DiscoGary wrote:
Get a grip wrote:It's amazing and quite hypocritical that you conservatards find fault with Obama for overseeing an economic recovery.
Obama/Democrat policies suppressed the recovery, as they had to. Under Reagan the economy grew by a cumulative 31.0% compared to Obama's 13.8% over the same period in their terms. The last 7 years were a disaster.
Out of curiosity, what was the cumulative growth under the most recent right years of a Republican administration?
IT Expert wrote:
sbeefyk1 wrote:The difference is Obama is cutting government spending. If you read the GDP report you'll see how much economic activity has been lost solely due to government spending cuts. Government spending is one of the largest contributors to economic growth in the U.S. You cut that and growth goes slow. You increase it, and growth looks fantastic but the long term consequences are numerous.
Exactly. Republicans should be dancing in the street. Obama cut spending and still increased growth. It's a freaking miracle!
Instead they whine and complain and point to the past Republican "good ole days" who actually GREW the government, totally against what they supposedly stand for.
Ugh! Obama cut spending?! More rewriting of history. I'll find the time to run the numbers on that too.
Oh, and it wasn't Reagan's spending that boosted the economy, it was the tax cuts, and the role back of regulations. Obama just proved that.
webby wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:Obama/Democrat policies suppressed the recovery, as they had to. Under Reagan the economy grew by a cumulative 31.0% compared to Obama's 13.8% over the same period in their terms. The last 7 years were a disaster.
Out of curiosity, what was the cumulative growth under the most recent right years of a Republican administration?
Are you saying you'll trust what I post?
krispy kremlin_._._ wrote:
Anyone who thinks we've had a strong recovery the past 7 years doesn't know what a recovery is.
The financial catharsis that should have occurred in 07-08 (more bank failures, bankruptcy of one large auto, an accurate understanding by the public of the true causes of the crash) did not occur because of an administration that couldn't not do anything. We've been floating in neverland ever since because of unnatural, misguided federal reserve policies and rampant liberalism. This hasn't been a true recovery unless youre in the highest income & wealth brackets.
GDP is a measure of production and doesn't say much about the labor force or citizenry like it did in the past. To borrow from a fund manager from several years ago: you can't feed your family with GDP growth.
My "recovery" would involve a market forces-driven 10% increase in median wages (reduce hb1 visas and deport ~5 million illegals), a 10-20% housing correction (following draconian reductions in subsidized housing), a reduction in the number of food stamps recipients, a reduction in the average age of marriage back to the mid 20s, a fertility rate above replacement levels for people that can afford it (a decrease in the $1 million per child average price tag) and a job market where a motivated person can find a comparable-paid job without moving in less than a month.
The fact is that the American economy has performed much better than the rest of the world during Obama's tenure. Europe and Japan have fared much worse and China has slowed dramatically.
Like it or not we have a global economy. If the rest of the world is stagnant or has declining growth there is only so much room for growth in the US. We have actually done pretty well.
xxxr wrote:
krispy kremlin_._._ wrote:Anyone who thinks we've had a strong recovery the past 7 years doesn't know what a recovery is.
The financial catharsis that should have occurred in 07-08 (more bank failures, bankruptcy of one large auto, an accurate understanding by the public of the true causes of the crash) did not occur because of an administration that couldn't not do anything. We've been floating in neverland ever since because of unnatural, misguided federal reserve policies and rampant liberalism. This hasn't been a true recovery unless youre in the highest income & wealth brackets.
GDP is a measure of production and doesn't say much about the labor force or citizenry like it did in the past. To borrow from a fund manager from several years ago: you can't feed your family with GDP growth.
My "recovery" would involve a market forces-driven 10% increase in median wages (reduce hb1 visas and deport ~5 million illegals), a 10-20% housing correction (following draconian reductions in subsidized housing), a reduction in the number of food stamps recipients, a reduction in the average age of marriage back to the mid 20s, a fertility rate above replacement levels for people that can afford it (a decrease in the $1 million per child average price tag) and a job market where a motivated person can find a comparable-paid job without moving in less than a month.
The fact is that the American economy has performed much better than the rest of the world during Obama's tenure. Europe and Japan have fared much worse and China has slowed dramatically.
Like it or not we have a global economy. If the rest of the world is stagnant or has declining growth there is only so much room for growth in the US. We have actually done pretty well.
Has it occurred to you that we might have dragged them all down?
DiscoGary wrote:
xxxr wrote:The fact is that the American economy has performed much better than the rest of the world during Obama's tenure. Europe and Japan have fared much worse and China has slowed dramatically.
Like it or not we have a global economy. If the rest of the world is stagnant or has declining growth there is only so much room for growth in the US. We have actually done pretty well.
