Obama vs. Bush on the economy - which one is most deserving of a second term?

Obama compared to our last president at this equivalent time in office:

o The Unemployment rate is now the same as when Obama took office. At this point in Bush's term it was 1.2 percentage points higher.

o Since Obama's first year, the deficit has improved by $324 billion. Since Bush's first year, a $128 billion surplus exploded to a $412 billion deficit, a $540 billion worsening, at this point in Bush term.

o The Dow is up 70% since Obama took office. At this point in Bush's term, the Dow was down 6.7%.

o Since Obama's first year, spending has increased 0.6%. From Bush's first year, spending had increased 23% at this point in his term.

o Since Obama took office, there has been a net gain of over 500,000 private sector jobs. At this point in Bush's term, there was a net loss of 1.5 million private sector jobs.

o Since Obama's first year, revenues have increased 16.4%. From Bush's first year, revnues had fallen -5.6% at this point in his term.

In almost every major category, Obama has vastly outperformed Bush measuring from where they started. And Obama inherited the Great Recession, while Bush inherited a growing economy with 4.2% unemployment.

Conservatives thought Bush had done well enough to justifiy a second term in 2004. Against that criteria, Obama easily makes the grade for a second term in office.

 

The tech bubble burst.

Since Obama's first year the National debt increased 60% from 10 trillion to 16 trillion. No such increase happened during Bush's first term.

The tech bubble bursting and 9/11 hurt the stock market. Neither of these are attributable towards Bush's Presidency, unless one is extremely dishonest. The stock market had nowhere to go but up when Obama took over. Context is important. Looking at where the economy was and where it ended up are important things to take into consideration.

In his first year, Obama spent nearly twice what Bush spent during his first year. Again, context is important.

What was the unemployment rate?

More context needed. It's disingenuous to measure Obama's starting point near the bottom of a recession with Bush's starting point near the top of a peak.

Bush inherited a slowing economy from Clinton, actually. The tech bubble burst.

Kerry was a horrible candidate. No surprise he lost.

 

A relatively miniscule even compared to the Great Recession.

Bush inherited a surplus. Obama inherited a deficit that was already projected to reach $1.2 trillion before he left office.

The housing bubble collapsing hurt the stock market. That is not attributable towards Obama's presidency, unless one is extremely dishonest. The stock market was still tanking when Obama took office. Context is important. Looking at where the economy was and where it ended up are important things to take into consideration.

Which is why I created this thread showing where the economy was and where it ended up equivalent points in their terms.

Spending 23% in the first three full fiscal years Bush was in office. It increased it 0.6% in that equivelent period under obama. Again, context is important.

Looking at where the economy was and where it ended up are important things to take into consideration.

A guy who wrote:

is calling me disingenuous. Pretty funny. Obama inherited the worst recession in 80 years. Bush inherited a growing economy that at its worst grew 3.2%.

Obama inherited a tanking economy from Bush, actually. The housing buble burst.

Romney is a horrible candidate. He should lose too.

 

What exact policies did Obama implement which helped the economy?

He dumped as much money as Congress would let him into it. That's it.

Honestly my 12 yr. old neice could have come up with a simple plan like that. How much of the economy actually fixed itself because it was naturally coming out of a recession?

Do you know that the President doesn't spend any money? Congress does.

Did you know that since 2006, Bush had a democratically controlled Congress yet your blaming all the trouble on only Bush?

 

So what? It was still a cause of an economic slowdown.

Obama wasn't in neutral. He increased spending at a time when the deficits were reaching record levels. A 60% increase to the national debt in 3 years.

I never claimed it didn't.

It's a false comparison.

Obama spent nearly twice as much as Bush did.

Your dodge is noted.

Yes, you are very disingenuous for taking out of context quotes that have already been explained.

No kidding.

I disagree with your baseless opinion.

 

Are we really comparing the "tech bubble" (even though technology is the fastest growing industry worldwide) to the housing bubble? LOL REALLY?

Even then the economy Bush "inherited" could have been MUCH better at the end of his term. Instead it got progressively worse as time went on.

