PBS says obama economy better than when he took office

Of course it is not true. H.R. 1105, the "Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 was only $20 billion more than the amount Bush requested. And CBO rated it as only $9 billion over what Bush appropriated for the first half of the year.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/03-20-presidentbudget.pdf
Omnibus Appropriations.
The Omnibus Appropriations
Act of 2009, enacted in March, provided funding for the
rest of fiscal year 2009 for all agencies except the Depart-
ments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans
Affairs, which received their appropriations last fall. The
funding in that bill (on an annualized basis) is about
$20 billion greater than the amount in the continuing
resolution, which provided funding for the first part of
the fiscal year and was the basis for CBO’s January base-
line projections. CBO therefore estimates that the omni-
bus legislation will increase discretionary outlays by
$9 billion for 2009

 

I remember the Right carping that less than 10% of the stimulus was spent in 2009 and the unused stimulus money should be cancelled. The CBO said $114 billion of the stimulus was spent in 2009.

 

You have not proven there is some "off book" slush fund somewhere that the president can magically hide money from.

The deficit of 2007 of 161 Billion dollars is the total. the only thing it hides is estimated budget deficits.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_federal_budget

That is all


You have yet to prove to me otherwise

"The money is not counted in the budget deficit estimates that the administration routinely releases. Nor is it counted against any budget caps that Congress has set for itself to abide by throughout the year"

from your link

When they tally up at the end of the year..................budget and off budget.

This is where the total deficit from the year comes from

 

I can't PROVE, when or how the Executive Department spent the money or when, but adding to the 700B$ TARP, it had to be over years. A deficit is formed from income and tax revenues, then were falling well short of expectations.

 

"Over all, it provides $19 billion more than Mr. Bush requested for the same agencies and $31 billion more than what they got in the last fiscal year."

So the bill the Dems passed was $19 billion bigger than the one Bush requested.

That's $19 billion of the $3.5 trillion in spending you can tag on Obama.

 

Bush's requested deficit was just over a trillion dollars less than what was the actual in FY 2009 (previous post this thread). Bush couldn't get an "Ice Cream Cone Bill" for 10.00 after the elections of 2008 and Obama with Congress could pass anything off onto Bush. This is adding 2+2=10, in my mind and mind boggling how you can't see the reality. Bush was virtually out of the picture, after the defeat of McCain and Obama was virtually in charge 11 months of FY 2009 (Election to end of year).

You know full well, the plan was to pack everything possible into the first two years, blame Bush (as was during the election cycle)...but not planned was a 6 year failed Keynesian approach to an economy. Obama is now saying, this coming elections ARE based on his policies....we'll see what the electorate say, real soon.

 

What Bush "requested" as a deficit and what the Great Recession caused are two vastly different things. Bush and his veto were very much in the picture. Democrats didn't have to votes to pass laws by themselves.

The plan didn't envision having to deal with the worst recession in 80 years at all.

What Keynsian approach are you referring to? We've had austerity, not Keynes, for most of the past 5 years. And it hasn't been Obama's policy.

 

And the writers in those pieces ignore the historical facts as I posted.

Yes because of the previous Democrat budget which HE supported and voted for and the continuing resolution and spending bills which HE supported and voted for and the budget proposals HE and his fellow Democrats finally wrapped up into the ominbus spending bill HE supported and signed into law.

You act as if he nothing to do with it at all. That is totally fallacious.

Let's go on record here, you are claiming the job loss rate did not bottom out the month he took office?

Now he's being obtuse again. The RATE bottomed out and turned around dramatically before his failed stimulus even went into effect.

They were on a strong upward curve to go beyond it BEFORE his tax rate increase and after it went into effect instead of that curve getting even steeper it bent down. The growth was on a curve to go into double digit by 95 and 96 and instead the curve bent down and stagnated at 7% with the higher rate. And the fact that only a third of the increase was required to be paid in 94, taxpayers could defer 2/3 of the increase into 95 and 96 so most of the increase in 94 was still at the old rate. AND even with those deferred payments AND the higher rate revenue growth fell to 7% in 95.

"Taxpayers who owed additional 1993 taxes due to the
OBRA93 tax rate increases were given the option of
deferring payment of two-thirds of the tax that was in
excess of the tax that would have been owed at the 31
percent rate. Half of the deferral taxes were to be paid in
1995 and the remaining half in 1996 [2].
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/93inintrts.pdf

 

Bush DID threaten vetos in the FY2008 budget proposals and the Democrats had to cut back on their spending desires, the deficit would have been even HIGHER had they gotten their levels and lower had Bush gotten his. By FY2009 Bush had no power at all and the Democrats including Obama sidestepped him to get their $1,400B deficit.

 

What do you think all the "Stimulus Programs" were based on, Government spending to improve the economy which by definition is Keynesian and you don't add regulation and/or problems (ACA) to help create jobs. This link near 2 years old...but;

Even though IMO, the only modern day "Great Recession" was under Carter, I'd argue that this 7 year problem, would never have happened if Freddie and Fanny weren't forced to guaranty loans to that could never have paid, through normal channels...this now going on again and now add Education Loans.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...bama-best-economic-president-of-modern-times#


Hardly a bastion of liberal thought, A Forbes magazine article says Obama not only outperformed conservative hero Reagan, but also has reduced the national debt. Here's the last paragraph of the article:

Economically, President Obama’s administration has outperformed President Reagan’s in all commonly watched categories. Simultaneously the current administration has reduced the deficit, which skyrocketed under Reagan. Additionally, Obama has reduced federal employment, which grew under Reagan (especially when including military personnel,) and truly delivered a “smaller government.” Additionally, the current administration has kept inflation low, even during extreme international upheaval, failure of foreign economies (Greece) and a dramatic slowdown in the European economy.

