Reagan blamed Jimmy Carter for years, Roosevelt blamed Herbert Hoover for years

[healthmyths]

And of all the Presidents including the above, GWB had these events which have NEVER EVER occurred in one presidency!
Recession
Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because you don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like football length tankers... it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does
a "RECESSION"... it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $8 trillion market loss
Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in losses?
Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year! $5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $8 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives, $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets. Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World
Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Historical Tables

Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?


You're an idiot.....NBER determines the official start and end dates of recessions...the recession of 2001 didn't "start" under Clinton even under the "technical" definition....

and let's put its magnitude into perspective...

WAAAAAYYYYYYYY down there in the lower right hand corner.......what do you see WAAAAAAYYYYYY up there in the upper left hand corner?

So YOU think that on February 28,2001 there was NO recession.
Then automatically when NBER said "yup as of today 3/1/01 a Recession started"?
You think that a recession is like a car turn on and off with a key?
Almost all logical and knowledgeable people agree that a recession is like a 1 million barrel oil tanker turning around.
20 tanker tips

1. Big ships cannot stop on a dime. In fact, these ships may require as much as 5 miles to stop (with gears in full reverse). The solution is simple: stay out of their way.

2. Big ships will not stop. They may slow down to avoid traffic, however, keep in mind that a ship's steering control involves a direct relationship between the force of the propeller's wash against the rudder and their ability to maneuver. Thus, the slower they travel, the less maneuverable they become.

3. Big ships do not turn very well. For example, a 500 foot, 8000-ton ship needs over a third of a mile to turn around. Moreover, once such a ship commits to a turn, it will not waiver. Also, just as a following sea affects a pleasure boat's steering, the same holds true of the effect of a following sea on a big ship. Recall the rule regarding big ships in a narrow channel. The Santa Barbara Channel is a "narrow" channel especially when one considers that really big ships may need 5-10 miles to turn.

4. Although these ships have radar (perhaps more than one), the beam angle comes off from so high up (sometimes 100 feet or more) that you may not be seen. Generally speaking, if you are less than 3 miles ahead of a big ship, you are invisible to her radar. The beam has probably gone right over you - your radar signature will likely be too small to notice.

So too with a recession. It doesn't just start one day and stop the next.

Get the f out of here....and learn what an economic cycle looks like.

A slowing of the rate of growth doesn’t constitute a recession.....it merely means that the cycle is nearing a peak....it is only when growth turns negative that you are in recession, by the technical definition....

NBER measures recession and recovery by the trends in 4 cycles.....this makes the call more subjective...

Under neither standard did the recession of 01 begin before Scrub came into office....though I note that I don't consider Scrub responsible for it.....what followed is a tribute to his unrivaled ineptitude (though the idiots on whom he relied for advice bear a considerable part of the blame)

You know idiot. You don't have a fucking clue as to what you are talking about. You are a typical leftist shit bag who thinks copy-and-paste equates with knowledge.

Uh....what I am "cutting and pasting" are OBJECTIVE facts....

You spend your time gorging on opinions and second hand interpretations at the likes of Breitbart, NYPost, Washington Times and CNS....it's like a feedback loop of idiocy......you proceed from your biases, exclude everything which is in conflict in favor of confirming them at sites whose entire reason for existing is to indulge you...

I tend to rely on primary sources, like BLS and BEA, and combine the facts with a professional and academic background in economic analysis.....

 

[healthmyths]

Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?


You're an idiot.....NBER determines the official start and end dates of recessions...the recession of 2001 didn't "start" under Clinton even under the "technical" definition....

and let's put its magnitude into perspective...

WAAAAAYYYYYYYY down there in the lower right hand corner.......what do you see WAAAAAAYYYYYY up there in the upper left hand corner?

So YOU think that on February 28,2001 there was NO recession.
Then automatically when NBER said "yup as of today 3/1/01 a Recession started"?
You think that a recession is like a car turn on and off with a key?
Almost all logical and knowledgeable people agree that a recession is like a 1 million barrel oil tanker turning around.
20 tanker tips

1. Big ships cannot stop on a dime. In fact, these ships may require as much as 5 miles to stop (with gears in full reverse). The solution is simple: stay out of their way.

