Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

The Obama Disaster (And The Lead Up To It)

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 12:10:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It is a simple fact that Barack Obama has been an absolute disaster as president. Yes, he did take office when the economy was very bad, but, historically, economic crashes have been followed by robust recoveries.

Employment is at around 58%. This is down from about 64% before the recession. The employment rate has seen virtually NO recovery under Obama. This means that we have not even started seeing a recovery from a sharp decline.

In terms of GDP, things have not been much better. GDP growth has been very weak, especially given that we would expect to see a fairly robust recovery after the crash.

The last time a recovery was this unusually weak was the New Deal, when we had another leftist president imposing anti business taxes and regulations and creating an atmosphere of uncertainty for investors and businesses.

This time is not all that different. We had a crash under a Republican president who spoke of private enterprise but was actually an interventionist. And, Bush, like Hoover, was certainly an interventionist.

To his credit, he, along with other Republicans like John Mccain, did try to stop the uncontrollable growth of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but liberal Democrats like Barney Frank stopped anything from being done about this. However, Bush also pursued Keynesian inspired economic policies. He oversaw an unprecedented expansion of credit and the money supply while president. He also passed numerous "economic stimulus" packages. The 2001 tax cuts were largely short term "stimulus" measures, as were the 2008 "tax cuts". These "tax cuts" were based on the keynesian ideas of boosting consumer spending.

Again, to his credit, Bush also implemented more effective supply side tax cuts in 2003, which spurred and incentivized investment and other productive behavior. Although the fact that these tax cuts were not permanent took a lot away from their effectiveness.

Outside of tax policy, Bush also expanded regulations. One of the great myths of the crisis was that Bush was in favor of deregulation. When, in fact, Bush never deregulating anything and only increased regulations

Overall, however, Bush was very much an interventionist president. So, it was no surprise when Bush pushed the biggest intervention of all in pushing through the bank bailout.

Despite no evidence that this bailout would in any way soften the crisis, virtually all the commentators declared that it was a necessity unless we wanted the world economy to collapse. Again, there was no real reason to believe this, but that is what the conventional wisdom was.

So, during all of this, we were in the process of electing a young, liberal new president. This young president had a goal to vastly expand the role of the state in America, thereby creating a European like welfare state in America.

However, the first order of business was to "rescue" the economy. To do this, this president, Barack Obama, proposed a nearly trillion dollar "stimulus" program that was entirely based on increasing government spending. Granted, a portion of this spending was disguised as tax cuts, but these tax cuts were literally just checks sent out to people who did not pay taxes in the first place, so these "tax cuts" were virtually indistinguishable from welfare checks.

The theory behind this program, which was a theory that the Bush administration used to justify many of its "stimulus" programs, was that this spending would go to consumers who would then spend that money buying things and this new buying would get businesses hiring and moving again.

This theory, like many theories before it, had been shown to not actually be correct in real world economic situations and had numerous obvious logical flaws. However, the theory did provide a rationale for governments to spend more money and gain more power and influence, so there was a political incentive for this theory to be pushed. Therefore, it was easily adopted by many politicians and academics trying to gain influence with politicians.

Like every time this theory had been tried before, the massive spending was not effective. Under president Obama, deficits have been running at well over a trillion dollars every year. Yet, there has been NO recovery in employment, and, really, there has been no recovery in GDP, even though we would expect to see a strong recovery after a crash.

The reason for this lack of recovery is fairly clear. President Obama has been implementing numerous complex bills that massively expand government's power and regulatory reach, he has also been utilizing strong anti business rhetoric in an attempt to gain working class support, and he has massively increased the deficit with massive spending programs and a refusal to reform entitlement programs.

These things have all led to a massive increase in uncertainty for businesses and investors. Regime uncertainty was a big part of why the Great Depression lasted so long. Now, uncertainty of a similiar variety is a big part of what is keeping the recovery so weak right now.

-- Regime Uncertainty Prolonged the Great Depression- http://www.independent.org...

