Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The accurate comparison would be Bush 2001-2006 to Obama 2009-2014.
Sure, if ONLY you could somehow give me some bills the Dems passed that changed Dubya's policies BEFORE 2009? lol
Why? You're comparing Bush to Obama. You can't take the whole Bush term and then call Obama's 3/4 term and draw a parallel. At this time in Bush's administration things were going quite well, much better than things are going now. Sure it all went to shit in 2008 but that doesn't mean it won't happen to Obama too.
The stock market is a good example of a bubble being over inflated, and it's Obama's folks doing it. Time will tell if the coming crash is just as bad and/or caused directly by his policies.
You refuse to see any wrong doing with Democrats during the same time. As you will continue to refuse that Democrats refused to see anything wrong in the Housing Market. Your side was pushing for this as well, and were not trying to fix anything as the bubbles went to hell.
Both sides are guilty.
And both sides are equally guilty for what's upcoming.
One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.
The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008
Pretty boilerplate conservative, always blubbering excuses about how conservatives aren't responsible for the complete and utter failure of their policies
EVERY PREZ SINCE FDR HAD A HOMES PUSH, WHAT CHANGED UNDER DUBYA?
Conservative Ideas Can't Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis
The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.
Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed
Politics Most Blatant | Center for American Progress
DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!
Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!
Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble
He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.
Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.
And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down
You're correct that Bush didn't stop this madness, but the GOP had some hearings on the matter and got completely objected by Democrats even when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were suspected of fraud.
You refuse to see any wrong doing with Democrats during the same time. As you will continue to refuse that Democrats refused to see anything wrong in the Housing Market. Your side was pushing for this as well, and were not trying to fix anything as the bubbles went to hell.
Both sides are guilty.
And both sides are equally guilty for what's upcoming.
One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.
The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008
Pretty boilerplate conservative, always blubbering excuses about how conservatives aren't responsible for the complete and utter failure of their policies
EVERY PREZ SINCE FDR HAD A HOMES PUSH, WHAT CHANGED UNDER DUBYA?
Conservative Ideas Can't Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis
The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.
Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed
Politics Most Blatant | Center for American Progress
DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!
Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!
Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble
He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.
Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.
And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down
You're correct that Bush didn't stop this madness, but the GOP had some hearings on the matter and got completely objected by Democrats even when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were suspected of fraud.
A recovery is when Barack Obama loses his.
Weird, we had 8 years of Bush/GOP 'job creator' policies, how'd we do again?
Look at his unemployment numbers for his ENTIRE tenure.
That's because he didn't crash the economy until the end of his presidency.
Let me pose these questions to the forum regarding the '08 crash:
1. Do you honestly think it was coincidental that the market crashed when it did?
2. Do you honestly believe that the Ivy League-educated men who sold those CDOs really had no idea what would happen?
3. Do you really think the MIT geniuses who designed those algorithms did not have a clue as to what harm they would do to the system?
4. Do you really think the largest banks needed to merge in order to protect themselves?
5. Who benefited most on the back end?
6. The DOW crashed down to the 7000's and in 6 years it now tops 17000. The rise in value during those 6 years nearly eclipses the entirety of growth since the DOWs inception prior to 2008. Did any of this explosive growth benefit any of you who are not millionaires with money tied up in the market?
NOW, ask yourself what party has been pushing for the deregulation that lead to this and which party quietly signed off on it?
Once you wrap your brains around that, ask yourself do either of these elected candidates give a flying fuck about the bullshit they are selling?
That's because he didn't crash the economy until the end of his presidency.
Let me pose these questions to the forum regarding the '08 crash:
1. Do you honestly think it was coincidental that the market crashed when it did?
2. Do you honestly believe that the Ivy League-educated men who sold those CDOs really had no idea what would happen?
3. Do you really think the MIT geniuses who designed those algorithms did not have a clue as to what harm they would do to the system?
4. Do you really think the largest banks needed to merge in order to protect themselves?
5. Who benefited most on the back end?
6. The DOW crashed down to the 7000's and in 6 years it now tops 17000. The rise in value during those 6 years nearly eclipses the entirety of growth since the DOWs inception prior to 2008. Did any of this explosive growth benefit any of you who are not millionaires with money tied up in the market?
NOW, ask yourself what party has been pushing for the deregulation that lead to this and which party quietly signed off on it?
Once you wrap your brains around that, ask yourself do either of these elected candidates give a flying fuck about the bullshit they are selling?
The tin foil is thick with this one.
That's because he didn't crash the economy until the end of his presidency.
