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

You guys are arguing about 2 different sets of stats. The Conservative seemed to go on a different track once he knew there was no way around this.

Obama has outperformed Bush given the cirmustances. I think one could make the argument he outperformed Reagan considering he entered office during not only a US recession but a world wide recession.

 

No, the conservative has caught the liberal in his manipulative lies. However, I am convinced that no one is the equal of a liberal when it comes to inventing lame ass excuses. At that, liberals are,,,,,"outstanding."

 

You are still regurgitating those same discredited arguements.

PS - Bush isnt running this year. Get your head out.

 

My 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."

There was nothing manipulated about it. My statement was crystal clear. So why are you posting general employment numbers when we are talking about private sector jobs?

Are you just ignorant of what the numbers mean, or are you intentionally lying?

And of course you use seasonally adjusted number when you are comparing different months. To use unadjusted numbers would great a false, deceptive reading because of seasonally variations.

Are you just ignorant of what the numbers mean, or are you intentionally lying?

This is how you show I'm supposedly lying? By using the wrong numbers?

You're showing everyone very well who the liar is here.

But if you want to use unadjusted number, then be honest, and compare Bush and Obama over the same periods:

Total private sector (NOT seasonally adjusted):

Bush
Jan 2009 109680
Sep 2004 110570
Increase: 890,000

Obama
Jan 2009 109084
Sep 2012 111989
Increase: 2,905,000

Using your data, 2.9 million new additional private sector jobs created since Obama took office. And he still blows Bush out of the water.

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.

 

I stated facts very clearly in the OP. In this case, "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." Dan40 stated that was a flat out lie, like he does everyone he disagrees with. And when he was challenged on it, he used the wrong set of numbers.

I would thing it might be he was just ignorant, but I've seen him be dishonest too often to suspect that.

 

Just spending money was the only idea he had. This speech convinced me that instead of being the Vulcan super genius that he was portrayed in the media as, that he was really an economic meathead.

[video=youtube;UGTJZoZBTJc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGTJZoZBTJc[/video]

That was back in 2009. I facepalmed, realizing that doofus was in charge of the US economy for 4 years.

He's met my expectations.

 

I haven't seen them discredited at all. Just a lot of baseless name calling without anything to back it up.

It is completely fair to compare the performance of the last Republican president who conservatives voted in for a second term with the current one. Conservatives do it all the time.

 

When the unemployment rate is LOW as it was under Bush, it is hard to "create jobs" when everyone has a job. when the unemployment rate id high it is easy to create jobs. Compare b.o. with Reagan, both faced high unemployment.

b.o.

01/2009 131,555,000
09/2012 133,797,000

+2,242,000.

private

01/2009 109,084,000
09/2012 111,989,000

+2,905,000

Reagan
01/1981 89,831,000
09/1984 95,789,000

+++5,958,000

private

01/1981 73,481,000
09/1984 79,816,000

+++6,335,000

Showing the incompetent buffoon obama for the total failure that he is and will always be. He is a middle league politician for dummies, nothing more.

If you must compare Bush with b.o., there is only these comparisons.

Bush's LARGEST deficit $458,600,000,000.
b.o.'s largest deficit--- $1,412,700,000,000.00.

Bush's debt increase per month for 96 months, $51 billion.
b.o.' s debt increase per month for 45 months $131 billion.

 

When you inherit an economy that is tanking and losing 700,000 jobs a month in the worst recession in 80 years, it is hard to create jobs.

Reagan inherited an booming economy with growing employment and a middle class that had not been gutted with his trickle down policies.

Bush inherited a surplus and a growing economy with 4.2% unemployment.

Obama inherited a budget that was already projected to have a 1.2 trillion deficit and an economy that was losing 700,000+ jobs a month.

I can apprecate why you'd want to pretned Obama is responsible for the Great Recession and pretend that he started with just the same great conditions Bush inherited. Conservativism makes sense. If you ignore reality.

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.

 

You make your conclusions based on a 50 second internet video, eh?

I kind of figured that was the case, based on your posts.

 

How many times a day does the rude and uncouth buffoon b.o. pick his nose in public?

 

The same goes for Liberalism. These two mindsets exist as a two dimensional plane. Reality has a third, forth, fifth, etc... dimensionality. To wallow in the metaphor, the Left-Right dichotomy is a distorted projection of reality as each ideology cherry picks (and selectively ignores) the aspects of WHAT IS in favor of that which they find most comfortable.

 

What statement of mine are you referring to?

 

Liberalism makes sense, if you ignore its unaffordability. And creation of total dependence while destroying ambition.

 

Of course. Because we all know that it wasn't the Great Recession that created so many people out of work.

It's just that 8 million Americans all got lazy and totally dependent and had their ambition destroyed by those luxurious unemployment benefits all at the same time.

Conservative economics makes sense. If you ignore reality.