-- Economic Policy Uncertainty has Spiked Recently- http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu...
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 6:03:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The fact is that Republicans do not want the economy to succeed under a Democratic president. As such they have not cooperated with Obama, and have obstructed any effort to improve anything. On top of this massive resistance he still managed to get things through. Unemployment recently lowered and the economy has been improving. In many ways, he avoided a depression. Don't even let me get into his foreign policy which you should at least have the intelligence to respect. He was an absolute disaster,.....right.

What I find most putrid about your point of view is that it takes away from Obama when he succeeds ("always an economic boom after a decline" or something like that), and then chastises him when failure comes with Congress exempt from blame.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 7:19:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 6:03:24 AM, 000ike wrote:
The fact is that Republicans do not want the economy to succeed under a Democratic president. As such they have not cooperated with Obama, and have obstructed any effort to improve anything. On top of this massive resistance he still managed to get things through. Unemployment recently lowered and the economy has been improving. In many ways, he avoided a depression. Don't even let me get into his foreign policy which you should at least have the intelligence to respect. He was an absolute disaster,.....right.

What I find most putrid about your point of view is that it takes away from Obama when he succeeds ("always an economic boom after a decline" or something like that), and then chastises him when failure comes with Congress exempt from blame.

Obama had overhelming Democratic majorities from 2009 to 2011. He still has the senate. So, don't give me that BS that the Republicans are too blame.

Anyways, the whole point of this is that what Obama has done has been a failure. If the Republicans weren't there, what would Obama had done?

Increasted government spending by more?

Taxed investors and businesses at a higher rate?

Increased Regulations by more?

These things would have just made things worse. So, thank God the Republicans were there to contain the damage.

And, as for the point about Obama being "chastised" when Congress makes a mistake and not getting credit for good things, the same point can be turned around. Obama wants to blame Republicans for things being bad, even when they have no power in government.

And, you mentioned that recent fall in unemployment. Shouldn't the congressional Republicans get credit for that?

According to your logic, they should.

And, as far as that drop goes, it was mostly a result of people stopping looking for work, not jobs being added. And, the more consistent measure, the employment rate, has been flat since the huge drop of the recession.

All of this economic uncertainty has taken its toll on America, through a slow recovery. To make matters worse, Obama's programs of higher taxes, tighter labor market regulations, and more government welfare type programs will lead to a major decline in long term economic growth, as has happened in many European countries.
President of DDO
inferno
Posts: 10,565
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 11:32:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 10:53:33 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
I'm surprised more haven't jumped on to this topic.

That is because it is bull crap as always.
The Unemployment numbers are around 20%.
And the majority of people still hate the GOP.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 11:50:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Both sides know the economy won't be fixed by the next election cycle, they knew this before even Tarp flew out of Bush. It is just a mad political blame shuffle game at tax payer expense. Most common people actually intuitively know this from the disapproval polls.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 12:01:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 10:53:33 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
I'm surprised more haven't jumped on to this topic.

Because most see it as garbage and not worth their time. I've already pointed out several times how the job loss caused by Bush was about 3 times worse than any recession going back to the Great Depression, and so any recovery would be expected to take longer. The fact that over 2 million jobs has been created since hitting the bottom (which would be almost a complete recovery from the 2001 recession, the 1990's recession, or the 1981 recession) is testiment enough.

http://www.bea.gov...

Our GDP has risen for the last 9 quarters in a row. 2010, we saw a 3.0% GDP growth, bad, as seeing as G.W.Bush was never able to even break the 4% mark (his best year was 3.5%).

Or howabout the Gross Private Domestic Investment was up 17.9% in 2010, indicating a massive turn around in the economy and that we are now on path to a full recovery.

It should also be noted that after the large rebound in private investment in 2010, 2011 is still growing, we are no seeing a pendulum swing going back in the other direction (based on quarter growth compared to the year before).

Let us look at national income. Q3 of 2010 it was $12.94 trillion, in Q3 of 2011, it was $13.43 trillion (3.81% increase) and the total of 2011 is looking to be about 3.9% increase over 2010 (will have to wait for Q4 numbers though). This may not seem like much, but 2008 -> 2009 saw only 3.66% decrease, and 2009 -> 2010 saw a 5.70% increase, wiping out all the loss.