 

So why do you blame Obama for the economy?

 

So why do you blame Obama for the economy?

 

Its also important to note that Obama added the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the federal budget which Bush SHOULD have done, but did not. So while it looks like Obama added a huge ammount to the deficit, he really didnt. I sometimes wonder if Bush did that on purpose to try and sabotage whoever the democrat taking his place was going to be. ( cause after his presidency, I dont think anyone was about to elect a republican ) but that is pure speculation on my part and not provable in any way.


Bottom line though. Bush SHOULD have added the cost of the wars to the Fed budget instead of making Obama do that.

 

So what?

Spending 23% in the first three full fiscal years Bush was in office. It increased it 0.6% in that equivelent period under obama. Obama is the first president in many decades to actually cut spending. Again, context is important.

I never claimed you did.

Not at all. Comparing their performance during their first full three years in office is a completely valid comparison.

Because Bush increased it so much.

Your baseless notation is noted.

You are disingenuous for saying my direct quote of you saying "Bush inherited a recession, Obama didn't" is disingenuous.

Nope.

I disagree with yours.

 

Since you live in a world of confusion and manipulated numbers let me simplify this one for you.

The answer is BUSH.

Because Bush GOT a second term, and b.o. won't.

LIES

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

And at this point in Bush's first term, Sep 2004. Bush was PLUS 1,634,000 jobs with an unemployment rate of 5.5% that had PEAKED at 6.3%

b.o., the incompetent dolt and stupid buffoon, has gained 2,242,000 jobs with an unemployment rate of 7.8% which is really 14.7% without the labor force dropouts.

And b.o. the pathological liar keeps claiming he has created 5.5 million jobs.

The BLS says 2,242,000 and they are low paying jobs filled 70% by seniors willing to work for low pay.

b.o. is the most incompetent lying inept failure of a president in history and all you have to promote him are outright lies of intention. Not stupidity or misinformation, the lies are intentional, thinking the entire nation is as grossly stupid as your everyday liberal.

 

What office is Bush running for.

Obama has to go.

 

So Bush did a better job because unemployment had risen from 4.2% to 5.5% and was on its way to 6.3%, while with Obama the UR is now the same 7.8% as when it was when he took office and down from 10.0%.

There's no reasoning with a hyperpartisan.

 

Bush was running for president.

I start to understand how some of our conservative friends can hold some of the beliefs they do when the demonstrate their lack of knowledge of even the most basic facts.

 

So it explains why the economy was slower when Bush took over.

It sure is, which is why taking an abnormally high deficit like the 2009 deficit and turning it into Obama's benchmark starting point is not a very good measure of how he's doing. We've been out of a recession for over 3 years and the trillion dollar deficits continue.

Then your whole rant was nothing more than a red herring, since it did not address my point.

Not when the circumstances are very different.

He did no such thing. Revenues tanked after the mortgage collapse in 2008. That wasn't taken into account when drafting the FY budget. Blame Clinton's policies for that happening.

Your continuing dodge is noted.

Repetitive. Out-of-context quotes in developing an ad-hominem just highlights your level of dishonesty.

Good for you.

 

You're insulting yourself, or are you not a hyperpartisan?

 

Just one more of your constant intentional lies. At this point in Bush's first term unemployment HAD peaked at 6.3% and was down to 5.5%

Average annual unemployment rates under Bush.

2001 4.7%
2002 5.8%
2003 6.0%
2004 5.5%
2005 5.1%
2006 4.6%
2007 4.6%

DEMOCRATS TAKE CONTROL OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS.

2008 5.8%

b.o. takes office.

2009 9.3%
2010 9.6%
2011 8.9%

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat01.htm

I won't ask you to stop your constant lies. I know that is all you have and what you live to do.

