Obama was terrible for economic growth

[QUOTE="dairyair, post: 1067379848, member: 5212]
Will you run to the mods again?[/QUOTE]
Most certainly when you violate posting rules for lack of rebutal.

 

Nothing in my post was wrong. Sorry.

 

War may well be on its way - kiss your children good bye ....

 

Bill Clinton created 21.5 million jobs, Reagan 15.9 Million jobs

 

I gave a 2nd link to 2014. It showed an uptick in real wages in 2011. Hence the comment, who was pres in 2011. But it blows your ODS out of the water and kills your savior bush. Who you brag about ad nauseum.

 

Wonder how many of Trumps close friends or cabinet members have military ties and business. I bet quite a bit.

 

History has had phases of good and bad economic times. The 10s, 20s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 90s, and later 2010s are examples of periods that were good. The 30rds, 70s, and 2000s are examples of bad economic times. Recently we have been having more and more bad times and economic growth has been gradually slowing down. Some presidents catch good phases and others catch bad ones. Even with the first half of his term being a recession

Reagan got some good growth toward the end. Bush senior saw a recession happen on election year and got voted out. Clinton happened to be perfectly nested between two recessions and had good growth. Bush junior inherited a recession, had a mild recession around 2003, and saw the collapse happen toward the end. Obama inherited a massive collapse and a weak economy that wasn't healing well. Trump is inheriting an economy that is at least improving but its been a while since the last recession and he might get some bad luck, or things may continue to improve and he might be re-elected.

The government has only so much influence over the economy and a lot that happens are natural cycles that the government can only influence. Also the president can only get so much done and reallocate so much money. However what we have found is that economic growth has been much stronger under democratic presidents on average than Republican presidents. Since we are looking at a large sample of presidents maybe this is statistically significant or maybe the Republican ones just inherited economic problems.

 

That was vetted in the confirmation hearings.

 

What happened to the economy after the Gingrich/Kaisch supply side tax rate cuts? The economy kicked into high gear, tax revenues soared and we had surplus budgets.
What happened to the economy, which was in a recession, after Bush43 tax rate cuts? Once the implementation was accelerated and full implemented in 2003/2004 the economy took off and we had 52 months of full employment and average LFPR, rising incomes, soaring tax revenues increasing 15% in one year alone and the deficits were brought down to a paltry $161B in 2007.

So what didn't work about supply side?

 

And to add to that

Economies don't turn or reset on Presidents nor does government policy in totality. It turns on which party has majority control between the House, the Senate and the Presidency. The last two years of both Bush43 and Obama they had opposition Congresses which had majority control of the government policy and especially on the budget. Granted Obama did manage to figure a way to shift some of that balance of power back to him with his Executive Orders. But in particular Bush was cut out almost entirely his last two years and the FY2009 budget entirely. The budget that took the deficit from that last Republican 2007 of a measly $161B to $1,400B.

People try to give to and Clinton certainly takes the credit for the surpluses we had when in fact it was the Republican congress, Gingrich and Kasich, who accomplished that by forcing Clinton to sign their tax rate cuts and welfare reform. But you never hear that. You hear how Clinton balanced the budget and created the surpluses. Presidents in fact have little to do with the budget unless their party controls both houses of congress and their budget submissions are generally a waste of paper.

 

Since Obama is now pulling down outrageously large speaking fees from his corporate sponsors http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/25/15419740/obama-speaking-fee
we all have to admit that he has been great for his own personal economic growth.

 

What is the normal level of jobs we should have?
We will only have the jobs needed for the demand that is needed.

 

How did Flynn get through?

 

Everything, unless you are rich, then it works quite well in the short-run. Every third-world countries, including communist countries, are supply-side based.
One element that all first-world countries tend to have in common is a strong middle class, which supply-side economic policies tend to undermine. What supply-side
socialists consistently fail to understand that undermining workers/consumers in the long-run is bad for business. A major factor in the poor performance of
supply-side based economies is that workers/consumers are under-capitalized, therefore resulting in poor economic growth, particularly in the long-run.