Yet another thing to look at. Wages are up 2.9% over Q3 of 2010, benefits are up 2.57% over Q3 2010. Interest income is up only .94% over Q3 2010, but dividend income is up 8.02% over Q3 2010. Of course, personal taxes are also up 16.26% (up a total of $170 billion), but personal disposable income is still up 2.89%.

Though, a downside could be that personal savings are down (depending on if you think savings are good or bad for the economy) by 30.53%.

Corporate profits are up 7.9% from Q3 2010, and infact corporate profits are up 58.39% from 2008 (part of what is pissing off the OWS peoples). BTW, Taxes from corporations are only up 34.27% from 2008, so profits after tax are still up 43.36% from 2008.

By the way, if we look at just Domestic industries (not those that off shores), we see that their profits from 2008 to 2010 are up 68.47% and if we go to Q3 of 2011, they are up 81.24% from 2008.

So complain all you want about how much you hate Obama, and think he is ruining this country and this economy, but the numbers show otherwise.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 4:08:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 12:01:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/13/2011 10:53:33 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
I'm surprised more haven't jumped on to this topic.

Because most see it as garbage and not worth their time. I've already pointed out several times how the job loss caused by Bush was about 3 times worse than any recession going back to the Great Depression, and so any recovery would be expected to take longer. The fact that over 2 million jobs has been created since hitting the bottom (which would be almost a complete recovery from the 2001 recession, the 1990's recession, or the 1981 recession) is testiment enough.

http://www.bea.gov...

Our GDP has risen for the last 9 quarters in a row. 2010, we saw a 3.0% GDP growth, bad, as seeing as G.W.Bush was never able to even break the 4% mark (his best year was 3.5%).

Or howabout the Gross Private Domestic Investment was up 17.9% in 2010, indicating a massive turn around in the economy and that we are now on path to a full recovery.

It should also be noted that after the large rebound in private investment in 2010, 2011 is still growing, we are no seeing a pendulum swing going back in the other direction (based on quarter growth compared to the year before).

Let us look at national income. Q3 of 2010 it was $12.94 trillion, in Q3 of 2011, it was $13.43 trillion (3.81% increase) and the total of 2011 is looking to be about 3.9% increase over 2010 (will have to wait for Q4 numbers though). This may not seem like much, but 2008 -> 2009 saw only 3.66% decrease, and 2009 -> 2010 saw a 5.70% increase, wiping out all the loss.

Yet another thing to look at. Wages are up 2.9% over Q3 of 2010, benefits are up 2.57% over Q3 2010. Interest income is up only .94% over Q3 2010, but dividend income is up 8.02% over Q3 2010. Of course, personal taxes are also up 16.26% (up a total of $170 billion), but personal disposable income is still up 2.89%.

Though, a downside could be that personal savings are down (depending on if you think savings are good or bad for the economy) by 30.53%.

Corporate profits are up 7.9% from Q3 2010, and infact corporate profits are up 58.39% from 2008 (part of what is pissing off the OWS peoples). BTW, Taxes from corporations are only up 34.27% from 2008, so profits after tax are still up 43.36% from 2008.

By the way, if we look at just Domestic industries (not those that off shores), we see that their profits from 2008 to 2010 are up 68.47% and if we go to Q3 of 2011, they are up 81.24% from 2008.

So complain all you want about how much you hate Obama, and think he is ruining this country and this economy, but the numbers show otherwise.

Ore_Ele, I don't think you understand how jobs and GDP work. They go up over time. The fact that GDP is going up and jobs are increasing does not that the economy is doing well, because these things have happened for the past 200 years.

Historically, GDP has increased about 3% per year. When there is a decline in GDP, GDP typically goes up faster in the next few years to make up for that loss.

This recovery, however, GDP growth has been under 3%, which is terrible given that this is a recovery.