 

The liberal lies continue:

x Unemployment. Is the same as when b.o. started. 45 months, NO PROGRESS! For that you're taking pride? Riciculous And it is ONLY the same rate due to the massive reduction in the labor force.

x Yes Bush unemployment rate went up to 6.3% and down to 5.5% at this stage of his first term. You might note that 5.5% is somewhat lower than b.o.'s 7.8%. 30% lower.


x Deficits, b.o.'s LOWEST deficit is $1,101 trillion. 2.4 TIMES higher than Bush largest deficit with a Democrat Congress and 2.67 TIMES higher than Bush's largest deficit with a Republican Congress.

And b.o. lowest deficit is 6.85 TIMES larger than Bush'd lowest deficit.

x The DOW is meaningless. It reflects nothing about the economy or the government. It is a gambling casino that I'm pleased to play in. Although I ignore the "Dow" It is comprised of 30 stocks that are REPLACED if they FAIL to grow. GE is the only one of the DOW 30 that has not been replaced. Many more than once. The DOW is for fools.

You evidently place importance on the DOW.

x Spending has increased since Democrats took control of Congress.

FY 2008 9.3%
FY 2009 17.9%
FY 2010 -1.7%
FY 2011 4.3%

FY 2011 compared to the last Republican spending Plus 32%

Revenue Last Republican Congress compared to FY2011, Democrat revenue is DOWN 10.3%

x The jobs LIE I already addressed.

obama has not outperformed a garden slug. He could take lesson from one.

 

Sure. You can look at the base numbers and I agree Bush's look better.

That would always be the case comparing one president (Nudh) who in herited a good economy, 4.2% unemployment compared to another (Obama) who inherited the worst recession in 80 years and unemployment at 7.8% and skyrocketing.

That is just telling us one president inherited a good situation and the other inherited a disaster.

It is looking at what they did with what they started with that tells a truer story of their performance.

 

Feel free to quote what I lied about. You're baseless calling other people liars is well established.

You can look at the base numbers and I agree Bush's look better.

That would always be the case comparing one president (Nudh) who in herited a good economy, 4.2% unemployment compared to another (Obama) who inherited the worst recession in 80 years and unemployment at 7.8% and skyrocketing.

That is just telling us one president inherited a good situation and the other inherited a disaster. It's just blaming Obaaaaaaama for the Great Recession.




It is looking at what they did given what they inherited that tells a truer story of their performance.

And on that count, there is no comparison who did a better job: http://www.politicalforum.com/elect...ost-deserving-second-term.html#post1061855743

 

The misrepresentation of numbers in a lame attempt to give them false meanings, is lying from start to finish. You delight in doing so, and you know you are intentionally misrepresenting. There is a chance, you being a completely brainwashed non-thinking liberal, that you cannot realize that you are lying. But it is still lying.

 

Once again, you can't point to even one fact I've cited that is false or statement I made that is a lie.

Which kind of shows who is the liar here, doesn't it.

 

Your claim, "o Since Obama took office, there has been a net gain of over 500,000 private sector jobs. At this point in Bush's term, there was a net loss of 1.5 million private sector jobs." This is an outright lie.

And at this point in Bush's first term, Sep 2004. Bush was PLUS 1,634,000 jobs. According to the BLS.

 

Once again, your post proves who the real liar is here.

Private sector employment.
Source: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

Obama
Jan 2009 110.985 million
Sep 2009 111.499 million
Net increase: +514,000 jobs

Bush
Jan 2001 111.631 million
Sep 2004 110.136 million
Net decrease: -1,495,000 jobs


Once again, you can't point to even one fact I've cited that is false or statement I made that is a lie.

Which kind of shows who is the liar here, doesn't it.

 

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Data extracted on: October 26, 2012 (6:18:02 PM)

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)


01/2001, 130,433,000.
09/2004, 132,067,000

PLUS, 1,634,000

Total private
01/2001 109,680,000
09/2004 110,570,000

Plus 890,000

AND you are using SEASONALLY ADJUSTED NUMBERS TOcompare 2 different months. The RAW, REAL, numbers show the INCREASE.

And it is obvious that you are again attempting to manipulate by using "private" as opposed to total employment. I never said you weren't an excellent and very adept liar. You are very good at your chosen obsession.