turned into a depression? Do we really know? Do we want to know?

The economy had already tanked according to the progressives.



But yes, if you research what the economists of 2009 were saying, they forecasted an economic recovery by the summer of 2010.....





Then Obama got involved.



Of the hundreds of ways that the economy could have been helped, Bush and Obama chose the worst possible one.

Hmm except that the stimulus package did in fact create many jobs through the unemployment benefit extensions. 2.5x more jobs have been created under Obama's 5 years than all of Bush's 8.



More jobs would have been created if the stimulus was as big as it was supposed to be.

Yeah it's just that there's this thing about the difference between job creation during their presidencies:

More jobs created under Obama? Yes. More part time jobs that didn't need to be created under Bush because....... Everybody had a job already under Bush!

 

[BorisTheAnimal]

The economy had already tanked according to the progressives.



But yes, if you research what the economists of 2009 were saying, they forecasted an economic recovery by the summer of 2010.....





Then Obama got involved.



Of the hundreds of ways that the economy could have been helped, Bush and Obama chose the worst possible one.

Hmm except that the stimulus package did in fact create many jobs through the unemployment benefit extensions. 2.5x more jobs have been created under Obama's 5 years than all of Bush's 8.



More jobs would have been created if the stimulus was as big as it was supposed to be.

Yeah it's just that there's this thing about the difference between job creation during their presidencies:

More jobs created under Obama? Yes. More part time jobs that didn't need to be created under Bush because....... Everybody had a job already under Bush!

Yeah, a 4.5% unemployment rate under Bush was catastrophic but 8+% unemployment is the "new normal" under the Asshole in Chief.

 

[Darkwind]

Ummm...what? Are you suggesting we should've just let the economy tank? Do you have conclusive proof of this claim? Do you know for certain what would've happened had the companies not been bailed out? would the recession have turned into a depression? Do we really know? Do we want to know?

The economy had already tanked according to the progressives.

But yes, if you research what the economists of 2009 were saying, they forecasted an economic recovery by the summer of 2010.....


Then Obama got involved.

Of the hundreds of ways that the economy could have been helped, Bush and Obama chose the worst possible one.

Hmm except that the stimulus package did in fact create many jobs through the unemployment benefit extensions. 2.5x more jobs have been created under Obama's 5 years than all of Bush's 8.

More jobs would have been created if the stimulus was as big as it was supposed to be.

Wow, how many items of data did you have to cherry pick to get that figure?

You can't even claim that more jobs have been returned to under Obama than created under Bush, and this assumes that we hold up Bush's record on job creation as a gold standard, which of course, it is not.

Job growth was steady and increasing under Bush. His average unemployment numbers were about par for any peacetime President, and he was a war time President.

Job growth under Obama is all government while creating a part time private sector. Is it any wonder that the economy continues to stagnate?

But hey, pumping 87 billion dollars a month in the Corporate coffers sure counts as win for Obama......

 

[depotoo]

let's look at the household survey employment numbers under Bush vs Obama (which includes all self employed)
Feb 2001 135,815,000 employed
Jan 2009 142,099,000 employed
a difference of 6,284,400 jobs created in 8 years, an avg of 785,550 each year.

Obama
Feb 2009 141,748,000 employed
Oct 2013 143,568,000
a difference of 1,820,00, an avg of 371,429 a yr (4.9 yrs )

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_03092001.txt
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.htm
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_03062009.htm
http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/empsit_nr.htm#current

 

[Wry Catcher]

let's look at the household survey employment numbers under Bush vs Obama (which includes all self employed)
Feb 2001 135,815,000 employed
Jan 2009 142,099,000 employed
a difference of 6,284,400 jobs created in 8 years, an avg of 785,550 each year.

Obama
Feb 2009 141,748,000 employed
Oct 2013 143,568,000
a difference of 1,820,00, an avg of 371,429 a yr (4.9 yrs )

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_03092001.txt
Employment Situation News Release
Employment Situation News Release
Employment Situation Archived News Releases

Nice try. You know a lie by omission is still a lie and yours is a whopper.

Consider the Feb. 2001 to January 2002 budget and economy was that of Pres. Clinton; and, the Feb. 2009 to Jan. 2010 Budget & Economy was that of Pres. Bush.

Consider GWB expanded the Federal Gov't by leaps when he established the Dept. of Homeland Security; Consider, President Obama was handed a Sequester and many government employees lost their jobs.