Arguing that there would be no GDP growth without Obama is absurd. What Obama has done is hold back economic recovery. He has also permanently lowered GDP by expanding the regulatory and welfare state.

Larger welfare states do mean lower GDP, as many European nations have shown.
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 4:13:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 12:01:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/13/2011 10:53:33 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
I'm surprised more haven't jumped on to this topic.

Because most see it as garbage and not worth their time.

This.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 5:16:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 4:08:46 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/13/2011 12:01:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/13/2011 10:53:33 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
I'm surprised more haven't jumped on to this topic.

Because most see it as garbage and not worth their time. I've already pointed out several times how the job loss caused by Bush was about 3 times worse than any recession going back to the Great Depression, and so any recovery would be expected to take longer. The fact that over 2 million jobs has been created since hitting the bottom (which would be almost a complete recovery from the 2001 recession, the 1990's recession, or the 1981 recession) is testiment enough.

http://www.bea.gov...

Our GDP has risen for the last 9 quarters in a row. 2010, we saw a 3.0% GDP growth, bad, as seeing as G.W.Bush was never able to even break the 4% mark (his best year was 3.5%).

Or howabout the Gross Private Domestic Investment was up 17.9% in 2010, indicating a massive turn around in the economy and that we are now on path to a full recovery.

It should also be noted that after the large rebound in private investment in 2010, 2011 is still growing, we are no seeing a pendulum swing going back in the other direction (based on quarter growth compared to the year before).

Let us look at national income. Q3 of 2010 it was $12.94 trillion, in Q3 of 2011, it was $13.43 trillion (3.81% increase) and the total of 2011 is looking to be about 3.9% increase over 2010 (will have to wait for Q4 numbers though). This may not seem like much, but 2008 -> 2009 saw only 3.66% decrease, and 2009 -> 2010 saw a 5.70% increase, wiping out all the loss.

Yet another thing to look at. Wages are up 2.9% over Q3 of 2010, benefits are up 2.57% over Q3 2010. Interest income is up only .94% over Q3 2010, but dividend income is up 8.02% over Q3 2010. Of course, personal taxes are also up 16.26% (up a total of $170 billion), but personal disposable income is still up 2.89%.

Though, a downside could be that personal savings are down (depending on if you think savings are good or bad for the economy) by 30.53%.

Corporate profits are up 7.9% from Q3 2010, and infact corporate profits are up 58.39% from 2008 (part of what is pissing off the OWS peoples). BTW, Taxes from corporations are only up 34.27% from 2008, so profits after tax are still up 43.36% from 2008.

By the way, if we look at just Domestic industries (not those that off shores), we see that their profits from 2008 to 2010 are up 68.47% and if we go to Q3 of 2011, they are up 81.24% from 2008.

So complain all you want about how much you hate Obama, and think he is ruining this country and this economy, but the numbers show otherwise.

Ore_Ele, I don't think you understand how jobs and GDP work. They go up over time. The fact that GDP is going up and jobs are increasing does not that the economy is doing well, because these things have happened for the past 200 years.

Historically, GDP has increased about 3% per year. When there is a decline in GDP, GDP typically goes up faster in the next few years to make up for that loss.

This recovery, however, GDP growth has been under 3%, which is terrible given that this is a recovery.

Arguing that there would be no GDP growth without Obama is absurd. What Obama has done is hold back economic recovery. He has also permanently lowered GDP by expanding the regulatory and welfare state.

Larger welfare states do mean lower GDP, as many European nations have shown.

You know the last recession we had? The one in 2001? Let's look at GDP growth after that one.

2002 - 1.8%
2003 - 2.5%
2004 - 3.5%
2005 - 3.1%
2006 - 2.7%
2007 - 1.9%

Obviously we don't always see big growth in a recovery.

Also, the last time we had big growth (let's say over 4%), was from 1997 - 2000, that was not following a recession, as it was a good time after one. We can also see the biggest single year swing in GDP, from -3.5% for 2009 to 3.0% in 2010 (a 6.5 point swing), next year will be even better.

Lets look at other times. A classic is the 1981 recession.

