Bush vs Obama econ policies

[Bob Roberts]

First off, I got my spending and defiict numbers from usgovernmentspending.com. I used the averages for Bush from 2002-2009, and Obama 2010-2013.

We are comparing actuals to estimates.

There is no doubt the size of the federal government has grown , and will continue to grow during Obama's first term. But as several others have posted, federal support is needed when the financial system is crumbling. This was an important lesson we learned after the Great Depression - the lender of last resort must be used to stop a frenzied economic contraction.

I hope Obama presents a cogent plan to reduce the federal deficit after the economy is sound again. We need more responsibility in Washington. For too long, politicians have passed on their elected responsibilities, while unfortunately, also passing on their reckless decisions to future generations.

 

[topspin]

Obama has to cut federal spending soon. Big time, pensions gotta be slashed for future workers and salaries cut. It's a new reality.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

The Democrats do NOT CARE!

Once you get over that, the solutions seem obvious.

 

[asterism]

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.

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.

Gotta disagree here:

The stimulus cased a pause in private investment in any recovery since the government decided to take control and pick the winners. Nobody sat around and said "wait what happens," they said "cash is king and we don't want to get nationalized."

 

[Meister]

I'm a stock market guy, Obama's 1 yr return is better than Bush's 8 combined

Your a stock market guy????

Your still with a 1 year return and comparing it to an 8 year average? Your not a stock market guy, Spinster.

 

[asterism]

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.


First off, I got my spending and defiict numbers from usgovernmentspending.com. I used the averages for Bush from 2002-2009, and Obama 2010-2013.

No one denies that Obama inherited a mess. But again I ask, what exactly has he done differently? Yes he passed financial reform, but who out there thinks that 2,300 pages of new regulation is exactly what the economy needs to get back on the right track?

Obama poured billions into fiscally failed models - state governments and GM. The forecasts of his economic experts were wrong and everyone besides him with any money to spend knew it.

Why Roemer still has a job is beyond me, except for the (currently unproven) idea that all she did was make up some numbers to justify "keeping us out of 10% unemployment."


Remember how bad things sucked when Obama called 5% unemployment a catastrophe? How'd that work out?

 

[asterism]

First off, I got my spending and defiict numbers from usgovernmentspending.com. I used the averages for Bush from 2002-2009, and Obama 2010-2013.

We are comparing actuals to estimates.

There is no doubt the size of the federal government has grown , and will continue to grow during Obama's first term. But as several others have posted, federal support is needed when the financial system is crumbling. This was an important lesson we learned after the Great Depression - the lender of last resort must be used to stop a frenzied economic contraction.

How so? Do you think that 1929-1937 was an example of federal support?

I hope Obama presents a cogent plan to reduce the federal deficit after the economy is sound again. We need more responsibility in Washington. For too long, politicians have passed on their elected responsibilities, while unfortunately, also passing on their reckless decisions to future generations.

How about he start with disregarding his campaign and early Presidency plan of Keynesian stimulus? That has made things worse.

Anyone can say "it was worse than we thought," but that doesn't negate just how wrong he was when he added $866 Billion to the existing $787 Billion he endorsed.


psssttt: tax increases on small business owners doesn't make them think it's time to hire

 

[asterism]

The Democrats do NOT CARE!

Once you get over that, the solutions seem obvious.

Ok, I'm over it. Now what do the Republicans have as a plan?

 

[Yurt]

thanks Yurt, you still telling people here your a lawyer?

why are you obsessed with my personal life?

 

[topspin]

I'm not I never crack first, but when attacked I crack back hard.

 

[cad]

Can someone answer my original question - what has Obama done differently than Bush? His economic policies have mainly included bailouts, stimulus and tax cuts, all of which were tried by Bush.

 

[Meister]

Can someone answer my original question - what has Obama done differently than Bush? His economic policies have mainly included bailouts, stimulus and tax cuts, all of which were tried by Bush.

Brought a new meaning to the word racism?

 

[Bob Roberts]

How so? Do you think that 1929-1937 was an example of federal support?

How about he start with disregarding his campaign and early Presidency plan of Keynesian stimulus? That has made things worse.

Anyone can say "it was worse than we thought," but that doesn't negate just how wrong he was when he added $866 Billion to the existing $787 Billion he endorsed.


psssttt: tax increases on small business owners doesn't make them think it's time to hire

During 1929-1937 time period, there was a lot of federal support. Obviously, the Great Depression was very unique, and not directly comparable to the current economic situation. In my previous post, I was too rhetorical, trying to make this comparison. In any event, I do believe the recent stimulus package was justified. In my opinion, if federal stimulus can reduce the severity or duration of a recession, I am for it.

 

[asterism]

How so? Do you think that 1929-1937 was an example of federal support?

How about he start with disregarding his campaign and early Presidency plan of Keynesian stimulus? That has made things worse.

