Economically, Could Obama Be America's Best President?

[PMZ]

Obama didn't inherit shit, HE campaigned for the job and his FIRST priority should of been unemployment..

but he spent his frist two years trying to sell his fascist insurance scam

and then his administration went on a regulations binge on businesses and Obama raise taxes on anything he could dream up, so they can feed themselves more money....

Obama could beat out Carter as the worst President EVER...I know he'll beat Carter for the most ugliest hearted hateful President

you people can't make enough EXCUSES for the incompetent President it seems

He spent his first two years leading the economic recovery from the devastation of the Bushwacker and made the only progress in decades on our biggest anchor to global competitiveness, health care. Despite every effort by Congressional Republicans to do the country in.

What he can't solve is that business has given away millions of American jobs in exchange for massive executive bonuses. They are gone permanently now.

They will be recreated only when liberal management, committed to growth, reassumes business leadership.

 

[PMZ]

...his term began in a recession following a huge market crash. Sure we can say "if only Bush had been dealt the recovery that Clinton was handed" but doesn't work that way. It's like eight years later there were some that wanted Clinton's economic policies in 2009 with the next recession/market crash...

Show us on this GDP graph the recession that Bush inherited from Clinton.

LOL!! Here's our GDP--

Federal Reserve Economic Data
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Billions of Dollars, Annual

2000 - $10,289.7 . . 2007 - $14,480.4
2001 - $10,625.3 . . 2008 - $14,720.3
2002 - $10,980.2 . . 2009 - $14,418.0
2003 - $11,512.3 . . 2010 - $14,958.3
2004 - $12,277.0 . . 2011 - $15,533.8
2005 - $13,095.4 . . 2012 - $16,244.6
2006 - $13,857.9 . .

​

--and we agree the GDP does not show Bush inherited a recession from Clinton any more than it shows Obama inherited a recession from Bush. Doesn't matter; the economy is more than the GDP, it's also investing and jobs --and what happens is that a recession is a slowdown in investment followed by falling production that leads to unemployment. Here's how people stopped investing before the GDP slowdowns--

---and here's how people lost jobs after the drops in GDP growth:

What we got is all phases of the economy doing better after the 2003 tax-cuts than with the 2009 war on business --even though the stock crash in 2000 was worse .

We did thanks to the housing boom fueled by low interest rates by Greenspan. Of course that led inevitably to the Great Recession also.

Republicans seem surprised that you can't get something for nothing.

 

[Stephanie]

Obama didn't inherit shit, HE campaigned for the job and his FIRST priority should of been unemployment..

but he spent his frist two years trying to sell his fascist insurance scam

and then his administration went on a regulations binge on businesses and Obama raise taxes on anything he could dream up, so they can feed themselves more money....

Obama could beat out Carter as the worst President EVER...I know he'll beat Carter for the most ugliest hearted hateful President

you people can't make enough EXCUSES for the incompetent President it seems

He spent his first two years leading the economic recovery from the devastation of the Bushwacker and made the only progress in decades on our biggest anchor to global competitiveness, health care. Despite every effort by Congressional Republicans to do the country in.

What he can't solve is that business has given away millions of American jobs in exchange for massive executive bonuses. They are gone permanently now.

They will be recreated only when liberal management, committed to growth, reassumes business leadership.

really, so what's your excuse for him today after five years and unemployment is STILL 7.5%?

oh wait I have it, the Republicans fault, the tea parties fault, the dogs fault..... oh that's right, it's those DAMN businesses fault...
good grief, your postings about him are, cultish

 

[PMZ]

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, conservatives hate more than accountability, other than that from Fox News.

With their abysmal dismal record and endless failures who can blame them?

It's like a mirror to a werewolf.

 

[Stephanie]

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, conservatives hate more than accountability, other than that from Fox News.

With their abysmal dismal record and endless failures who can blame them?

It's like a mirror to a werewolf.

lol, the standard regurgitation when they want to insult people, fox newssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

 

[IlarMeilyr]

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, conservatives hate more than accountability, other than that from Fox News.

With their abysmal dismal record and endless failures who can blame them?

It's like a mirror to a werewolf.

Actually, conservatives cherish accountability.

Conservatives tend to hate the utterly irresponsible views of left-wing nutbars like PMS.

Lolberals are the ones crafting failure for America.

 

[PMZ]

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, conservatives hate more than accountability, other than that from Fox News.

With their abysmal dismal record and endless failures who can blame them?

It's like a mirror to a werewolf.

lol, the standard regurgitation when they want to insult people, fox newssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

I hope that you take to heart the insult that it is.