2. Big ships will not stop. They may slow down to avoid traffic, however, keep in mind that a ship's steering control involves a direct relationship between the force of the propeller's wash against the rudder and their ability to maneuver. Thus, the slower they travel, the less maneuverable they become.

3. Big ships do not turn very well. For example, a 500 foot, 8000-ton ship needs over a third of a mile to turn around. Moreover, once such a ship commits to a turn, it will not waiver. Also, just as a following sea affects a pleasure boat's steering, the same holds true of the effect of a following sea on a big ship. Recall the rule regarding big ships in a narrow channel. The Santa Barbara Channel is a "narrow" channel especially when one considers that really big ships may need 5-10 miles to turn.

4. Although these ships have radar (perhaps more than one), the beam angle comes off from so high up (sometimes 100 feet or more) that you may not be seen. Generally speaking, if you are less than 3 miles ahead of a big ship, you are invisible to her radar. The beam has probably gone right over you - your radar signature will likely be too small to notice.

So too with a recession. It doesn't just start one day and stop the next.

Get the f out of here....and learn what an economic cycle looks like.

A slowing of the rate of growth doesn’t constitute a recession.....it merely means that the cycle is nearing a peak....it is only when growth turns negative that you are in recession, by the technical definition....

NBER measures recession and recovery by the trends in 4 cycles.....this makes the call more subjective...

Under neither standard did the recession of 01 begin before Scrub came into office....though I note that I don't consider Scrub responsible for it.....what followed is a tribute to his unrivaled ineptitude (though the idiots on whom he relied for advice bear a considerable part of the blame)

You know idiot. You don't have a fucking clue as to what you are talking about. You are a typical leftist shit bag who thinks copy-and-paste equates with knowledge.

Uh....what I am "cutting and pasting" are OBJECTIVE facts....

You spend your time gorging on opinions and second hand interpretations at the likes of Breitbart, NYPost, Washington Times and CNS....it's like a feedback loop of idiocy......you proceed from your biases, exclude everything which is in conflict in favor of confirming them at sites whose entire reason for existing is to indulge you...

I tend to rely on primary sources, like BLS and BEA, and combine the facts with a professional and academic background in economic analysis.....

Where do you think THESE facts come from??? NYPOST,etc.... NOTE Whitehouse!!

Obama has spent MORE with NO major events like recessions/9-11/worst hurricane seasons/dot.com busts... nothing like those events have occurred since 2008!
What has happened is $672 billion has been repaid and added to the revenues and Obama has blown way past that!
Tell me then based on NO major events like the above and nearly $1 trillion paid back Obama still spent more in 6 years then Bush in 8 years!
All Paid back...Bailout Scorecard | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

 

[healthmyths]

Under Obama GDP growth has stopped!!!
By the way... when did the GDP peak??? during Bush.........GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent
The BEA has calculated GDP for each year going back to 1929 and it has calculated the inflation-adjusted annual change in GDP (in constant 2009 dollars) from 1930 forward.

In the 85 years for which BEA has calculated the annual change in real GDP there is only one ten-year stretch—2006 through 2015—when the annual growth in real GDP never hit 3 percent. During the last ten years, real annual growth in GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent. It has never been that high again, according to the BEA.
U.S. Has Record 10th Straight Year Without 3% Growth in GDP

AND remember since 2008... not one single hurricane. Not one single attack equal to 9/11!
NOT one major issue that Obama has had to confront. YET GDP is stymied.
When Obama has signed the fewest oil leases then Bush did by over 61%...that affects the economy!

 

[Theowl32]

Bush caused the crash of 1929. Really, he did!

I think Cheney went back in time to kill the dinosaurs for oil.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Refresh my memory but I don't recall Reagan ever "blaming" Jimmie Carter.

Reagan's 1983 State of the Union:

"The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted."

Consider that the recession bequeathed by the worst POTUS of the modern era was orders of magnitude worse than the one in 1982....