Let's look at GDP growth before the recession and after.

1976 - 11.41%
1977 - 11.26%
1978 - 12.99%
1979 - 11.70%
1980 - 8.82%
1981 - 12.15%
1982 - 4.04%
1983 - 8.65%
1984 - 11.21%
1985 - 7.29%
1986 - 5.75%

As we can clearly see, there was more GDP growth prior to the recession than during the recovery. Would you like to look at any others?

History disagrees with you.

We can also see that the depth of this recession is far greater than any other going back to the GD. Even through the 1981 recession, the 1991 recession, the 2001 recession, the annual GDP growth always remained possitive (we just had two quarters of negative growth, but the other two in the year held the annual number up). This was the first time when the annual GDP actually dropped (and by a good amount too).

When will you learn that this is not just another recession like those of the past? This one, by ALL THE NUMBERS has been stronger and deeper, and so it should be expected to last longer. This isn't just sensationalism, the numbers actually back it up. We can go back to see that the last year of negative growth was 1949 (-0.71%) and the last time it was as steep as 2009 was 1938 (-6.31%).

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...
http://www.bea.gov...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 10:48:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 5:16:09 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/13/2011 4:08:46 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

Ore_Ele, I don't think you understand how jobs and GDP work. They go up over time. The fact that GDP is going up and jobs are increasing does not that the economy is doing well, because these things have happened for the past 200 years.

Historically, GDP has increased about 3% per year. When there is a decline in GDP, GDP typically goes up faster in the next few years to make up for that loss.

This recovery, however, GDP growth has been under 3%, which is terrible given that this is a recovery.

Arguing that there would be no GDP growth without Obama is absurd. What Obama has done is hold back economic recovery. He has also permanently lowered GDP by expanding the regulatory and welfare state.

Larger welfare states do mean lower GDP, as many European nations have shown.

You know the last recession we had? The one in 2001? Let's look at GDP growth after that one.

2002 - 1.8%
2003 - 2.5%
2004 - 3.5%
2005 - 3.1%
2006 - 2.7%
2007 - 1.9%

Obviously we don't always see big growth in a recovery.

Also, the last time we had big growth (let's say over 4%), was from 1997 - 2000, that was not following a recession, as it was a good time after one. We can also see the biggest single year swing in GDP, from -3.5% for 2009 to 3.0% in 2010 (a 6.5 point swing), next year will be even better.

Lets look at other times. A classic is the 1981 recession.

Let's look at GDP growth before the recession and after.

1976 - 11.41%
1977 - 11.26%
1978 - 12.99%
1979 - 11.70%
1980 - 8.82%
1981 - 12.15%
1982 - 4.04%
1983 - 8.65%
1984 - 11.21%
1985 - 7.29%
1986 - 5.75%

As we can clearly see, there was more GDP growth prior to the recession than during the recovery. Would you like to look at any others?

History disagrees with you.

We can also see that the depth of this recession is far greater than any other going back to the GD. Even through the 1981 recession, the 1991 recession, the 2001 recession, the annual GDP growth always remained possitive (we just had two quarters of negative growth, but the other two in the year held the annual number up). This was the first time when the annual GDP actually dropped (and by a good amount too).

When will you learn that this is not just another recession like those of the past? This one, by ALL THE NUMBERS has been stronger and deeper, and so it should be expected to last longer. This isn't just sensationalism, the numbers actually back it up. We can go back to see that the last year of negative growth was 1949 (-0.71%) and the last time it was as steep as 2009 was 1938 (-6.31%).

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...
http://www.bea.gov...

Lol, you gave me nominal GDP figures for the late 70s.... you gotta be kidding me... Do you even remember 12% Inflation?

The numbers to look at are Real GDP... here you see a sharp decline and strong recovery in the 1980s.... this recovery was much strengthened by Reaganomics... which also lead to a permanent, long term increase in GDP

GDP growth has been very slow recently.... Again, if you look throughout history, you will see deep crashes, especially financial crashes, are followed by strong GDP growth in recoveries

Another issue you forget is that European welfare states have dragged down GDP in recent decades... Obama has been on a mission to implement similiar policies in America.... and the effect will be the same.
President of DDO
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2011 12:14:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/14/2011 12:10:19 AM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
Ore_Ele wins the thread.

