• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Growth

SocialD

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Messages
2,467
Reaction score
716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
“average annual growth rate during the current business cycle remains the weakest of any expansion since at least 1949″

"In addition, Barack Obama remains solidly on track to be the only president in all of U.S. history to never have a single year when the economy grew by at least 3 percent. Every other president in American history, even the really bad ones, had at least one year when U.S. GDP grew by at least 3 percent."
Barack Obama Is On Track To Be The Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Growth - Monetary Watch

So there are a lot of things that affect growth. taxes jobs and regulations are the main component.
So what do we look too out of Hillary and Donald..?

On taxes per the Tax Foundation ( and agreed upon my FactCheck )
"On a dynamic basis, the plan would reduce after-tax incomes by an average of 1.3 percent. All deciles would see a reduction in after-tax income of at least 0.9 percent over the long-term. Taxpayers that fall in the bottom nine deciles would see their after-tax incomes decline by between 0.9 and 1 percent. The top 10 percent of taxpayers would see a reduction in after-tax income of 1.7 percent. The top 1 percent of all taxpayers would see the largest decline in after-tax income: 2.7 percent."

So all taxpayers would see some reduction in their after tax income.

As to Donald
"It is true that Trump has called for tax cuts that would result in lower taxes at all income levels, though the biggest cuts would come for the wealthiest taxpayers, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation."

As for Jobs
Per yahoo finance -
"The Democratic presidential nominee claims that during her first 100 days in office, she’ll introduce and sign into law “the biggest infrastructure and jobs program that we’ve had since World War II.” That was also true of the huge stimulus program that President Obama signed into law in 2009, during his own first 100 days in office.
Clinton’s plan would amount to $300 billion in spending on transportation projects spread over five years, or roughly $60 billion per year. That $300 billion would come from new taxes on the wealthy, so, in theory, it wouldn’t add to the national debt.
The 2009 stimulus package included nearly $800 billion of spending, but only about $150 billion of that was for infrastructure."

According to this Treasury/Economic advisor study 90% of infrastructure jobs help the middle class. it also has a lot of good info on infrastructure such as the us is doing mediocre on it and actually spending on infrastructure has steadily declined since Eisenhower years.
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/economic-policy/Documents/20120323InfrastructureReport.pdf

As for Trump a dollar amount on spending hasn't been set but Business Insider points out that he also has been pro infrastructure rebuilding throughout his campaign and in addition to mentioning bridges and roads , he also mentions airports as being in disrepair.

So per Bus Insider -
"A win by either candidate would therefore appear to be good news for construction companies, equipment manufacturers, and materials firms."
Donald Trump Hillary Clinton infrastructure spending - Business Insider

So the last item is Trade.
No sense in going into heavy detail its either Hillary's plan of continuing what we have for the most part... which is huge trade deficits and inequitable trade agreements. Or Donald who has it right on redoing trade agreements but has been protectionist and may hurt trade.
With the former its surely bad.. with the later it could be bad.
WSJ has a comparison on all matters foreign including trade here -
Where Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Stand on Foreign-Policy Issues - WSJ.com

Bottom line is as we currently have the worst recession recovery since ww2 and the worst growth ever in an administration. So you have a choice of continue the bad or roll the dice with a wild card.

Sorry that was long but I wanted to have a point to it all and not just throw up a knock Obama thread.
 
Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

#StillBushs'Fault
 
Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

Obama had a choice - either concentrate on the economy or concentrate on social and demographic change. He chose demographic change.

He may have succeeded in burying the middle class vote.
 
Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

Obama had a choice - either concentrate on the economy or concentrate on social and demographic change. He chose demographic change.

He may have succeeded in burying the middle class vote.

And the Republicans in 2009 and 2010 made it clear that because they wanted Obama to be a 1 term president they were NOT going to lift a finger to help fix the economy.

So the GOP 'choice' was to obstruct.
 
Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

And the Republicans in 2009 and 2010 made it clear that because they wanted Obama to be a 1 term president they were NOT going to lift a finger to help fix the economy.

So the GOP 'choice' was to obstruct.

Obstruct what?

The Fed runs the economy. And the Reps approved Obama's ultra-dove Fed appointments...plus it was under Bush that Helicopter Ben Bernanke was approved as Fed Chairman PLUS Bush bailed out the carmakers and instigated TARP (most before 2009 granted).