Was any of this considered by depotoo? Or was his/her post an effort to fool us?

 

[Billy000]

let's look at the household survey employment numbers under Bush vs Obama (which includes all self employed)
Feb 2001 135,815,000 employed
Jan 2009 142,099,000 employed
a difference of 6,284,400 jobs created in 8 years, an avg of 785,550 each year.

Obama
Feb 2009 141,748,000 employed
Oct 2013 143,568,000
a difference of 1,820,00, an avg of 371,429 a yr (4.9 yrs )

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_03092001.txt
Employment Situation News Release
Employment Situation News Release
Employment Situation Archived News Releases

My god you people still dont get it. Let me break this down for you.

1) ANY economist will tell you that comparing a date of the amount of people employed with a later date is a not how job growth is measured. Just because 6 million more people were in the work force 8 years into Bush's presidency, does not mean 6 million jobs were NEWLY CREATED That isn't how it works. You measure NET CREATION.

More Jobs Created Under Obama Than Bush, Nonpartisan Report Finds - Careers Articles

This is just a small piece of it in the beginning:

By the time of Obama's second inaugural in January, the economy had added a net total of 1,208,000 jobs since he was first sworn in four years earlier, according to current figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That beats George W. Bush's eight-year total of 1,083,000. And so far, Obama is extending his lead over Bush in job creation. Counting the jobs added in February, Obama's job creation total now stands at a net gain of more than 1.5 million.

Where Have the Obama Jobs Come From?
Nonpartisan reports have credited the much-debated Obama stimulus package with the creation of jobs. According to one tally from 2012 by the independent Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus was responsible for 2 million new jobs in the last three months of 2011.

More Jobs Created Under Obama Than Bush, Non-Partisan Report Finds | Politics And Regulation | Minyanville's Wall Street

Obama?s Numbers (Quarterly Update)

Surprise! Obama Is Creating More New Jobs Than George W. Bush - Rick Newman (usnews.com)

Jobs: Bush's First Term vs. Obama's First Term - Business Insider

2) Obviously less people are going to employed under Obama, but that has nothing to do with him. When the 2008 financial crisis hit - mere months before Obama came into office - the economy was in a tail spin. 100,000s of jobs were being lost each month. Obviously that is going to spill over into Obama's presidency. When Obama's stimulus came into effect, that job loss rate dropped dramatically and NEW private sector jobs were being created. Under the circumstances, job growth under Obama has been pretty impressive considering the cluster fuck that happened in 2008.

 

[Listening]

I love unemployment numbers as a point of discussion. Nobody is on the same page.

What I do know is that most people seemed to think the economy was doing pretty well when Bush was in office.

Five years into Obama and the economy seems to be called sucky. I don't know exactly why.

Just sayin'.

 

[Billy000]

I love unemployment numbers as a point of discussion. Nobody is on the same page.

What I do know is that most people seemed to think the economy was doing pretty well when Bush was in office.

Five years into Obama and the economy seems to be called sucky. I don't know exactly why.

Just sayin'.

Oh, gee maybe it is because of the 2008 financial crisis that put the economy in a tail spin.

 

[Listening]

I love unemployment numbers as a point of discussion. Nobody is on the same page.

What I do know is that most people seemed to think the economy was doing pretty well when Bush was in office.

Five years into Obama and the economy seems to be called sucky. I don't know exactly why.

Just sayin'.

Oh, gee maybe it is because of the 2008 financial crisis that put the economy in a tail spin.

5 years later and we are still talking 2008.

Didn't Obama say something about being a one-termer if things didn't get better.

At 5% unemployment you are close to full employment.

Even at the current 8% you have many people looking for jobs...and young people who are really catching the brunt of it.

I am afraid that putting this kind of discussion on an apples to apples terms takes more than what gets discussed here.

 

[Freewill]

I love unemployment numbers as a point of discussion. Nobody is on the same page.

What I do know is that most people seemed to think the economy was doing pretty well when Bush was in office.

Five years into Obama and the economy seems to be called sucky. I don't know exactly why.

Just sayin'.

Oh, gee maybe it is because of the 2008 financial crisis that put the economy in a tail spin.

No, it was electing a democrat congress in 2007 that put us on the road to destruction. All the economic indicators go bad after the democrats take control. No use denying it.