 

[PMZ]

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, conservatives hate more than accountability, other than that from Fox News.

With their abysmal dismal record and endless failures who can blame them?

It's like a mirror to a werewolf.

Actually, conservatives cherish accountability.

Conservatives tend to hate the utterly irresponsible views of left-wing nutbars like PMS.

Lolberals are the ones crafting failure for America.

''conservatives cherish accountability.''

None that I've met. They run from it like little girls.

They want to believe that everything bad, someone else is accountable for despite the evidence.

Loser mindset.

 

[alan1]

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, conservatives hate more than accountability, other than that from Fox News.

With their abysmal dismal record and endless failures who can blame them?

It's like a mirror to a werewolf.

Actually, conservatives cherish accountability.

Conservatives tend to hate the utterly irresponsible views of left-wing nutbars like PMS.

Lolberals are the ones crafting failure for America.

''conservatives cherish accountability.''

None that I've met. They run from it like little girls.

They want to believe that everything bad, someone else is accountable for despite the evidence.

Loser mindset.

Well aren't you quite the sexist?
Are you sure you didn't mean to say "homophobe" or "racist"?

 

[KissMy]

LOL!! Here's our GDP--

Federal Reserve Economic Data
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Billions of Dollars, Annual

2000 - $10,289.7 . . 2007 - $14,480.4
2001 - $10,625.3 . . 2008 - $14,720.3
2002 - $10,980.2 . . 2009 - $14,418.0
2003 - $11,512.3 . . 2010 - $14,958.3
2004 - $12,277.0 . . 2011 - $15,533.8
2005 - $13,095.4 . . 2012 - $16,244.6
2006 - $13,857.9 . .

​

--and we agree the GDP does not show Bush inherited a recession from Clinton any more than it shows Obama inherited a recession from Bush. Doesn't matter; the economy is more than the GDP, it's also investing and jobs --and what happens is that a recession is a slowdown in investment followed by falling production that leads to unemployment. Here's how people stopped investing before the GDP slowdowns--

---and here's how people lost jobs after the drops in GDP growth:

What we got is all phases of the economy doing better after the 2003 tax-cuts than with the 2009 war on business --even though the stock crash in 2000 was worse .

2003 Trashed lending standards debasing the currency overheated the economy. It had nothing to do with tax cuts. Repubs destroyed the country, economy & currency.

 

[expat_panama]

...all phases of the economy doing better after the 2003 tax-cuts than with the 2009 war on business --even though the stock crash in 2000 was worse .

We did thanks to the housing boom fueled by low interest rates by Greenspan...

Wait a sec, Bernanke was in charge from Jan. 2006.

...Trashed lending standards debasing the currency overheated the economy. It had nothing to do with tax cuts. Repubs destroyed the country, economy & currency...

--or so we'd be led to believe looking at CNBC's graph of data from the Che Guevara Institute of Financial Research. Folks working for a living usually do better with numbers from say, verifiable bank balances, and they tend to show that mortgage lending began it's surge in the late '90's --

--so everything's really been caused by the Repub controlled congress in the late '90's and their war on Bank mortgage discrimination of minorities.

Mortgage discrimination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_discrimination*
Mortgage discrimination or mortgage lending discrimination is the practice of ... In 1998 the Federal Bank of Boston issued a report entitled “Closing the Gap: A ...
A comment on Bank of America/Countrywide's discriminatory ...
www.epi.org/publication/bp335-boa-countrywide-discriminatory-lending/*
Jan 23, 2012 - Although Bank of America recently settled a Justice Department ..... 1996; Ladd 1998), suggesting that discriminatory lending practices ...
[PDF]
Mortgages, Minorities and Discrimination: A Bank ... - Sumit Agarwal
www.ushakrisna.com/Mortgage_Discrimination.pdf*
by SAS LI - *2003 - *Cited by 3 - *Related articles
long-standing issue of discrimination of minorities in mortgage lending. .... Day & Liebowitz (1998) claim that (i) there are so many miscoding errors in the.
JEP (12,2) p. 41 - Evidence on Discrimination in Mortgage Lending
www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.12.2.41*
by HF Ladd - *1998 - *Cited by 261 - *Related articles
Ladd, Helen F. 1998. ... Much of the controversy about whether mortgage lenders discriminate against ... Based on the legal definition, careful studies of loan denial rates, such as that done by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, represent an ...​

 

[PMZ]

...all phases of the economy doing better after the 2003 tax-cuts than with the 2009 war on business --even though the stock crash in 2000 was worse .

We did thanks to the housing boom fueled by low interest rates by Greenspan...