 

Traitor Bush turns a big profit from his chats as well:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...orge-bush-makes-millions-but-few-waves-118697



Meanwhile traitor Cheney is home counting his millions in war profits money that he made through Halliburton.

 

The normal level of jobs we should have is one that means full employment. When we actually look at the percent of the population that is employed it isn't any better than it was during the worst parts of the recovery. So we know we can do better if 10 years ago we had more jobs and we lost them because of the recession. If we recover from the recession we by definition get them back.

 

Amazing the number of economic PhDs we have here.
I presume we all saw Marc Levinson on WJ? AN Actual economist!!
1973 was the peak, everything has been tried we will never get above 3% again.
My version is that after WWII we had 50% of the worlds production, no longer, world caught up.
Same old same old, engineering degree, start at 90k at 23.
Nothing to it

 

You are correct, but not in the way you think you are. Where does demand come from? It comes from increased revenue in the economy, or speculation of an increase. This is why Liberals think stimulus packages are good, right? Because they put more money in the economy? I reject the notion that stimulus programs lead to growth in the modern era, because the money has to be paid back, and the people are aware of what you did.

However, I could not agree more that putting more money in the hands of the people leads to economic growth. Therefore, it stands to reason that reductions in taxes will lead to more disposable income which leads to an expansion of the economy. This is exactly what has happened, every time in human history where taxes were dramatically cut from a previously high rate.

If you multiply one number, by another, you have two numbers to fiddle with if you want the answer to change. However raising the rate, lowers the base, resulting in a net loss. Lowering the rate, raises the base, resulting in a higher end result. It also benefits the people, in addition to the government.

 

Ph3iron Your post #492 is a fabrication, you edit one of my post and filled it with things I have never said, FIX IT!

 

The thing is, many of the jobs lost in the recession, were not real jobs to begin with.
We had a huge housing bubble, a false economy.
The jobs lost started in the 1990s when our mfgs jobs were being shipped out of country.
The tech bubble, housing bubble credit expansion created a false economy.

 

Major forum no-no....

 

Taxes, in reality, haven't changed much in 35 yrs. And hasn't each tax cut led to an increase in debt?
For less gov't revenue and no reduction in spending increases the debt. Has tax cuts increased gov't revenue? Long term? I think the debt actually increases.
Did the Reagan tax cuts increase or decrease the debt? Did the bush tax cuts increase of decrease the debt.
Obama did nothing much with taxes, let some of bush's expire, and I guess did some increase with the ACA, did that increase or decrease the debt? I think the increase in his debt slowed.
The gov't has to have XX $$ to function. If one decreases taxes in hopes of a economic expansion, is sort of fooling themselves.

But the thinking should be, decrease taxes in bad times, increase taxes in good times.

 

Even when taxes are raised, there is still debt. No matter where we put the figure, they will spend it all, and more. Therefore, it makes little sense to me to think we can ever solve budgetary problems via tax increases. It's a spending problem. It's always been a spending problem. It will always be a spending problem.

The notion that government must do everything it's doing, is not one I subscribe to. The reality is, a huge part of the problem is our underfunded entitlement programs. The under funding is clear, and we have known about it and have been talking about it since the Clinton administration. Yet, our leaders lack the testicular fortitude to say the program is failing. Nobody in their right mind would accept a pension over a 401k plan, yet we expect this failed method to work via government for "reasons". Bush 43 tried to save the program by shifting to something similar to a 401k, and the left completely lost their **** over it, and he had to peace out on that idea.

 

Why would nobody choose a pension over 401K?
A pension is guaranteed, as long as the company stays viable. A 401K is voluntary and many don't participate. A 401K can lose money when you need it the most.
Basically, no guarantees.

 

When was the last time spending was decreased?