Let me pose these questions to the forum regarding the '08 crash:
1. Do you honestly think it was coincidental that the market crashed when it did?
2. Do you honestly believe that the Ivy League-educated men who sold those CDOs really had no idea what would happen?
3. Do you really think the MIT geniuses who designed those algorithms did not have a clue as to what harm they would do to the system?
4. Do you really think the largest banks needed to merge in order to protect themselves?
5. Who benefited most on the back end?
6. The DOW crashed down to the 7000's and in 6 years it now tops 17000. The rise in value during those 6 years nearly eclipses the entirety of growth since the DOWs inception prior to 2008. Did any of this explosive growth benefit any of you who are not millionaires with money tied up in the market?
NOW, ask yourself what party has been pushing for the deregulation that lead to this and which party quietly signed off on it?
Once you wrap your brains around that, ask yourself do either of these elected candidates give a flying fuck about the bullshit they are selling?
The tin foil is thick with this one.
Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.
http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf
REALITY, TRY IT
The tin foil is thick with this one.
Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.
http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf
REALITY, TRY IT
Wait, I thought all of that was deregulated. Now you're telling me the regulators are guilty? We need more laws!
Sure, if ONLY you could somehow give me some bills the Dems passed that changed Dubya's policies BEFORE 2009? lol
Why? You're comparing Bush to Obama. You can't take the whole Bush term and then call Obama's 3/4 term and draw a parallel. At this time in Bush's administration things were going quite well, much better than things are going now. Sure it all went to shit in 2008 but that doesn't mean it won't happen to Obama too.
The stock market is a good example of a bubble being over inflated, and it's Obama's folks doing it. Time will tell if the coming crash is just as bad and/or caused directly by his policies.
Sure, Because US HOUSEHOLD debt doubled under Obama right? Oh no that was Bush cheering on the subprime crisis AS he gutted regulators and fought all 50 states who wanted to reign it in, AND allowed the leverage rules to triple in 2004
Sure, Obama is doing what Bush did *shaking head*
FACTS on Dubya's great recession - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.
http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf
REALITY, TRY IT
Wait, I thought all of that was deregulated. Now you're telling me the regulators are guilty? We need more laws!
It was deregulated? Seriously? Show me ANY market without regulations/regulators?
You mean that GOP bill Clinton signed?
If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagalls restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.
As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securitiesinvestments they had always been free to engage in.
Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes
WE NEED TO STOP ELECTING PEOPLE WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN GOV'T OR REGULATORS!
Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.
http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf
REALITY, TRY IT
Wait, I thought all of that was deregulated. Now you're telling me the regulators are guilty? We need more laws!
It was deregulated? Seriously? Show me ANY market without regulations/regulators?
You mean that GOP bill Clinton signed?
If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagalls restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.
As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securitiesinvestments they had always been free to engage in.
Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes
WE NEED TO STOP ELECTING PEOPLE WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN GOV'T OR REGULATORS!
Why? You're comparing Bush to Obama. You can't take the whole Bush term and then call Obama's 3/4 term and draw a parallel. At this time in Bush's administration things were going quite well, much better than things are going now. Sure it all went to shit in 2008 but that doesn't mean it won't happen to Obama too.
The stock market is a good example of a bubble being over inflated, and it's Obama's folks doing it. Time will tell if the coming crash is just as bad and/or caused directly by his policies.
Sure, Because US HOUSEHOLD debt doubled under Obama right? Oh no that was Bush cheering on the subprime crisis AS he gutted regulators and fought all 50 states who wanted to reign it in, AND allowed the leverage rules to triple in 2004
Sure, Obama is doing what Bush did *shaking head*
FACTS on Dubya's great recession - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Net worth as a percentage of disposable income went way up under Bush too though. That's not happening under Obama:
source
Same with median net worth:
source
Latest data available, as of 2012
source
A median net worth of about $105K in 2000 to $125K in 2007 to $38K in 2012, and that's DOWN from the bottom of economic crash in 2010 at just under $80K.
This "recovery" sucks for all but those at the very top, benefitting from the $40 BILLION per month being pumped into the stock market.
Bush was terrible, Obama is worse.
Sure, Because US HOUSEHOLD debt doubled under Obama right? Oh no that was Bush cheering on the subprime crisis AS he gutted regulators and fought all 50 states who wanted to reign it in, AND allowed the leverage rules to triple in 2004
Sure, Obama is doing what Bush did *shaking head*
FACTS on Dubya's great recession - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Net worth as a percentage of disposable income went way up under Bush too though. That's not happening under Obama:
source
Same with median net worth:
source
Latest data available, as of 2012
source
A median net worth of about $105K in 2000 to $125K in 2007 to $38K in 2012, and that's DOWN from the bottom of economic crash in 2010 at just under $80K.
This "recovery" sucks for all but those at the very top, benefitting from the $40 BILLION per month being pumped into the stock market.