The Reps have propped up the economy with big government almost as much as the Dems...whether they care to admit it or not.

They are both to blame for this mess.

But since Obama has been in charge for longer of this current mess...he (rightfully) gets more blame.
 
Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

And the Republicans in 2009 and 2010 made it clear that because they wanted Obama to be a 1 term president they were NOT going to lift a finger to help fix the economy.

So the GOP 'choice' was to obstruct.

As if that was any different than a lot of other administrations.
 
Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

And the Republicans in 2009 and 2010 made it clear that because they wanted Obama to be a 1 term president they were NOT going to lift a finger to help fix the economy.

So the GOP 'choice' was to obstruct.

Obama poisoned the well and never missed a chance to put a poison pill requirement in all legislation he sent back for review. He refused to compromise, invited house and Senate leaders then crapped all over them

Obama was a true POS.
 
Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

Obama poisoned the well and never missed a chance to put a poison pill requirement in all legislation he sent back for review. He refused to compromise, invited house and Senate leaders then crapped all over them

Obama was a true POS.

Bull.. The GOP met on the day Obama was sworn in and decided they weren't going to lift a finger to help him, or the economy, this was before Obama made any policies or even had a chance to 'compromise'. The GOP put party before country on the day of Obama's inauguration. Look it up.

Then's there's McConnell's famous video of him telling the country the GOP #1 concern was making Obama a 1 term prez. Basically he was saying F you to the country and the millions of people who were losing their jobs and homes because winning the WH back in 2012 was more important than the country and more important to the GOP than the people the Republicans suppose to help.

The GOP, almost all of them are truly the PoS.
 
Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

Ah, more small-government conservative voices wanting the President, not just the government but the President, to adjust the economy.

Oooh, the irony...
 
Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

Ah, more small-government conservative voices wanting the President, not just the government but the President, to adjust the economy.

Oooh, the irony...

Since the potus has been given increased power of the years it does matter somewhat.. particularly for instance trade policy. originally to make a trade agreement required a treaty. this was something that had to be discussed and then voted on and required a 2/3 supermajority to pass.
But in the mid 70s and renewed a few times since the congressional-executive agreement allowed the president to do trade 'agreements' which only require a simple vote thus making it much easier for the president to push through an agreement, particularly when his party has the majority.
That's just one example of course.
 
Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

Deficits have been far to small.
 
Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

RECENT HISTORY LESSON

Bottom line is as we currently have the worst recession recovery since ww2 and the worst growth ever in an administration. So you have a choice of continue the bad or roll the dice with a wild card.

Sorry that was long but I wanted to have a point to it all and not just throw up a knock Obama thread.

Well, you've certainly "knocked Obama" by failing to tell the entire story. And you are doing No Real Good for the present alternative to what could be the Worst President in American History.

The title of this comment is tendentious, yes, I know. For the Nth time, I will explain (my apologies to those who've already read the text) nonetheless what happened in 2010, and its consequences on the rest of Obama's tenure. (We Yanks have short memories. History was five minutes ago, and Ancient History was yesterday.)

NEVER FORGET: It is We, the Sheeple, who voted to oust the Democrats from a majority in the HofR in 2010. So, it was We, the Sheeple who voted into control the T-Party with their asinine "Austerity Budgeting" in a full-blown Great Recession.

Since the 1930s, it has been conventional economic wisdom, in a full-fledged downturn to employ Stimulus Spending to significantly affect economic outcomes. For instance, when Obama was handed the Great Recession caused by Dubya, his reflex action (with a then Democrat HofR) was to stimulate the economy with the ARRA-bill ("American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009") that spent $831B to kick-start the economy.

It was a result of this measure that Obama stopped dead a skyrocketing unemployment rate already, in 2009, at 10%. (See Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) chart here.) However, in 2010, with consummate stoopidity, the American voter - that is, only 37.8% of the electorate* - decided that this significant achievement "wasn't good enough".

So, control of the HofR went to the Replicants. Who did what in terms of correcting a 10% unemployment rate? (Nada, niente, zip, nichts, rien, tipota.)

They promoted asinine "Austerity Budgeting". (See how that happened here: It's the Austerity, Stupid: How We Were Sold an Economy-Killing Lie (Oct., 2013). The direct consequence of No Additional Stimulus Spending being the fact that it took two-long years to recover from 10% to 5% unemployment, as shown in this historical infographic also from the BLS:

latest_numbers_LNS12300000_2006_2016_all_period_M06_data.gif
.

