Bush vs Obama econ policies

Discussion in 'Politics' started by cad, Jul 28, 2010.

  1. cad
    Offline

    cad Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2010
    Messages:
    874
    Thanks Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +64
    "After they drove the car into the ditch, made it as difficult as possible for us to pull it back, now they want the keys back. No. You can't drive. We don't want to have to go back into the ditch. We just got the car out." President Obama

    So Bush policies got us in to this mess, and Obama is getting us out. Really?

    Everyone knows Bush cut taxes. Obama Claims to have passed one of the biggest tax cuts in history. Bush ran up government spending, an average of $2.6 trillion over his eight years. Projected spending under Obama 2010-2013? $3.8 trillion. Bush had huge budget deficts, averaging $440 billion per year. Obama's deficits? A little over a trillion dollars. Bush had the expensive prescription drug entitlemtn. Obama has Obamacare. Bush started bailouts. Obama continued them. Bush had a $160 billion stimulus. Obama had a $860 billion bailout.

    Obama's economic plan is simply an escalation of everything that was wrong with the Bush policies. Now he has added hundreds of new regulations with his financial reform and seems intent on raising taxes in 2011. Can anyone name a single economist that will say that increasing regulations and raising taxes during a recession is a good way to promote job growth?
     
  2. topspin
    Offline

    topspin BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,149
    Thanks Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +196
    I'm a stock market guy, Obama's 1 yr return is better than Bush's 8 combined
     
  3. code1211
    Offline

    code1211 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,999
    Thanks Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +845

    What's the return if you start at the low after the 9/11 attack and take it through the Dem take over in Congress?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Jarhead
    Offline

    Jarhead Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    20,554
    Thanks Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,286
    Why throw that in the mix? It clouds the argument that a market that has pretty much a zero return over the last 7 months DESPITE a commitment of 800 billion BORROWED dollars is better than a market that rose steadily after the dot com bubble burst...of course, until the Democratic law makers and policy enactors took charge in 2006.

    No, lets not cloud the issue.

    Bush was bad. A republican congress was bad. When a democratic congress came in, it was not their fault, it was Bush's fault becuase he is bad. And now that Obama is in, it is not Obama's fault. It is the minority's fault becuase they are the party of NO.
     
  5. Titanic Sailor
    Offline

    Titanic Sailor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,908
    Thanks Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +149
    The Democrats war for the corruption of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac insured the economy would fail under some President.

    and the economy is still screwed, rip off stimulus benefit coming to a close, and there's no room for growth because Democrats can NOT and WILL NOT reform government. Cutting benefits to the helpless across our nation, and the hack Democrats keep voting themselves raises from your town hall to DC.

    Every Democrat belongs in jail during this term, deliberate failure and harm intended on our people. Deliberate.
     
  6. topspin
    Offline

    topspin BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,149
    Thanks Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +196
    Bush didn't start at 9/11
    Democrat presidents are 1/2% better for the market. Fact
    I didn't agree with any bailout Bush or Obama
    But I dam sure am cheering for huge returns no matter who's in office.
    I posted an article where two leading economist say the stimulus added 6% to GDP.
     
  7. Cuyo
    Offline

    Cuyo Training a Guineapig army

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,681
    Thanks Received:
    942
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Denver, PA
    Ratings:
    +942
    It's clear you're using some voodoo math there, and I'm not sure where to start addressing it; But I will say this, as I've said repeatedly. The current Administration gained office in economic free fall. The record breaking deficit and reduced revenue were inevitable. It would not matter who won the election. Whoever it was would be running similar deficits and the economic system would be only marginally different.

    That's a fact. We've got reduced revenue due to recession and automatic economic stabilizers that kick in to prevent further recession.

    I repeat; It makes no difference who had won the election. The scenario would be only marginally different. Before you start screeching about how Obama should cut this and cut that; The deficit this year is $1.2 Trillion. The non-military discretionary spending is about $400 Billion. Not to mention, we have known since the 40s that you don't do sweeping budget cuts during recession, as they only serve to magnify the recession. An unemployed person who used to work for the fed is the same as one who had worked for Pfizer - A drain on the economy.
     
  8. Jarhead
    Offline

    Jarhead Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    20,554
    Thanks Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,286
    OF COURSE stimulus added to the GDP.

    Heck, how can half a trillion added with the promise of another 300 billion NOT add to the GDP.

    But for the cost, the returns should have been much greater. The question is, why wasn't it. When you add in interest, it will wind up being a break even at best (IMHO)

    It was a waste of borrowed money.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. topspin
    Offline

    topspin BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,149
    Thanks Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +196
    that's what I think, but these two top economist say it GDP would have been 6% lower. In my book there's this thing called the business cycle that results in a recession every 7yrs. Left alone we would have come out fine. Wall Street might have been in a depression. IE they wouldn't wax their yatch's as often, main street would have been OK.
     
  10. Jarhead
    Offline

    Jarhead Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    20,554
    Thanks Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,286
    I agree. Recession occor every 6-8 years for a reason. Market saturation. Then there is a correction period and things settle down.

    However, if you try to stimulate it, it slows the correction.

    This recession is lasting longer than most due to two things:

    It was used as a campaign tactic. THAT was dangerous as it created more fear than it should have.

    The stimulus gave people reason to sit back and "see what happens". That in itself stymies any growth.
     

Share This Page