Bush was terrible, Obama is worse.
Try learning to read the graphs properly. Yes Dubya's bubble economy DID TEMPORARILY push up those things, why stop in 2007 though? What happened after that? lol
BUSH ALLOWED HOUSEHOLD DEBT TO DOUBLE 2001-2007, HOW DID THAT WORK OUT? LOL
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush | Vanity Fair
Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades
"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."
Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades
DON'T KNOW WHAT A PONZI SCHEME DOES HUH?
Wait, I thought all of that was deregulated. Now you're telling me the regulators are guilty? We need more laws!
It was deregulated? Seriously? Show me ANY market without regulations/regulators?
You mean that GOP bill Clinton signed?
If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagalls restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.
As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securitiesinvestments they had always been free to engage in.
Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes
WE NEED TO STOP ELECTING PEOPLE WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN GOV'T OR REGULATORS!
Forbes has too much incentive to decry the repeal of provisions in Glass-Stegall. The entire staff is invested in the market and hey are benefiting from this so of course that want to derail it. Once we allowed insurance companies, brokerages and banks to merge, it made them very vulnerable to the type of landslide that nearly sent them on a run. When banks start gambling with depositor money, you are going to have problems especially when you start playing with high-risk credit default swaps based on loans sold by scam artists to people who were never going to afford them. I know this becasue a friend of mine was a supervisor at Countrywide. He had one guy on his team making 100k per month in commissions. Almost all of his loans defaulted between 2006 and 2008.
Now what started this landslide? The Iraq war did. How? The oil speculators took crude oil to new levels of insanity at $100 per barrel in 2005 because the war was reducing supply. This caused the price of everything to go up putting a major strain on already financially stressed households because their ARMs started kicking in and their mortgages nearly doubled during this time. This caused a massive sell-off of CDOs and they threw Lehman to the fire and that was that.
Perfect timing too. Right as the election was heating up we crashed hard. It was obvious that after 8 years of that idiot cowboy that the next President was going to be a Democrat so they wanted to leave a steaming mess that the neo-cons can use to blame democrats for and solidify their base. What they did not expect was Obama. They expected Hillary. She, like Bill, would have given plenty of boons to big corporate. Obama was not in the club. He was an outsider way out of his element. Which is why we have the cluster fuck we have today. He refused to play ball. He wanted to make change and got bitch-slapped and now, I do not fucking know....
I refuse to believe that these people did not know what they were doing when they created these exotic investment packages. I refuse to believe that they felt that the market would equalize the system. I do believe that they knew if they crashed the market, that Congress wuold bail them out and I do not think it is coincidence that in the years following, Congress became the wealthiest in history. Makes sense since they are exempt from inside trading laws. Republican, Democrat. Party had nothing to do with it.
When the smoke settled and the dust cleared, the Oligarchs sunk their claws even deeper into our system and it is clear that they now own it. The stock market is their personal money pump. They can crash it at will and ramp it back up with a totally complacent Congress to back their play. They have operatives in every major regulatory agency from FDA, SEC, EPA all the way to MMS, FCC and the Federal Reserve.
The 2008 Recession was an engineered event. Had to be. We already lost and now they are going to push us to the brink of nationwide civil unrest through political polarization so they can further erode our rights and further empower the police state. All we need is one more good crash and the house comes down. Game over. Thanks for playing.
Net worth as a percentage of disposable income went way up under Bush too though. That's not happening under Obama:
source
Same with median net worth:
source
Latest data available, as of 2012
source
A median net worth of about $105K in 2000 to $125K in 2007 to $38K in 2012, and that's DOWN from the bottom of economic crash in 2010 at just under $80K.
This "recovery" sucks for all but those at the very top, benefitting from the $40 BILLION per month being pumped into the stock market.
Bush was terrible, Obama is worse.
Try learning to read the graphs properly. Yes Dubya's bubble economy DID TEMPORARILY push up those things, why stop in 2007 though? What happened after that? lol
BUSH ALLOWED HOUSEHOLD DEBT TO DOUBLE 2001-2007, HOW DID THAT WORK OUT? LOL
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush | Vanity Fair
Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades
"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."
Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades
DON'T KNOW WHAT A PONZI SCHEME DOES HUH?
You do't seem to understand. Bush definitely fucked things up big time.
But Obama has made it worse. Median net worth continued to sink long after Obama said things were getting better.
Obama and his crack team of "experts" knew that the economy was in the shitter when they started. It's true that none of these people currently running things caused the problem.