Timmy loses out big. Sucks to be Timmy...

You don't win threads... But, nice try anyway.
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2011 10:11:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 10:48:09 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:16:09 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/13/2011 4:08:46 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

Ore_Ele, I don't think you understand how jobs and GDP work. They go up over time. The fact that GDP is going up and jobs are increasing does not that the economy is doing well, because these things have happened for the past 200 years.

Historically, GDP has increased about 3% per year. When there is a decline in GDP, GDP typically goes up faster in the next few years to make up for that loss.

This recovery, however, GDP growth has been under 3%, which is terrible given that this is a recovery.

Arguing that there would be no GDP growth without Obama is absurd. What Obama has done is hold back economic recovery. He has also permanently lowered GDP by expanding the regulatory and welfare state.

Larger welfare states do mean lower GDP, as many European nations have shown.

You know the last recession we had? The one in 2001? Let's look at GDP growth after that one.

2002 - 1.8%
2003 - 2.5%
2004 - 3.5%
2005 - 3.1%
2006 - 2.7%
2007 - 1.9%

Obviously we don't always see big growth in a recovery.

Also, the last time we had big growth (let's say over 4%), was from 1997 - 2000, that was not following a recession, as it was a good time after one. We can also see the biggest single year swing in GDP, from -3.5% for 2009 to 3.0% in 2010 (a 6.5 point swing), next year will be even better.

Lets look at other times. A classic is the 1981 recession.

Let's look at GDP growth before the recession and after.

1976 - 11.41%
1977 - 11.26%
1978 - 12.99%
1979 - 11.70%
1980 - 8.82%
1981 - 12.15%
1982 - 4.04%
1983 - 8.65%
1984 - 11.21%
1985 - 7.29%
1986 - 5.75%

As we can clearly see, there was more GDP growth prior to the recession than during the recovery. Would you like to look at any others?

History disagrees with you.

We can also see that the depth of this recession is far greater than any other going back to the GD. Even through the 1981 recession, the 1991 recession, the 2001 recession, the annual GDP growth always remained possitive (we just had two quarters of negative growth, but the other two in the year held the annual number up). This was the first time when the annual GDP actually dropped (and by a good amount too).

When will you learn that this is not just another recession like those of the past? This one, by ALL THE NUMBERS has been stronger and deeper, and so it should be expected to last longer. This isn't just sensationalism, the numbers actually back it up. We can go back to see that the last year of negative growth was 1949 (-0.71%) and the last time it was as steep as 2009 was 1938 (-6.31%).

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...
http://www.bea.gov...

Lol, you gave me nominal GDP figures for the late 70s.... you gotta be kidding me... Do you even remember 12% Inflation?

The numbers to look at are Real GDP... here you see a sharp decline and strong recovery in the 1980s.... this recovery was much strengthened by Reaganomics... which also lead to a permanent, long term increase in GDP

GDP growth has been very slow recently.... Again, if you look throughout history, you will see deep crashes, especially financial crashes, are followed by strong GDP growth in recoveries

Another issue you forget is that European welfare states have dragged down GDP in recent decades... Obama has been on a mission to implement similiar policies in America.... and the effect will be the same.

Actually, what you want to look at, is the nominal GDP per person. But, since you said, just to look at the nominal GDP, let's do that.

Going back to the 1980 recession, I'll do a big favor to Reagan, and count the "end" of the recession at 1983 (since it double dipped in 1982). Let's look at the 4 years proceeding (1976 - 1979) the recession and the 4 years after (1983 - 1986).