Has it occurred to you that we might have dragged them all down?
We didn't drag them down. If anything, we propped them up or it could have been worse. Everyone knew China's growth rate was unsustainable and when it slowed there would be global ramifications - especially with commodities.
Europe and Japan are plagued with structural issues that are much more deeply-rooted than our own. Emerging markets like Brazil and Russia have issues that are well-documented.
The American economy has shown relatively stable growth and consistently increasing levels of employment for most of the past 8 years. We have the strongest economy in the world by almost any measure.
DiscoGary wrote:
webby wrote:Out of curiosity, what was the cumulative growth under the most recent eight years of a Republican administration?
Are you saying you'll trust what I post?
As long as it's a number between -8% and -9%. That's with two big tax breaks.
Makes double digit growth look pretty good, doesn't it? Especially considering the shambles the economy was in 8 years ago.
Oh, and it wasn't Reagan's spending that boosted the economy, it was the tax cuts
And how did that work out?
/myself wrote:
Flagpole wrote:Wow. You have some serious issues with reality if you think things have gotten worse since Obama took office. Maybe you weren't an adult in 2007-2008?
I don't know what people expect, but I WISH the last 7+ years were horrible, because then I could be hoping for some unbelievable returns on my invested money. The fact of the matter is that we have been on an upward trend since March 2009 for stocks and October 2010 for jobs that we are likely closer to a downturn at this point than we are likely to continue upward.
When the crash happens--and mark my words Douchepole, it's coming soon--you will very richly deserve the losses. I feel bad for most people, but you are so wilfully obtuse it will be a very satisfying sight of poetic justice when you realize you will never be able to retire.
1) Ha!
2) I have long said a big stock market downturn (some might call that a crash) is coming soon...likely within Hillary's first term. This is not a new thought to me, brother. Crashes don't last forever, and I have checks in place to handle that.
3) Where have I ever said that I expect the market to continue upward forever? I know that crashes happen, expect them to, plan for them to, etc. No "willfully obtuse" for me.
4) Never be able to retire? Well, that's just BS. At this point, I am 100% debt free including owning my home outright...One that I can and will sell when I retire, and then we will downsize to a ranch-style home that costs half as much. Even from the savings of that sale plus Social Security, I would be able to retire by age 62, and that's if SS is at a 70% payout compared to prediction and my retirement money went to zero (which it won't). There a plenty of nice places that a married couple can retire on Social Security alone if they really want to. Social Security for me will only be a small portion of my retirement income.
You sound like someone who isn't invested in the market and is feeling bad about that. It's never too late to start, brother.
EconomyExpert wrote:
Flagpole wrote:Wow. You have some serious issues with reality if you think things have gotten worse since Obama took office. Maybe you weren't an adult in 2007-2008?
I'm still not an adult, Flagtard.
Well, that explains your ignorance.
DiscoGary,
1) You can't compare Reagan "recovery" to Obama's for MANY reasons...spending by Reagan one thing, but the main thing is that Reagan wasn't facing a recession the depth of the one that Bush handed to Obama. The Great Recession was the biggest economic downturn in our nation's history since the Great Depression, and the stock market dropped further as a percentage since October 1987 (under Reagan's watch by the way).
2) Obama's recovery includes going from hemorrhaging 800,000+ jobs each month at the end of Bush's presidency to now having 200,000+ added.
3) Obama's recovery includes seeing the Dow raise from a low of 6400 in March 2009 to well over 18,000 today.
4) Obama's recovery includes seeing a peak unemployment rate of 10% fall to below 5% which is full employment.
5) Obama's recovery includes no nationalizing of banks that was talked about initially.
6) Obama's recovery includes the saving of the American auto industry.
7) Obama's recovery includes the ability of lots of Baby Boomers to finally retire.
The economy can ALWAYS be better, but it is aces compared to where it was in 2007-early 2009.
W Bush 18.3% compared to Obama's 13.0% at this point in their terms. The crash brought Bush down to 15.3% by the end of his second term.
If I run the numbers on spending I don't want to hear any spin from you guys. How do you want it done?
Deficit indexed to inflation?
Increased Debt indexed to inflation?
Deficit as a percentage of GDP?
Flagpole wrote:
DiscoGary,
1) You can't compare Reagan "recovery" to Obama's for MANY reasons...spending by Reagan one thing, but the main thing is that Reagan wasn't facing a recession the depth of the one that Bush handed to Obama. The Great Recession was the biggest economic downturn in our nation's history since the Great Depression, and the stock market dropped further as a percentage since October 1987 (under Reagan's watch by the way).