No it wasn't. Obama made it worse with his noxious economic policies.

now here's the irony....(one of many)

Because budget projections in early 1981 called for
massive surpluses, it was possible, based upon the data then known, to cut taxes, increase defense, and still balance the budget. Regarding the economic forecast, the Reagan package of
projections were, at most, only mildly more optimistic than other forecasts at the time.

http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/00-05.pdf

Who has evidence that the budget was going to be in surplus? Perhaps if inflation went to 30% and interest rates went to 50%. Carter's economy was headed for a crash. It was only a matter of when it would occur.

No it wasn't.

spot the dots.....



Obama made it worse with his noxious economic policies.

neat trick, given that the recession ended in June. 2009...

and here is why...

The real economy also responded to the massive stimulus but remained heavily dependent on it. In the United States, growth during the second half of 2009 probably averaged about 3 percent. Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009.

The Year Ahead

Before you bleat something stupid, bear in mind that this is an economist from AEI......(yeah, I know....you have no idea what that is....trust me....it is NOT "Obama friendly")

We aren't discussing just the length of the period that economists define officially as a "recession." We're discussing the performance of Obama's economic policies for his entire term, and they suck.

Claiming the economy "would have contracted" without Obama's magic elixir is pure abracadabra. Economists have a poor record of predicting what the economy will do. Their prognostications are almost entirely worthless.

The bottom line is that Obama's economic numbers suck.

Bri,

Where did you get the idea that your Bold Assertions carry any weight?

Do you understand how argument works?

 

[IcebergSlim]

Where is the evidence that the budget was going to be in surplus? Perhaps if inflation went to 30% and interest rates went to 50%. Carter's economy was headed for a crash. It was only a matter of when it would occur.

Uh....the author of that paper worked on the economic team of the Reagan administration......also served under Scrub.....

What paper?

THE LINK, YOU F.....ING IMBECILE!

I'm not reading through that giant pile of bullshit and abracadabra. Just quote the material that you imagine proves your claims. Otherwise, quite annoying the other forum members with your infantile temper tantrums.

Uh.....you asked "What paper?"......when the link to it was DIRECTLY BELOW THE RELEVANT EXCERPT......

For the second time today.....

 

[IcebergSlim]

So YOU think that on February 28,2001 there was NO recession.
Then automatically when NBER said "yup as of today 3/1/01 a Recession started"?
You think that a recession is like a car turn on and off with a key?
Almost all logical and knowledgeable people agree that a recession is like a 1 million barrel oil tanker turning around.
20 tanker tips

1. Big ships cannot stop on a dime. In fact, these ships may require as much as 5 miles to stop (with gears in full reverse). The solution is simple: stay out of their way.

2. Big ships will not stop. They may slow down to avoid traffic, however, keep in mind that a ship's steering control involves a direct relationship between the force of the propeller's wash against the rudder and their ability to maneuver. Thus, the slower they travel, the less maneuverable they become.

3. Big ships do not turn very well. For example, a 500 foot, 8000-ton ship needs over a third of a mile to turn around. Moreover, once such a ship commits to a turn, it will not waiver. Also, just as a following sea affects a pleasure boat's steering, the same holds true of the effect of a following sea on a big ship. Recall the rule regarding big ships in a narrow channel. The Santa Barbara Channel is a "narrow" channel especially when one considers that really big ships may need 5-10 miles to turn.

4. Although these ships have radar (perhaps more than one), the beam angle comes off from so high up (sometimes 100 feet or more) that you may not be seen. Generally speaking, if you are less than 3 miles ahead of a big ship, you are invisible to her radar. The beam has probably gone right over you - your radar signature will likely be too small to notice.

So too with a recession. It doesn't just start one day and stop the next.

Get the f out of here....and learn what an economic cycle looks like.

A slowing of the rate of growth doesn’t constitute a recession.....it merely means that the cycle is nearing a peak....it is only when growth turns negative that you are in recession, by the technical definition....

NBER measures recession and recovery by the trends in 4 cycles.....this makes the call more subjective...