Anyone can say "it was worse than we thought," but that doesn't negate just how wrong he was when he added $866 Billion to the existing $787 Billion he endorsed.


psssttt: tax increases on small business owners doesn't make them think it's time to hire

During 1929-1937 time period, there was a lot of federal support. Obviously, the Great Depression was very unique, and not directly comparable to the current economic situation. In my previous post, I was too rhetorical, trying to make this comparison. In any event, I do believe the recent stimulus package was justified. In my opinion, if federal stimulus can reduce the severity or duration of a recession, I am for it.

I guess the problem there is how do we know when something works and when something doesn't then? We were told that the $787 Billion plus the $866 Billion was going to keep things to a manageable level and not the catastrophic level of 10% unemployment. Then when it happened anyway, these same experts that got that prediction wrong said, "It was worse than we thought." Go figure, things get as bad as the worst case scenario then and now it's being sold as "back from the brink."

I remember being told that the country and the entire economic system would collapse if GM filed for bankruptcy, ergo the government needs to give them $25 Billion and reorganize their ownership away from the creditors. GM went bankrupt anyway.

So how can we know whether the federal stimulus did anything?

 

[cad]

[/quote]

During 1929-1937 time period, there was a lot of federal support. Obviously, the Great Depression was very unique, and not directly comparable to the current economic situation. In my previous post, I was too rhetorical, trying to make this comparison. In any event, I do believe the recent stimulus package was justified. In my opinion, if federal stimulus can reduce the severity or duration of a recession, I am for it.[/QUOTE]


The question is not whether the stimulus may have reduced the severity of a recession (how can you spend almost a trillion dollars and not have it have some sort of positive impact?) but rather did we get the most bang for our buck?

When the government spends $3.4 million for a wildlife “eco-passage” in Florida to take animals safely under a busy roadway or $1.15 million for installation of a new guard rail for the non-existent Optima Lake in Oklahoma or Nearly $10 million to renovate an abandoned train station that hasn’t been used in 30 years, you have to ask yourself, was this the best way to spend our money?

You know your policies haven't worked when your best argument is, "Well, it could have been worse."

 

[Bob Roberts]

The question is not whether the stimulus may have reduced the severity of a recession (how can you spend almost a trillion dollars and not have it have some sort of positive impact?) but rather did we get the most bang for our buck?

The federal government is often inefficient and overly bureaucratic. Its laws contain a lot of pork. But I do believe the federal government is needed for large initiatives, simply for its vast resources. Obviously, I prefer these initiatives to be justified. But I do believe stimulating the economy was justified. What I don’t want is ideology prolonging the severity and duration of the recession.

 

[cad]

The question is not whether the stimulus may have reduced the severity of a recession (how can you spend almost a trillion dollars and not have it have some sort of positive impact?) but rather did we get the most bang for our buck?

The federal government is often inefficient and overly bureaucratic. Its laws contain a lot of pork. But I do believe the federal government is needed for large initiatives, simply for its vast resources. Obviously, I prefer these initiatives to be justified. But I do believe stimulating the economy was justified. What I don’t want is ideology prolonging the severity and duration of the recession.

remember when obama cut short the debate on the stimulus because he insisted that it needed to be passed immediately, or else...? was that justified? i don't doubt something needed to be done, but i disagree with "we are better offf now" as being the only way to frame the argument. it should be, are we doing as best as we could have?

 

[asterism]

The question is not whether the stimulus may have reduced the severity of a recession (how can you spend almost a trillion dollars and not have it have some sort of positive impact?) but rather did we get the most bang for our buck?

The federal government is often inefficient and overly bureaucratic. Its laws contain a lot of pork. But I do believe the federal government is needed for large initiatives, simply for its vast resources. Obviously, I prefer these initiatives to be justified. But I do believe stimulating the economy was justified. What I don’t want is ideology prolonging the severity and duration of the recession.

Would stimulating the economy as a justifiable action have to be proven?

Government action resulted in their own worst case predictions if there was no government action.

 

[Bob Roberts]

Would stimulating the economy as a justifiable action have to be proven?

Any search for proof requires assumptions, estimates, and economic models. The analysis and interpretaion of the data is open to subjectivity. Therefore, proof that the legislation actually worked may vary from person to person. I believe the benefits of the stimulus outweigh the costs (including costs of deeper recession without stimulus).

 

[Gremlin-USA]

I'm a stock market guy, Obama's 1 yr return is better than Bush's 8 combined

That is BS

Opened a Bank account Lately?, the are offering on the average of .75% on new accounts over 10,000.00, the average local Bank is paying .04% on checking with interest and .25% on savings, 1 year CD's are lucky to get .5%

The only stock that has made me major money was Ford and some HC Stocks, Ford because they did not take a Bailout and HC Stocks because everyone new prices were going up!

BO has only made it relatively assured that the recession will be around for at least 3 more years, what I mean by that is, it will be at least that much longer till un-employment gets below 7% again.

.