Wait a sec, Bernanke was in charge from Jan. 2006.

...Trashed lending standards debasing the currency overheated the economy. It had nothing to do with tax cuts. Repubs destroyed the country, economy & currency...

--or so we'd be led to believe looking at CNBC's graph of data from the Che Guevara Institute of Financial Research. Folks working for a living usually do better with numbers from say, verifiable bank balances, and they tend to show that mortgage lending began it's surge in the late '90's --

--so everything's really been caused by the Repub controlled congress in the late '90's and their war on Bank mortgage discrimination of minorities.

Mortgage discrimination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_discrimination*
Mortgage discrimination or mortgage lending discrimination is the practice of ... In 1998 the Federal Bank of Boston issued a report entitled “Closing the Gap: A ...
A comment on Bank of America/Countrywide's discriminatory ...
www.epi.org/publication/bp335-boa-countrywide-discriminatory-lending/*
Jan 23, 2012 - Although Bank of America recently settled a Justice Department ..... 1996; Ladd 1998), suggesting that discriminatory lending practices ...
[PDF]
Mortgages, Minorities and Discrimination: A Bank ... - Sumit Agarwal
www.ushakrisna.com/Mortgage_Discrimination.pdf*
by SAS LI - *2003 - *Cited by 3 - *Related articles
long-standing issue of discrimination of minorities in mortgage lending. .... Day & Liebowitz (1998) claim that (i) there are so many miscoding errors in the.
JEP (12,2) p. 41 - Evidence on Discrimination in Mortgage Lending
www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.12.2.41*
by HF Ladd - *1998 - *Cited by 261 - *Related articles
Ladd, Helen F. 1998. ... Much of the controversy about whether mortgage lenders discriminate against ... Based on the legal definition, careful studies of loan denial rates, such as that done by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, represent an ...​

Cause typically preceeds the effect.

The Bushwacker inherited an economically robust country. Despite that, and contrary to almost all advice, he cut taxes, lowered interest rates and started wars. That was consistent with Reaganomics.

It boomed and busted. Expenses soared and revenue plummeted.

The economy was nursed back to health by stimulus. Expensive especially in times of low revenue.

Any questions?

 

[KissMy]

or so we'd be led to believe looking at CNBC's graph of data from the Che Guevara Institute of Financial Research. Folks working for a living usually do better with numbers from say, verifiable bank balances, and they tend to show that mortgage lending began it's surge in the late '90's

You are a lair & an idiot. Go back to shining shoes because you will never cut it as a business owner. 11% of all loans being no doc lair loans are a totally different animal than documented government backed income verified agency or prime loans. The US dollar is only as good as the borrowers who back it. Prices & gold went through the roof due to wreckless borrowing from the SS trust fund by tax cuts & sub-prime lending.

Exploding debt with tax cuts borrowed from the over funded Social Security trust fund was a failure. Wrecking the economy causing exploding spending, thus exploding debt is an even bigger failure. Just keep shilling for your boss as he has to pay back with taxes stolen from SS trust fund.

This is what TEA Publicans have done to the US credit over the last few weeks.

 

[expat_panama]

...he cut taxes... ...and revenue plummeted. The economy was nursed back to health by stimulus. Expensive especially in times of low revenue...

That didn't make sense at first but it's possible we got a conflict between the nature of tax rates and tax revenue. Let's work with historic revenue levels from the White House:

Before the '03 cuts federal revenue had been falling, and since then revenue's increased.

 

[PMZ]

That didn't make sense at first but it's possible we got a conflict between the nature of tax rates and tax revenue. Let's work with historic revenue levels from the White House:

Before the '03 cuts federal revenue had been falling, and since then revenue's increased.

Explanation from the Business Insider.