 

And there he goes again playing games with facts.

ROFL I'd wait until the revise the number and of course the only reason it is the same is because so many have stopped looking for work and dropped out of the labor force. And you taut that as a great success. Bush came in on a recession too, thanks to his plan the unemployment rate did not go over 6.5% during that recession. Obama hasn't had it below 8% until this last number. Which is better? At this point under Bush the rate was 5.5%, full employment. Obama 7.8% with the lowest labor pariticipation rate since the Depression. Which is better?

Obama supported and voted for the 2008 budget which exploded the deficit almost three times where Bush and the Republicans had brought down to after the 2000-2001 recession. Obama support and voted for and the signed into law the 2009 budgets which exploded the deficit even more to over $1,400 billion. Spare us they brought down from $1,400 billion to $1,100 billion and why do you ignore it is going back up to $1,300 billion?

The surplus was already falling from it's high in 2000 down to the $128 billion as we went into a recession and as in recessions deficits do occur, but it peaked at the $412 billion and then fell to a measly $161 billion when they handed over control of the deficit to Obama and his Democrat Congressmen. Where did they take them and where have the kept them? Almost ten times higher at the peak and 4 times higher consecutively.

Bush came into office at the start of a slowdown and recession with the market falling Obama came into office as it bottomed out and the market was picking up.

See above. Obama supported and voted for the 2008 budget and supported and voted for and signed into the law the 2009 budget

23 million out of work, lowest labor participation rate since the Depression, real unemployment over 11%. Bush we were at full employment.
Jan 2001 137778
Oct 2004 139487
Net gain 1709

Jan 2009 142187
Oct 2012 142974
Net gain 787

After the fell during his term in the Senate with a Democrat controlled Congress and Democrat budgets and policies, still not at the peak hit during the Bush term. Obama came in at the bottom of the economic decline, Bush at the beginning.

Which of course is a straw man.

False, Bush inherited a slowdown and recession, Obama didn't inherit anything, he helped to create it.

Bush 6.5% peak unemployment and full employment at the time of the 2004 election. 52 months of full employment. Highest deficit $400 billion falling to $161 under his direction.
Obama 10% peak, real unemployment over 11% even now, Highest deficit $1.3 trillion voted for the 2008, 2009 budgets and their Trillion$ deficits. Deficits over Trillion$ every year of his Presidency. And no plans that will get the economy into a full recovery.

So who would you reelect?

 

Not one of my facts disproved.

Classic. Obama didn't inherit the worst Recession in 80 years. He created it!

Unemployment was 7.8% when Bush left office, and the "total" deficit (excluding SS and the cost of the Bush wars) hit $640 billion in his last full year in office. Skyrocketing well past $1 trillion when Obama took office.

Easy. Obama far outperforms Bush at this point in their terms.

 

Well yes they have but it's the context and conclusions that are false as proven. And as usually you could not refute the facts I posted.

Was he or was he not a full member of the Democrat Senate in 2007-2008?

Did he vote for the 2008 and 2009 budgets and sign 2009 into law? What did he do to stop the slide of 2008?

After two years of the Democrats controlling government policy and failing to pass legislation to stem the tide and that included one Senator Obama.

Moving the goal post now, the US Budget deficit is the measure we use.

 

Not one prove false. As to context, if you think it is unfair compairing equivalent years of terms, let's keep that in mind for your future posts, eh?

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant because the housing bubble that caused the great recession had already reached crisis levels and started imploding while Bush and the Republicans controlled the Government:



The Great Recession was a foregone conclusion by 2007.

Pass legislation to "stem the tide" of the housing bubble collapse? LMAO! And what legislation would that have been?

And how could the Dems simply pass legislation with Bush in the WH?

Never hear of a veto?

As I said, take a civics class and get back to us.

I said nothing otherwise.

 

Yep, waiting for your rebuttal of it with facts to back it up.

And remain unrefutted.

ROFL there goes your excuse they didn't know how bad it was going to be................you are so easy.

Yep, they could have shored up Fannie and Freddie.

He was more than willing to work with them and pleaded with them to act.

And when he loses on the merits..........

 

You've failed to prove even one of my facts is false. I have nothing to back up.

Nothing to "refutt".

Not at all.

ROFL "shored up Fannie and Freddie" when Bush blocked the only bill the Republican controlled Congress ever passed to regulate them. ................you are so easy.

"the Administration opposes the bill" - Mr. Ownership Society's plea.

 

Rhetorical question?

 

Obama has had ample time since then to prove my impression wrong and has utterly failed to do so. So it's more like a 50 second clip plus 3 1/2 years of failing to show any depth of knowledge in economics.

 

How would you know?

 

Well if I've missed some examples of Obama's economic brilliance, please post them. I've never heard him speak of in economic terms on any but the most superficial and demagogic level.