 

We were due for a slowdown/recession. After coming out of the 2000/2001 recession we had 52 months of solid growth and expansion so we were due for a correction of some sort. The Democrat housing scheme collapse on top of it exacerbated it for sure but so did the dot.com bubble bursting and 9/11 did in the previous recession. It's how each administrations addressed the situations that made a difference. Bush did the right thing, after he learned from his first move which was the $600 prebate in 2001 which did nothing, and he cut tax rates, insured business there would be no major new regulations or taxes, showed spending restraint and got out of the way. Obama has tried to run the economy and various businesses and markets and has been a total failure.

 

Agree......Tech did provide the longest period of growth 120 Months, followed by Reagan's 92 Months and GWB had 73 Months of growth. The percentage of growth has decreased each period, since the figure to judge growth has increased. Adding 1.00 to 2.00 is 100%, but adding that same 1.00 to 10.00 is 10%, to make a point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_economic_expansions_in_the_United_States


Yes, Obama/Holder/IRS have tried to pick and choose for political reasons, which not even Clinton tried to do...this apposed to the market (customers) forces and that's not the way it works.

 

To the contrary. Your "facts" don't change their analysis at all.

Because of the recession he inherited.

Not true at all. The multiple, including conservative, sources I cited point out Obama was responsible for about $200 billion of spending in FT2009.

I denied your claim that "the job losses had already bottomed out and the recession ended in June".

No, it did not.

Month - Total jobs - Change
Nov 2008 135471 -765
Dec 2008 134774 -697
Jan 2009 133976 -798
Feb 2009 133275 -701
Mar 2009 132449 -826
Apr 2009 131765 -684

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

It wasn't until June 2009, months after the Stimulus bill was passed, that you saw the number of job losses drop dramatically. And not until Jan 2010 when you saw the losses stop and growth resume.

So to claim that losses "bottomed out" before Obama took office is ludicrous.

5.8% to 9.0% growth is a strong increase in revenue growth, which continued into the 1990s until Bush slashed taxes, sending revenue plummeting by hundreds of billions.

Explaining the continuing strong growth in tax revenue that began in 1994.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow, four years of growth under Bush. How impressive. And 4 years of decline ending in the worst recession in 80 years. His tax cut economic policy worked great. For the top 10%, not the economy or anyone else.

All those wall street investment banks that fueled the housing bubbles weren't Democrats, sorry.

- - - Updated - - -

The appropriations bills the Dems passed were $19 billion higher than Bush's request. BFD. That $19 billion out of $3.5 trillion in spending that year.

 

Funny. The percentage growth under Clinton didn't decrease, to make a point. Though conservatives wrongly told us it would.

 

Just happened to be listening to Rush on the radio today. He was blathering about how we are worse off today that when Obama took office by every measure. I guess ole Rush thought it was better when the economy was losing 700,000+ jobs a month. Folks invested in failure for political purposes would.

It's like his show is regurgitated here by conservatives on a daily basis.

 

Stimulus spending was about $450 billion spread over two years -- a tiny fraction of the overall economy.

But here's Keynesian:


Reagan
Federal Spending increase, 1981-1985: +39.5%.
Total government employment, 1981-1985: +607,0000

And this is Keynsian:

Bush
Federal Spending increase, 2001-2005: +32.7%
Total government employment, 2001-2005: +603,000

This is NOT Keynsian:

Obama
Federal Spending increase, 2009-2013: -1.89%
Total government employment, 2009-2013: -667,000

That is austerity.

See the difference?

source data
Expenditures: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45249-2014-04-HistoricalBudgetData.xlsx
Employment: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

The 1980 recession was nowhere near the severity of the Great Recession by any measure.

 

The revenues did not come from Gingrich, it was due to all the capital investment, mainly the new technology.

 

Please prove your claim that revenue growth during the Clinton administration was all due to capital investment. Thank you.

 

Looks like the number loosing their jobs peaked in February. The Stinulus was signed February 17, 2009. Job losses started to fall by March.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13000000?output_view=net_1mth

 

I am not sure how anyone can say that the economy is not better. You can't have a permanent recession or depression eventually the market does go up. The question is who benefited and under this administration it clearly has been Wall Street. As several people have posted the single biggest indicator is the LPR which unlike the U1, U2 and so on numbers cannot be manipulated. Despite the fact that the percentage and absolute number of old farts working has increased (there goes that retiring baby boomers nonsense) the labor participation rate is lower than any time in the last 1000 years.

 

Look again, D = December, J = January, F = February. They had already bottomed out and what specific provisions of the stimulus had gone into effect by March that cause the drop? Those shovel ready jobs that Obama could never find?

 

Go back and change your starting year to 2008 so you are accurate.

 

Actually, the LPR has always been a lousy economic because it IS manipulated by DEMOGRAPHICS as much as by economic conditions, which is why it has never been used until now. The LPR started dropping in 2000 but it was never mentioned under Bush.

And the number of old farts working is increasing is because the youngest Boomers are all over 50 now. Boomers are moving out of the 25-54 labor force age group and into the 55 and over group in greater numbers than those taking their place. Since 2010 the over 55 group has grown from 30,303,000 to 34,027,000 while the 25 to 55 age labor force age group has shrunk from 102,774,000 in 2010 to 100,919,000 now. So there are a lot more older workers moving with their jobs into the older bracket as the younger bracket gets smaller. So you will have more workers with more jobs over 55 years old even as more Boomers retire, that's just due to the size of the Boomer generation, every group that they enter grows and every group that they leave shrinks.


Number of new workers retiring each of Obama's years

 

Obama wasn't president in 2008 and it wouldn't be accurate at all measuring austerity over the past 5 years.. But that's for offering the suggestion.