Under neither standard did the recession of 01 begin before Scrub came into office....though I note that I don't consider Scrub responsible for it.....what followed is a tribute to his unrivaled ineptitude (though the idiots on whom he relied for advice bear a considerable part of the blame)

You know idiot. You don't have a fucking clue as to what you are talking about. You are a typical leftist shit bag who thinks copy-and-paste equates with knowledge.

Uh....what I am "cutting and pasting" are OBJECTIVE facts....

You spend your time gorging on opinions and second hand interpretations at the likes of Breitbart, NYPost, Washington Times and CNS....it's like a feedback loop of idiocy......you proceed from your biases, exclude everything which is in conflict in favor of confirming them at sites whose entire reason for existing is to indulge you...

I tend to rely on primary sources, like BLS and BEA, and combine the facts with a professional and academic background in economic analysis.....

Where do you think THESE facts come from??? NYPOST,etc.... NOTE Whitehouse!!
View attachment 65159
Obama has spent MORE with NO major events like recessions/9-11/worst hurricane seasons/dot.com busts... nothing like those events have occurred since 2008!
What has happened is $672 billion has been repaid and added to the revenues and Obama has blown way past that!
Tell me then based on NO major events like the above and nearly $1 trillion paid back Obama still spent more in 6 years then Bush in 8 years!
All Paid back...Bailout Scorecard | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica
View attachment 65160

Why would the dot com bust lead to lower revenues in Fiscal 2002?

"Tax cuts in affect"?

where did you find this bit of flaming idiocy?

tell me then based on NO major events like the above

Does the term "GREAT RECESSION" ring a bell?

 

[IcebergSlim]

Under Obama GDP growth has stopped!!!
By the way... when did the GDP peak??? during Bush.........GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent
The BEA has calculated GDP for each year going back to 1929 and it has calculated the inflation-adjusted annual change in GDP (in constant 2009 dollars) from 1930 forward.

In the 85 years for which BEA has calculated the annual change in real GDP there is only one ten-year stretch—2006 through 2015—when the annual growth in real GDP never hit 3 percent. During the last ten years, real annual growth in GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent. It has never been that high again, according to the BEA.
U.S. Has Record 10th Straight Year Without 3% Growth in GDP

AND remember since 2008... not one single hurricane. Not one single attack equal to 9/11!
NOT one major issue that Obama has had to confront. YET GDP is stymied.
When Obama has signed the fewest oil leases then Bush did by over 61%...that affects the economy!
View attachment 65162

YET GDP is stymied.

GDP growth under Obama has exceeded that under Scrub by roughly 30%.......

and the spread would be even greater but for THIS

and if you read Terence Jeffrey, you are an imbecile...

 

[IcebergSlim]

So YOU think that on February 28,2001 there was NO recession.
Then automatically when NBER said "yup as of today 3/1/01 a Recession started"?
You think that a recession is like a car turn on and off with a key?
Almost all logical and knowledgeable people agree that a recession is like a 1 million barrel oil tanker turning around.
20 tanker tips

1. Big ships cannot stop on a dime. In fact, these ships may require as much as 5 miles to stop (with gears in full reverse). The solution is simple: stay out of their way.

2. Big ships will not stop. They may slow down to avoid traffic, however, keep in mind that a ship's steering control involves a direct relationship between the force of the propeller's wash against the rudder and their ability to maneuver. Thus, the slower they travel, the less maneuverable they become.

3. Big ships do not turn very well. For example, a 500 foot, 8000-ton ship needs over a third of a mile to turn around. Moreover, once such a ship commits to a turn, it will not waiver. Also, just as a following sea affects a pleasure boat's steering, the same holds true of the effect of a following sea on a big ship. Recall the rule regarding big ships in a narrow channel. The Santa Barbara Channel is a "narrow" channel especially when one considers that really big ships may need 5-10 miles to turn.

4. Although these ships have radar (perhaps more than one), the beam angle comes off from so high up (sometimes 100 feet or more) that you may not be seen. Generally speaking, if you are less than 3 miles ahead of a big ship, you are invisible to her radar. The beam has probably gone right over you - your radar signature will likely be too small to notice.

So too with a recession. It doesn't just start one day and stop the next.

Get the f out of here....and learn what an economic cycle looks like.