The Truth About Who's Responsible For Our Massive Budget Deficit
HENRY BLODGET
JUL. 11, 2011, 10:45 AM 120,683 92
Say the words "budget deficit," and Republicans and Democrats begin screaming at each other about who's to blame.
Republicans howl that the deficit is President Obama's fault, because he has exploded government spending and failed to fix the economy.
Democrats roar that President Obama inherited a catastrophic economic mess, that this mess will take time to clean up, and that our massive deficit is therefore President Bush's fault.
So, who's right?
Let's start by looking at the deficits under Presidents Bush and Obama. Then we'll figure out what has caused them. Finally, we'll assign some blame.
First, the chart below shows the progress of the annual deficits under Presidents Bush and Obama.
President Bush, you will recall, inherited a budget surplus (the first in decades). Then, hit with a recession, he took the budget into deficit. Then he cut taxes, growing the deficit to $400 billion a year. Then, the economy boomed between 2005 and 2008, reducing the deficit to $200 billion a year. Then, the financial crisis hit, and the Bush deficit ballooned to $400 billion again.
In early 2009, President Obama took over, amid the worst recession since the Great Depression. President Obama signed an $800 billion spending increase at the same time that GDP and tax collections tanked. The combination of these two factors--growth in spending and a drop in revenue--exploded the deficit to $1.4 trillion. In 2010, the economy and tax collections improved modestly, and the deficit shrank to $1.3 trillion annualized.
US Federal Budget Deficit 2000-2011
St. Louis Fed
So, what actually caused these deficits?
The chart below provides a look at federal receipts (taxes) and spending during the same period. (The deficit is the difference between them).
Republicans howl that President Obama has exploded the size of federal government spending in his short tenure as President, and it is true that he has increased it. But President Bush actually increased federal spending by more than 2X as much as Obama has. So it is unfair to lay the explosion in spending at the feet of President Obama: Both presidents are responsible.
The increase in government spending, meanwhile, is actually NOT the only factor that has caused the deficit. The other factor--equally if not more important--is the fall-off in government revenue (tax receipts).
This second and larger factor can be blamed on two things: First, the Bush tax cuts, which reduced revenue, and, second, the weak economy, which has reduced the incomes and capital gains upon which most federal taxes are based.
In the chart below, you can see what happened to both federal receipts (red line) and spending (blue line) over the past decade.
President Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003. These tax cuts hit federal revenue, while federal spending growth continued apace. This combination ballooned the deficit in the early years of the Bush presidency.
By the middle years of the Bush presidency, however, on the strength of the housing boom and strong economic growth (much of which now looks like a debt-fueled mirage), federal revenues began to grow rapidly. By 2007, in fact, the gap had almost closed.
But then the bottom fell out. The housing bubble burst, the financial crisis hit, and the economy plunged into recession. And then President Bush handed President Obama the worst recession in more than 70 years and left Obama to clean up the mess.
This recession clobbered federal revenues (tax receipts--red line), which still have not regained their 2007 bubble highs. President Obama's stimulus, meanwhile, helped add about $600 billion to federal spending (blue line). The combination of these two factors ballooned the deficit from $400 billion when President Bush left office to ~$1.3 trillion now.
US Federal Receipts And Expenditures 2000-2011
St. Louis Fed
So, who's responsible for the massive deficit?
This is a tougher question.
We know WHAT is responsible: The combination of weak government revenues (tax receipts) and a vast increase in government spending.
But figuring out WHO to blame is a more subjective exercise.
If you believe that the growth during the "Bush Boom" was a debt-fueled mirage--a theory that is certainly supported by the evidence--then you can lay the blame squarely at the feet of President Bush. His combination of reduced taxes and increased spending took the US from a surplus to a deficit, and even the economic boom from a massive housing bubble and enormous borrowing couldn't close the gap.
Even if you think the "Bush Boom" was real, moreover, the recession and financial crisis began on his watch, and the deficit was already exploding when President Obama took office. So it's very hard to escape the conclusion that President Bush bears a lot of the responsibility for our current mess.
On the other hand, President Obama's stimulus certainly hasn't had as big an impact on the economy (and, therefore, government revenues) as he and his advisors promised it would. Given the extent of the mess Obama inherited, it's possible that nothing would have fixed it by now. But even huge Obama supporters are justifiably frustrated with his over-promising, as well as with many of the decisions he has made.
So it seems fair to lay some of the responsibility for our current deficit at President Obama's feet as well.
But, of course, if we're doling out blame, we need to bring two other parties into the conversation.
First, Congress, which approved all of the decisions above.
Second, us--the American citizenry--the folks who voted Presidents Bush and Obama and Congress into office.
We cheered as President Bush and Congress ignited the housing bubble. We cheered as they cut taxes and increased spending (it's just so marvelous to have it all). We cheered as President Obama and Congress approved the stimulus and extended the Bush tax cuts. And we're cheering now as Republicans promise us that--if only we just cut taxes and spending--our problems will be solved. (Never mind the examples of Greece and the UK, which demonstrate clearly that enacting "austerity" in the midst of a fragile recovery doesn't work).
In short, we've all become accustomed to our free lunch, and we never tire of electing politicians that promise it to us.
So if we want to know who's really to blame, we should take a peek in the mirror.

 

[expat_panama]

...Who's Responsible For Our Massive Budget Deficit...

White House outlay/receipt numbers speak for themselves:

Revenue was falling before the '03 rate cuts and rose afterword shrinking deficits for years. To this day revenue is higher than it was before the rate cuts and we'd have had a surplus if we hadn't increased spending.