But, they promised to fix it. They even made a fancy chart to show us how great things were going to be if we just passed their stimulus. The stimulus was enacted and the results are worse than what they said would happen without any stimulus at all!
source
Obama didn't cause the problem but he wasn't elected to help us blame the other guys, he was elected to fix it. He promised to fix it. He stated over and over that he was qualified to fix it.
He failed.
On edit:
Here's a chart that includes more recent unemployment data:
We're STILL much worse off than the Obama team predicted we'd be even if the stimulus wasn't passed.
You'd think conservatives would stop trying to destroy demand in the economy, and give companies a reason to invest to make profits then.Yup....uncertainty. Trillions sitting on the sidelines because of it. True storyUncertainty in this administration's policies regarding taxes and regulations are keeping those who have the big bucks from investing.
No person or corporation wants to invest in a losing proposition.
Uncertainty? lo, REALLY? Tell me WHEN a Biz has certainty?
But Yes, Bush/GOP put US in a deep hole with their nonsense
David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Countr
(Reagans deficit policies) allowed George W. Bush to dive into the deep end, bankrupting the nation through two misbegotten and unfinanced wars, a giant expansion of Medicare and a tax-cutting spree for the wealthy that turned K Street lobbyists into the de facto office of national tax policy, Stockman wrote.
David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country
Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs
By BRUCE BARTLETT
...The table below presents the bureaus data. As one can see, the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration. Lack of demand for business products and services is vastly more important.
These results are supported by surveys. During June and July, Small Business Majority asked 1,257 small-business owners to name the two biggest problems they face. Only 13 percent listed government regulation as one of them. Almost half said their biggest problem was uncertainty about the future course of the economy another way of saying a lack of customers and sales.
The Wall Street Journals July survey of business economists found, The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists.
In August, McClatchy Newspapers canvassed small businesses, asking them if regulation was a big problem. It could find no evidence that this was the case.
None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it, McClatchy reported. Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-9 and its grim aftermath.
The latest monthly survey of its members by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that poor sales are far and away their biggest problem. While concerns about regulation have risen during the Obama administration, they are about the same now as they were during Ronald Reagans administration, according to an analysis of the federations data by the Economic Policy Institute.
Academic research has also failed to find evidence that regulation is a significant factor in unemployment.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/regulation-and-unemployment/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
Try learning to read the graphs properly. Yes Dubya's bubble economy DID TEMPORARILY push up those things, why stop in 2007 though? What happened after that? lol
BUSH ALLOWED HOUSEHOLD DEBT TO DOUBLE 2001-2007, HOW DID THAT WORK OUT? LOL
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush | Vanity Fair
Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades
"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."
Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades
DON'T KNOW WHAT A PONZI SCHEME DOES HUH?
You do't seem to understand. Bush definitely fucked things up big time.
But Obama has made it worse. Median net worth continued to sink long after Obama said things were getting better.
You mean the hole Bush/GOP dug was wide and deep?
PLEASE show me a graph that shows it's worse today than Jan 2010, one year into office for Obama, we hit Bush's bottom March 2010!
Obama and his crack team of "experts" knew that the economy was in the shitter when they started. It's true that none of these people currently running things caused the problem.
But, they promised to fix it. They even made a fancy chart to show us how great things were going to be if we just passed their stimulus. The stimulus was enacted and the results are worse than what they said would happen without any stimulus at all!
source
Obama didn't cause the problem but he wasn't elected to help us blame the other guys, he was elected to fix it. He promised to fix it. He stated over and over that he was qualified to fix it.
He failed.
On edit:
Here's a chart that includes more recent unemployment data:
We're STILL much worse off than the Obama team predicted we'd be even if the stimulus wasn't passed.
We're STILL much worse off than the Obama team predicted we'd be even if the stimulus wasn't passed
SERIOUSLY? LOL
Try again
Stimulus was sold BEFORE they knew the depth of the Dubya great recession, DEC 2008 IN FACT, Released Jan 2009
8 percent figure comes from a staff-written projection issued Jan. 9, 2009 — before Obama had taken the oath of office.
Two Obama aides, Christina Romer, the nominee to head the Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, an incoming economic adviser to Vice President-elect Biden, wrote a 14-page report that attempted to assess the impact of a possible $775 billion stimulus package and how much of a difference it would make compared to doing nothing.
Thus, it was not an official government assessment or even an analysis of an actual plan that had passed Congress.
Page 4 of the report included a chart that showed that unemployment would peak at 8 percent in 2009, compared to 9 percent in 2010 if nothing was done. But the report also contained numerous caveats and warnings because, after all, it was merely a projection.
Mitt Romney?s claim that Obama said stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent - The Washington Post
DID THEY KNOW THE ECONOMY WOULD TANK 9%+ LAST QUARTER OF 2008 (GDP)?