A slowing of the rate of growth doesn’t constitute a recession.....it merely means that the cycle is nearing a peak....it is only when growth turns negative that you are in recession, by the technical definition....

NBER measures recession and recovery by the trends in 4 cycles.....this makes the call more subjective...

Under neither standard did the recession of 01 begin before Scrub came into office....though I note that I don't consider Scrub responsible for it.....what followed is a tribute to his unrivaled ineptitude (though the idiots on whom he relied for advice bear a considerable part of the blame)

You know idiot. You don't have a fucking clue as to what you are talking about. You are a typical leftist shit bag who thinks copy-and-paste equates with knowledge.

Uh....what I am "cutting and pasting" are OBJECTIVE facts....

You spend your time gorging on opinions and second hand interpretations at the likes of Breitbart, NYPost, Washington Times and CNS....it's like a feedback loop of idiocy......you proceed from your biases, exclude everything which is in conflict in favor of confirming them at sites whose entire reason for existing is to indulge you...

I tend to rely on primary sources, like BLS and BEA, and combine the facts with a professional and academic background in economic analysis.....

Where do you think THESE facts come from??? NYPOST,etc.... NOTE Whitehouse!!
View attachment 65159
Obama has spent MORE with NO major events like recessions/9-11/worst hurricane seasons/dot.com busts... nothing like those events have occurred since 2008!
What has happened is $672 billion has been repaid and added to the revenues and Obama has blown way past that!
Tell me then based on NO major events like the above and nearly $1 trillion paid back Obama still spent more in 6 years then Bush in 8 years!
All Paid back...Bailout Scorecard | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica
View attachment 65160

Obama spent 175% more than Bush in 7 years?

Seriously.......this is your brain on random memes.....

 

[ZackB]

Under Obama GDP growth has stopped!!!
By the way... when did the GDP peak??? during Bush.........GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent
The BEA has calculated GDP for each year going back to 1929 and it has calculated the inflation-adjusted annual change in GDP (in constant 2009 dollars) from 1930 forward.

In the 85 years for which BEA has calculated the annual change in real GDP there is only one ten-year stretch—2006 through 2015—when the annual growth in real GDP never hit 3 percent. During the last ten years, real annual growth in GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent. It has never been that high again, according to the BEA.
U.S. Has Record 10th Straight Year Without 3% Growth in GDP

AND remember since 2008... not one single hurricane. Not one single attack equal to 9/11!
NOT one major issue that Obama has had to confront. YET GDP is stymied.
When Obama has signed the fewest oil leases then Bush did by over 61%...that affects the economy!
View attachment 65162

Correct assessment.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Under Obama GDP growth has stopped!!!
By the way... when did the GDP peak??? during Bush.........GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent
The BEA has calculated GDP for each year going back to 1929 and it has calculated the inflation-adjusted annual change in GDP (in constant 2009 dollars) from 1930 forward.

In the 85 years for which BEA has calculated the annual change in real GDP there is only one ten-year stretch—2006 through 2015—when the annual growth in real GDP never hit 3 percent. During the last ten years, real annual growth in GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent. It has never been that high again, according to the BEA.
U.S. Has Record 10th Straight Year Without 3% Growth in GDP

AND remember since 2008... not one single hurricane. Not one single attack equal to 9/11!
NOT one major issue that Obama has had to confront. YET GDP is stymied.
When Obama has signed the fewest oil leases then Bush did by over 61%...that affects the economy!
View attachment 65162

Correct assessment.

Do you know what the equation for determining GDP looks like?

Or are you going along with that idiocy about oil leases?

 

[jillian]

Why didn't Obama blame George W. Bush? The mess he assumed was worse than any of that. The Bush mess was the worst during my lifetime......'course I'm just 81.

If Bush hadn't handed the banks $700 billion(With a B) in 2008 the American economy would have gone "belly up"

Newsflash...it did go bellyup despite the bailout(s). Isn't it hard to be against the rich getting richer when people support bailouts.

it would have been far worse without bush's bail out. thank goodness that happened before the teatards

 

[jillian]

Under Obama GDP growth has stopped!!!
By the way... when did the GDP peak??? during Bush.........GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent
The BEA has calculated GDP for each year going back to 1929 and it has calculated the inflation-adjusted annual change in GDP (in constant 2009 dollars) from 1930 forward.