Reality is what it is.

 

[PMZ]

...Who's Responsible For Our Massive Budget Deficit...

White House outlay/receipt numbers speak for themselves:

Revenue was falling before the '03 rate cuts and rose afterword shrinking deficits for years. To this day revenue is higher than it was before the rate cuts and we'd have had a surplus if we hadn't increased spending.

Reality is what it is.

Reality is that the increased spending was a necessary solution for the Great Recession. What caused the recession? An economy over stimulated in a desperate attempt by Bush to cover his profligate spending and gift to friends and family tax rate cuts.

All evidence says that if he just maintained Clintonomics and avoided holy wars we'd be in great shape now.

It turns out that our democratic electorate was smart. Gore/Leiberman was the best choice.

 

[expat_panama]

...increased spending was a necessary solution for the Great Recession. What caused the recession? An economy over stimulated in a desperate attempt by Bush to cover his profligate spending...

Good to know we agree that the '03 tax cuts increased revenue.

You're probably right about the profligate spending causing the recession, but let's remember that budgets come from congress and that the numbers can speak for themselves. Here spending is plotted along with numbers of jobless (blue line left scale)...

...where we got spending increases held back (lowering the deficit) until the 110th congress reversed policy, and that's when spending soared. Within mere months joblessness --which for years after the tax cuts had stopped growing-- now soared impoverishing more than 15 million adults.

This all time high profligate spending soared with all time high numbers of jobless until finally the 112th congress begin slowing down both excesses.

 

[PMZ]

...increased spending was a necessary solution for the Great Recession. What caused the recession? An economy over stimulated in a desperate attempt by Bush to cover his profligate spending...

Good to know we agree that the '03 tax cuts increased revenue.

You're probably right about the profligate spending causing the recession, but let's remember that budgets come from congress and that the numbers can speak for themselves. Here spending is plotted along with numbers of jobless (blue line left scale)...

...where we got spending increases held back (lowering the deficit) until the 110th congress reversed policy, and that's when spending soared. Within mere months joblessness --which for years after the tax cuts had stopped growing-- now soared impoverishing more than 15 million adults.

This all time high profligate spending soared with all time high numbers of jobless until finally the 112th congress begin slowing down both excesses.

It would have been smarter of Bush not to declare so many holy wars, cut taxes for friends and family, and over stimulate the economy.

Then the spending required to dig out of the Great Recession would not have been required.

''Good to know we agree that the '03 tax cuts increased revenue.''

Correlation does not prove causation.

What caused the revenue increase was the over stimulated economy. You know, the same one that caused the Great Recession. Ultra low interest rates by Greenspan, combined with the banking industry at the trough. Do you know how many trillions were stolen by banks initiating mortgages for everyone, hiding the risk, then selling it in derivatives to unsuspecting investors? Why a good time was had by all until reality resumed.

Reality typically ruins conservative government. It just won't go away.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

...increased spending was a necessary solution for the Great Recession. What caused the recession? An economy over stimulated in a desperate attempt by Bush to cover his profligate spending...

Good to know we agree that the '03 tax cuts increased revenue.

You're probably right about the profligate spending causing the recession, but let's remember that budgets come from congress and that the numbers can speak for themselves. Here spending is plotted along with numbers of jobless (blue line left scale)...

...where we got spending increases held back (lowering the deficit) until the 110th congress reversed policy, and that's when spending soared. Within mere months joblessness --which for years after the tax cuts had stopped growing-- now soared impoverishing more than 15 million adults.

This all time high profligate spending soared with all time high numbers of jobless until finally the 112th congress begin slowing down both excesses.

It would have been smarter of Bush not to declare so many holy wars, cut taxes for friends and family, and over stimulate the economy.

Then the spending required to dig out of the Great Recession would not have been required.

''Good to know we agree that the '03 tax cuts increased revenue.''

Correlation does not prove causation.

What caused the revenue increase was the over stimulated economy. You know, the same one that caused the Great Recession. Ultra low interest rates by Greenspan, combined with the banking industry at the trough. Do you know how many trillions were stolen by banks initiating mortgages for everyone, hiding the risk, then selling it in derivatives to unsuspecting investors? Why a good time was had by all until reality resumed.

Reality typically ruins conservative government. It just won't go away.

Do you know how many trillions were stolen by banks initiating mortgages for everyone, hiding the risk, then selling it in derivatives to unsuspecting investors?

Banks lost trillions on mortgages. It was in all the papers.

It's also clear that you don't know what a derivative is.