After which the economy stagnated in terms of Job Creation for four longgggg-years until 2014 when our economy finally started creating jobs. Because no Stimulus Spending was since allowed to pass by a Replicant HofR. And why?

This dastardly reason: Without the slightest concern for the plight of the American unemployed, the Replicants seeking to unseat Obama in the 2012 elections wanted expressly high-unemployment. So they refused any stimulus spending that would have lowered unemployment rates.

That electoral tactic didn't work, did it? But, We, the Sheeple, paid the price of Replicant political arrogance with continued higher-than-necessary unemployment. And the Replicants in the HofR have kept to this very same perverse policy ever since!

Tell me how it isn't so that the American voter was largely responsible for the political/economic mess that we are in by refusing to vote ...

*Voter turnout, 2010, here.
_____________________
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

Deficits have been far to small.

Brilliant exposition ... ! :roll:
 
Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

And the Republicans in 2009 and 2010 made it clear that because they wanted Obama to be a 1 term president they were NOT going to lift a finger to help fix the economy.

So the GOP 'choice' was to obstruct.

Oh jeeeeeeeeeeeez. If Obama was willing to forgo his leftist liberal economic policies, Republicans would have signed on. Instead, his insisting on "middle class economics" (AKA liberal economics) is what has led to this slow growth.
 
Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

Deficits have been far to small.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now let's see, how much national debt has been added under Obama? And you're not happy with that?
 
Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

RECENT HISTORY LESSON



Well, you've certainly "knocked Obama" by failing to tell the entire story. And you are doing No Real Good for the present alternative to what could be the Worst President in American History.

The title of this comment is tendentious, yes, I know. For the Nth time, I will explain (my apologies to those who've already read the text) nonetheless what happened in 2010, and its consequences on the rest of Obama's tenure. (We Yanks have short memories. History was five minutes ago, and Ancient History was yesterday.)

NEVER FORGET: It is We, the Sheeple, who voted to oust the Democrats from a majority in the HofR in 2010. So, it was We, the Sheeple who voted into control the T-Party with their asinine "Austerity Budgeting" in a full-blown Great Recession.

Since the 1930s, it has been conventional economic wisdom, in a full-fledged downturn to employ Stimulus Spending to significantly affect economic outcomes. For instance, when Obama was handed the Great Recession caused by Dubya, his reflex action (with a then Democrat HofR) was to stimulate the economy with the ARRA-bill ("American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009") that spent $831B to kick-start the economy.

It was a result of this measure that Obama stopped dead a skyrocketing unemployment rate already, in 2009, at 10%. (See Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) chart here.) However, in 2010, with consummate stoopidity, the American voter - that is, only 37.8% of the electorate* - decided that this significant achievement "wasn't good enough".

So, control of the HofR went to the Replicants. Who did what in terms of correcting a 10% unemployment rate? (Nada, niente, zip, nichts, rien, tipota.)

They promoted asinine "Austerity Budgeting". (See how that happened here: It's the Austerity, Stupid: How We Were Sold an Economy-Killing Lie (Oct., 2013). The direct consequence of No Additional Stimulus Spending being the fact that it took two-long years to recover from 10% to 5% unemployment, as shown in this historical infographic also from the BLS:

latest_numbers_LNS12300000_2006_2016_all_period_M06_data.gif
.

After which the economy stagnated in terms of Job Creation for four longgggg-years until 2014 when our economy finally started creating jobs. Because no Stimulus Spending was since allowed to pass by a Replicant HofR. And why?

This dastardly reason: Without the slightest concern for the plight of the American unemployed, the Replicants seeking to unseat Obama in the 2012 elections wanted expressly high-unemployment. So they refused any stimulus spending that would have lowered unemployment rates.

That electoral tactic didn't work, did it? But, We, the Sheeple, paid the price of Replicant political arrogance with continued higher-than-necessary unemployment. And the Replicants in the HofR have kept to this very same perverse policy ever since!

Tell me how it isn't so that the American voter was largely responsible for the political/economic mess that we are in by refusing to vote ...

*Voter turnout, 2010, here.
_____________________

Why don't you just start a French revolution and leave us alone?
 
Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

Oh jeeeeeeeeeeeez. If Obama was willing to forgo his leftist liberal economic policies, Republicans would have signed on. Instead, his insisting on "middle class economics" (AKA liberal economics) is what has led to this slow growth.

Nope. As I said before the Republicans made it clear they weren't going to lift a finger to help Obama fix the economy even before Obama said a word or made any decisions about his 'policies'.

The day of Obama's inauguration the GOP made it plain they were NOT going to sign onto anything that would help fix the economy and make Obama look good. It's documented. Look it up!!
 
Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

Nope. As I said before the Republicans made it clear they weren't going to lift a finger to help Obama fix the economy even before Obama said a word or made any decisions about his 'policies'.

The day of Obama's inauguration the GOP made it plain they were NOT going to sign onto anything that would help fix the economy and make Obama look good. It's documented. Look it up!!

They made it clear they were not going to allow any liberal policies. All Obama had to do was propose non liberal policies. He didn't do it. Besides, Obama's first two years he had the White House, the Senate, and the House.
 
Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

They made it clear they were not going to allow any liberal policies. All Obama had to do was propose non liberal policies. He didn't do it. Besides, Obama's first two years he had the White House, the Senate, and the House.

They made it clear they weren't going to allow anything that would help the economy and make Obama look good. Their #1 goal was making Obama a 1 term prez. Not the economy. That's a fact.
 
Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

They made it clear they weren't going to allow anything that would help the economy and make Obama look good. Their #1 goal was making Obama a 1 term prez. Not the economy. That's a fact.

That is a total misrepresentation and the twisting of the facts. They made it clear that a liberal president with liberal policies was going to be a one term president. Are you trying to convince me that conservatives actually thought that liberal policies were good for the economy and therefore wanted to block Obama's liberal policies to purposely hurt the economy? What planet do you live on? How can you say that with the White House, Senate, and HOR Obama's first two years in office the right was unable to stop Obamacare from happening but were able to stop Obama's liberal economic policies? What have you been smoking?
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

They made it clear that a liberal president with liberal policies was going to be a one term president.

That didn't work out now did it? :lol:

Are you trying to convince me that conservatives actually thought that liberal policies were good for the economy and therefore wanted to block Obama's liberal policies to purposely hurt the economy?

These liberal policies were the same things used by conservative presidents during earlier economic downturns. We are all Keynesians! The playbook to combat every economic downturn has been to increase spending/lower taxes enough to push a deficit; a deficit is an injection of money not being utilized for production. Without a deficit, economic growth would have been lower. There is no denying this.
 
Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

That is a total misrepresentation and the twisting of the facts. They made it clear that a liberal president with liberal policies was going to be a one term president. Are you trying to convince me that conservatives actually thought that liberal policies were good for the economy and therefore wanted to block Obama's liberal policies to purposely hurt the economy? What planet do you live on? How can you say that with the White House, Senate, and HOR Obama's first two years in office the right was unable to stop Obamacare from happening but were able to stop Obama's liberal economic policies? What have you been smoking?

I'm telling you that no matter what Obama wanted, or what kind of policies he wanted to help the economy, the Republicans were going to say NO. It's documented. The powers in the GOP met, and made a decision NOT to help Obama fix the economy no matter how HE wanted to do it.

It wasn't about policy, lib or con. It was about who was the POTUS, and how the GOP was going to do anything and everything to make him a 1 term prez. And that's including not giving a sh1t about the millions of Americans who were losing their jobs and homes.

I was a Republican for 35 years. Back when the GOP fought for and supported the Middle Class and working man. What they did in 2008 and 2009 disgusted me. I never seen such a blatant example of putting party before county and millions of Americans.. I am no longer a Republican.
 
Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

Why don't you just start a French revolution and leave us alone?

That would please you too much ...
 
Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

That didn't work out now did it? :lol:



These liberal policies were the same things used by conservative presidents during earlier economic downturns. We are all Keynesians! The playbook to combat every economic downturn has been to increase spending/lower taxes enough to push a deficit; a deficit is an injection of money not being utilized for production. Without a deficit, economic growth would have been lower. There is no denying this.

And you are trying to tell me that we didn't add to the national debt exponentially during Obama's term?
 
Re: Obama On Track To Be Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Gro

And you are trying to tell me that we didn't add to the national debt exponentially during Obama's term?

How in the **** have you come to such a conclusion?
 
Back
Top Bottom