In the 85 years for which BEA has calculated the annual change in real GDP there is only one ten-year stretch—2006 through 2015—when the annual growth in real GDP never hit 3 percent. During the last ten years, real annual growth in GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent. It has never been that high again, according to the BEA.
U.S. Has Record 10th Straight Year Without 3% Growth in GDP

AND remember since 2008... not one single hurricane. Not one single attack equal to 9/11!
NOT one major issue that Obama has had to confront. YET GDP is stymied.
When Obama has signed the fewest oil leases then Bush did by over 61%...that affects the economy!
View attachment 65162

Correct assessment.

not in this or any other reality

 

[IcebergSlim]

 

[bripat9643]

Refresh my memory but I don't recall Reagan ever "blaming" Jimmie Carter.

Reagan's 1983 State of the Union:

"The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted."

Consider that the recession bequeathed by the worst POTUS of the modern era was orders of magnitude worse than the one in 1982....

No it wasn't. Obama made it worse with his noxious economic policies.

now here's the irony....(one of many)

Because budget projections in early 1981 called for
massive surpluses, it was possible, based upon the data then known, to cut taxes, increase defense, and still balance the budget. Regarding the economic forecast, the Reagan package of
projections were, at most, only mildly more optimistic than other forecasts at the time.

http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/00-05.pdf

Who has evidence that the budget was going to be in surplus? Perhaps if inflation went to 30% and interest rates went to 50%. Carter's economy was headed for a crash. It was only a matter of when it would occur.

No it wasn't.

spot the dots.....



Obama made it worse with his noxious economic policies.

neat trick, given that the recession ended in June. 2009...

and here is why...

The real economy also responded to the massive stimulus but remained heavily dependent on it. In the United States, growth during the second half of 2009 probably averaged about 3 percent. Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009.

The Year Ahead

Before you bleat something stupid, bear in mind that this is an economist from AEI......(yeah, I know....you have no idea what that is....trust me....it is NOT "Obama friendly")

We aren't discussing just the length of the period that economists define officially as a "recession." We're discussing the performance of Obama's economic policies for his entire term, and they suck.

Claiming the economy "would have contracted" without Obama's magic elixir is pure abracadabra. Economists have a poor record of predicting what the economy will do. Their prognostications are almost entirely worthless.

The bottom line is that Obama's economic numbers suck.

Bri,

Where did you get the idea that your Bold Assertions carry any weight?

Do you understand how argument works?

They aren't mere "assertions." I posted the damning evidence. You continue to ignore it.

 

[bripat9643]

So if we don't count part of the GDP, then it didn't grow very fast under Bush? Is that really your argument? With that and $3.50 you can buy a grande latte at Starbucks.

 

[bripat9643]

Under Obama GDP growth has stopped!!!
By the way... when did the GDP peak??? during Bush.........GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent
The BEA has calculated GDP for each year going back to 1929 and it has calculated the inflation-adjusted annual change in GDP (in constant 2009 dollars) from 1930 forward.

In the 85 years for which BEA has calculated the annual change in real GDP there is only one ten-year stretch—2006 through 2015—when the annual growth in real GDP never hit 3 percent. During the last ten years, real annual growth in GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent. It has never been that high again, according to the BEA.
U.S. Has Record 10th Straight Year Without 3% Growth in GDP

AND remember since 2008... not one single hurricane. Not one single attack equal to 9/11!
NOT one major issue that Obama has had to confront. YET GDP is stymied.
When Obama has signed the fewest oil leases then Bush did by over 61%...that affects the economy!
View attachment 65162

YET GDP is stymied.

GDP growth under Obama has exceeded that under Scrub by roughly 30%.......

and the spread would be even greater but for THIS

and if you read Terence Jeffrey, you are an imbecile...

Government does contribute squat to real GDP growth.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Reagan's 1983 State of the Union:

"The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted."