2) Obama's recovery includes going from hemorrhaging 800,000+ jobs each month at the end of Bush's presidency to now having 200,000+ added.
3) Obama's recovery includes seeing the Dow raise from a low of 6400 in March 2009 to well over 18,000 today.
4) Obama's recovery includes seeing a peak unemployment rate of 10% fall to below 5% which is full employment.
5) Obama's recovery includes no nationalizing of banks that was talked about initially.
6) Obama's recovery includes the saving of the American auto industry.
7) Obama's recovery includes the ability of lots of Baby Boomers to finally retire.
The economy can ALWAYS be better, but it is aces compared to where it was in 2007-early 2009.
Again, Reagan started in a REALLY bad spot, and I guess I have to run the numbers on that too, but it won't do any good because you always got some spin on why Obama's economy sucked.
Results talk, excuses walk. Your guy lost and it aint even close.
Credit must be given where credit is due.
Oh, and on spending I'm going to count all the QEs if they aren't already rolled in the numbers. The QEs are what kept the stock market inflated while the economy stagnated.
Stock market is plunging. It's a mess!
StockWatcher wrote:
Stock market is plunging. It's a mess!
It's crashing big time!
DiscoGary wrote:
My view of the world is the correct one.
This is the most hilariously false thing I've read in some time.
Annual spending as a percentage of GDP:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-spending-to-gdp
Reagan
1981 35.1%
1982 37.3%
1983 37.3%
1984 36.2%
1985 36.7%
1986 37.1%
1987 36.9%
1988 36.0%
Obama
2009 43.0%
2010 42.9%
2011 41.8%
2012 40.0%
2013 38.8%
2014 38.1%
2015 N/A
I don't think the QEs are built into those numbers, and I would have to figure out how to do it right anyway.
So far, Obama has been spending at a greater rate compared to GDP than Reagan did. The "spending cuts" you guys keep talking about are only compared to his own bloated spending at the beginning of his term. He's still above Reagan's highest level.
The Reagan/Obama comparison debunks Keynesian economics.
Reagan overspent, cut taxes a lot, and cut regulations
Obama overspent, increased taxes a little but taxes overall are much higher than when Reagan left office, and expanded regulations and government meddling by a LOT
Therefore we can conclude that the economic boom under Reagan was not caused by the massive spending which was common to both periods, but by the regulatory rollbacks and tax cuts.
Since you are an "EconomyExpert" (as well as a troll), then you obviously know that the revised GDP growth rate issued this morning is a 3-month REAL rate of GDP growth annualized to a 12-month rate after accounting for inflation. Assuming inflation is continuing at the positive rate of 0.8% like it has over the previous 12 months, the nominal growth rate of the economy is around 1.9%.
As an "EconomyExpert" you would also realize of course that lowering the previous estimate of real GDP growth from 1.2% to 1.1% does not mean that the economy shrank. The economy still grew in the 2nd quarter. It just grew at a slightly lower rate.
Last I saw, there is approximately $17 trillion of sovereign debt around the world that is currently trading at a NEGATIVE yield. The U.S. is not one of them. Why is that if our economy is so poor? Why is the U.S. unemployment rate now at pre-2008 levels?
Unemployment (U3) - January 2009: 7.8% (Obama Inauguration)
Unemployment (U3) - August 2016: 4.9%
"But, but... What about all of those people who can't get a good job and are working part-time?" OK, let's look at the U6 number, which measures underemployment.
Underemployment (U6) - January 2009: 14.2% (Obama Inauguration)
Underemployment (U6) - August 2016: 9.7%
The US stock market declined by a little over 37% in 2008, the year BEFORE Obama took office. This was the 2nd worst year of stock market performance in history, behind the great depression.
S&P 500 Index level - Jan. 16, 2009 (day prior to inauguration): 850.12
S&P 500 Index level - Aug. 28, 2016: 2169.04
Index Return (which does NOT include return from dividends: +155.1%
USD/Euro Exchange Rate - Jan. 16, 2009: $1.326 per euro
USD/Euro Exchange Rate - Aug. 28, 2016: $1.120 per euro
So, the US consumer/investor holding cash is now about 15% wealthier than our European counterparts holding cash than we were when Obama took office.
We could all be so fortunate as to have an economy for the next 8 years that is as "poor" as what we have experienced since Jan. 2009.
You are certainly well educated. So, I am sure you understand that the President does not create laws, pass the federal budget, control the country's fiscal or monetary policy, or control the economy. The democrats have not had control of the legislative branch, which does do these things, over the last 8 years. One of the biggest problems with our country is that we have a population of people who want the government to "fix" everything. The constant attempts to control and tinker with the economy are what got us into the 2008-2009 mess in the first place.