1976 - 5.36%
1977 - 4.60%
1978 - 5.58%
1979 - 3.13%
Total for 4 years - 19.99%

1983 - 4.52%
1984 - 7.19%
1985 - 4.14%
1986 - 3.46%
Total for 4 years - 20.71%

Reagan only had 1 good year and that was 2 years after the end of the second dip (4 years after the beginning). If we apply the same to Obama (which you never would offer him a fair chance, but I'll mention it), 4 years after the start (in 2008) would be a big year in 2012. We can also see that the 4 years after the recession are only insignificantly better than teh 4 years before (by an average of less than 0.2% per year).

Let us go to the 2001 recession and do the same 4 year look.

1997 - 4.46%
1998 - 4.36%
1999 - 4.83%
2000 - 4.14%
Total - 19.00%

2002 - 1.81%
2003 - 2.54%
2004 - 3.47%
2005 - 3.07%
Total - 11.34%

Again, history shows you wrong.

But let us take a look at another thing, shall we?

The last year of the recession for Reagan in 1982 was -1.94% and the next year we had a 4.52%, a 6.46 percentage point turnaround. Now lets turn to Obama, in 2009, we had -3.49% and in 2010, we had 3.03%. This is a 6.52 percentage point turnaround.

Seems to be doing well by the numbers, given the hand that was dealt.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2011 11:11:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Jimmytimmy is right, it is deceitful to use nominal GDP growth instead of real GDP growth:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com...

Since 1944 we've had 5 recession with lower GDP growth then today
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2011 11:26:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/14/2011 11:11:48 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Jimmytimmy is right, it is deceitful to use nominal GDP growth instead of real GDP growth:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com...

Since 1944 we've had 5 recession with lower GDP growth then today

I have a surprise for you -- you're right! Both you and jimtimmy happen to be correct: nominal GDP, which is domestic product calculated without adjusting figures for inflation is misleading. In fact, we've been inflating the dollar bill incessantly for almost a decade every single year.

However, that brings up two very important points. First, it shows that the little influence Obama as president does have over the national economy has resulted in what would be improvement if there weren't so much inflation, and in fact, more improvement than there has been in years. So, this thread is just as ignorant and irrelevant as has been stated.

But, to take it a step further, why has there been so much inflation?

Oh, yeah, that's right. Because our country is run by greedy business owners that will lobby for socialist tendencies only to protect their inordinate amounts of money and maintain majority ownership of American resources. Bailouts are only one of many examples. Social welfare, on the other hand, is a relatively small percentage of the American budget (as in, not billions of dollars), but receives constant attack from the same people.

Way to brilliantly defend OWS protestors and Barack Obama in one fell swoop! ^_^
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2011 11:55:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/14/2011 11:11:48 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Jimmytimmy is right, it is deceitful to use nominal GDP growth instead of real GDP growth:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com...

Since 1944 we've had 5 recession with lower GDP growth then today

Please see the post above yours. It goes over the real GDP and still shows my point.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2011 2:52:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/14/2011 11:26:40 AM, Ren wrote:
At 12/14/2011 11:11:48 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Jimmytimmy is right, it is deceitful to use nominal GDP growth instead of real GDP growth:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com...

Since 1944 we've had 5 recession with lower GDP growth then today

I have a surprise for you -- you're right! Both you and jimtimmy happen to be correct: nominal GDP, which is domestic product calculated without adjusting figures for inflation is misleading. In fact, we've been inflating the dollar bill incessantly for almost a decade every single year.

However, that brings up two very important points. First, it shows that the little influence Obama as president does have over the national economy has resulted in what would be improvement if there weren't so much inflation, and in fact, more improvement than there has been in years. So, this thread is just as ignorant and irrelevant as has been stated.

But, to take it a step further, why has there been so much inflation?

Oh, yeah, that's right. Because our country is run by greedy business owners that will lobby for socialist tendencies only to protect their inordinate amounts of money and maintain majority ownership of American resources. Bailouts are only one of many examples. Social welfare, on the other hand, is a relatively small percentage of the American budget (as in, not billions of dollars), but receives constant attack from the same people.

Way to brilliantly defend OWS protestors and Barack Obama in one fell swoop! ^_^

Ren, I have a surprise for you too... everything you said here is also correct
President of DDO