Consider that the recession bequeathed by the worst POTUS of the modern era was orders of magnitude worse than the one in 1982....

No it wasn't. Obama made it worse with his noxious economic policies.

now here's the irony....(one of many)

Because budget projections in early 1981 called for
massive surpluses, it was possible, based upon the data then known, to cut taxes, increase defense, and still balance the budget. Regarding the economic forecast, the Reagan package of
projections were, at most, only mildly more optimistic than other forecasts at the time.

http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/00-05.pdf

Who has evidence that the budget was going to be in surplus? Perhaps if inflation went to 30% and interest rates went to 50%. Carter's economy was headed for a crash. It was only a matter of when it would occur.

No it wasn't.

spot the dots.....



Obama made it worse with his noxious economic policies.

neat trick, given that the recession ended in June. 2009...

and here is why...

The real economy also responded to the massive stimulus but remained heavily dependent on it. In the United States, growth during the second half of 2009 probably averaged about 3 percent. Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009.

The Year Ahead

Before you bleat something stupid, bear in mind that this is an economist from AEI......(yeah, I know....you have no idea what that is....trust me....it is NOT "Obama friendly")

We aren't discussing just the length of the period that economists define officially as a "recession." We're discussing the performance of Obama's economic policies for his entire term, and they suck.

Claiming the economy "would have contracted" without Obama's magic elixir is pure abracadabra. Economists have a poor record of predicting what the economy will do. Their prognostications are almost entirely worthless.

The bottom line is that Obama's economic numbers suck.

Bri,

Where did you get the idea that your Bold Assertions carry any weight?

Do you understand how argument works?

They aren't mere "assertions." I posted the damning evidence. You continue to ignore it.

Nah.....you posted some idiocy sourced from an illiterate calling itself "robo" something.....

and dated crap from "Liberty Works" or whatever....

Here's me doing you a massive solid

Federal Reserve Economic Data - FRED - St. Louis Fed

Whenever you are looking for information about the economy......unless, of course, you prefer it predigested.....

 

[ZackB]

Reagan's 1983 State of the Union:

"The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted."

Consider that the recession bequeathed by the worst POTUS of the modern era was orders of magnitude worse than the one in 1982....

No it wasn't. Obama made it worse with his noxious economic policies.

now here's the irony....(one of many)

Because budget projections in early 1981 called for
massive surpluses, it was possible, based upon the data then known, to cut taxes, increase defense, and still balance the budget. Regarding the economic forecast, the Reagan package of
projections were, at most, only mildly more optimistic than other forecasts at the time.

http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/00-05.pdf

Who has evidence that the budget was going to be in surplus? Perhaps if inflation went to 30% and interest rates went to 50%. Carter's economy was headed for a crash. It was only a matter of when it would occur.

No it wasn't.

spot the dots.....



Obama made it worse with his noxious economic policies.

neat trick, given that the recession ended in June. 2009...

and here is why...

The real economy also responded to the massive stimulus but remained heavily dependent on it. In the United States, growth during the second half of 2009 probably averaged about 3 percent. Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009.

The Year Ahead

Before you bleat something stupid, bear in mind that this is an economist from AEI......(yeah, I know....you have no idea what that is....trust me....it is NOT "Obama friendly")

We aren't discussing just the length of the period that economists define officially as a "recession." We're discussing the performance of Obama's economic policies for his entire term, and they suck.

Claiming the economy "would have contracted" without Obama's magic elixir is pure abracadabra. Economists have a poor record of predicting what the economy will do. Their prognostications are almost entirely worthless.

The bottom line is that Obama's economic numbers suck.

Bri,

Where did you get the idea that your Bold Assertions carry any weight?

Do you understand how argument works?

They aren't mere "assertions." I posted the damning evidence. You continue to ignore it.

He cannot copy and paste logic, experience, or anything else but stats.

 

[IcebergSlim]

So if we don't count part of the GDP, then it didn't grow very fast under Bush? Is that really your argument? With that and $3.50 you can buy a grande latte at Starbucks.

It indicates that growth under Scrub was almost entirely dependent on households assuming debt....

You wanna see what happened to that trend from 2009 on?