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

[Moderate Right]

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

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.

That's because Obama only wanted liberal policies. You're just pretending that if he offered conservative policies that they would have said no. You have zero proof of that. If you really believe that then Obama should have called their bluff and offered up conservative policies. He never did.

 

[Moderate Right]

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

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

You live in an alternate universe.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

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

That's because Obama only wanted liberal policies. You're just pretending that if he offered conservative policies that they would have said no. You have zero proof of that. If you really believe that then Obama should have called their bluff and offered up conservative policies. He never did.

There's plenty of proof. There's the meeting the Republican power brokers had on the day of Obama's inauguration. And then there's McConnell's infamous video.

You are in no way a 'moderate', so I don't expect you to pin any blame on the GOP. But the facts prove GOP's obstruction and them not doing anything to try and fix the economy wasn't about Obama's policies, it was all about trying to make Obama a 1 term president.

Damn man, much of what happened with the economy was no different than what was done under Bush. Even had some of the same people in charge. Bernanke and Geithner being 2. GOP had no problem with growing the government and spending like drunken sailors under Bush to keep the economy afloat. But then all of a sudden they want to tighten the purse strings under Obama, while the economy was collapsing? And you don't see that as putting party 1st? You don't see that as being done exclusively to hurt Obama?

Your partisanship is blinding you.

 

[Moderate Right]

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

There's plenty of proof. There's the meeting the Republican power brokers had on the day of Obama's inauguration. And then there's McConnell's infamous video.

You are in no way a 'moderate', so I don't expect you to pin any blame on the GOP. But the facts prove GOP's obstruction and them not doing anything to try and fix the economy wasn't about Obama's policies, it was all about trying to make Obama a 1 term president.

Damn man, much of what happened with the economy was no different than what was done under Bush. Even had some of the same people in charge. Bernanke and Geithner being 2. GOP had no problem with growing the government and spending like drunken sailors under Bush to keep the economy afloat. But then all of a sudden they want to tighten the purse strings under Obama, while the economy was collapsing? And you don't see that as putting party 1st? You don't see that as being done exclusively to hurt Obama?

Your partisanship is blinding you.

They tried to obstruct his LIBERAL policies. That's what you are talking about. Once again I ask you, if they couldn't stop Obamacare, why do you think they stopped Obama's economic policies those first two years? I actually am a moderate but it's hard for a diehard liberal to notice that so I'll give you a pass on that. After those first two years the Republicans were better able to stop Obama's liberal policies. They would not have stopped conservative policies if Obama would have offered them up. He didn't. In fact, after Obama's first two years, HE is the one who became the obstructionist to conservative policies and he has been an obstructionist for 6 years now.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

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

I actually am a moderate.

I've read dozens of your posts here. You being a 'moderate' is a bunch of crap. Every once in awhile you put in a sentence that your hate both parties so you think that makes you a moderate. Nope, sorry it doesn't. Not when you defend and excuse the GOP failed policies over and over.

Are the Dems perfect? God no. And I call them out all the time on their BS. Including their role in the 2008 crash and Obama naming a PoS like Geithner to his 'economic team'.

Being a moderate means you criticize both sides. And you take the good and the bad from both sides. Saying you hate both parties(which is empty rhetoric) but then criticizing 'liberal' policies and the Dems 99.99% of the time doesn't make you a moderate.

Good Day.

 

[SocialD]

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:

.

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.
_____________________

"They promoted asinine "Austerity Budgeting". "
You mean the sequester... which was proposed and promoted by Obama, Gene Sperling and Sec Lew.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...651dc6a-1eed-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_blog.html

I find it laughable that Obama himself will claim he didn't propose it. but then be happy to try and take credit for the deficit spending reduction it caused. lol

 

[Lafayette]

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

"They promoted asinine "Austerity Budgeting". "
You mean the sequester... which was proposed and promoted by Obama, Gene Sperling and Sec Lew.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...651dc6a-1eed-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_blog.html

I find it laughable that Obama himself will claim he didn't propose it. but then be happy to try and take credit for the deficit spending reduction it caused. lol

Sequester, me arse.

It was an outright refusal to indulge in Stimulus Spending confronted with the worst recession in the US since the Great Depression.

You are trying to rewrite history, because you refuse the truth. The article I posted tells that truth about how the T-Party cherry-picked data in order to substantiate its claim that "no new spending was necessary". Moreover, the Employment-to-population Ratio puts a lie to your notion of history; the ratio had bottomed out at 58.3%, a loss of 4.5% since 2008 when the mess started.

And "The SubPrime Mess" was under who's presidency? That of a Republican Presidency, for which we are also grateful for the war over in the Iraqi sandbox that cost the American Treasury 2.4 Trillion dollars.

You just do not want to believe historical fact. Typical of the Rabid Libertarian Right in America - all bluster and zero credibility ...
_______________________

 

[Moderate Right]

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

I've read dozens of your posts here. You being a 'moderate' is a bunch of crap. Every once in awhile you put in a sentence that your hate both parties so you think that makes you a moderate. Nope, sorry it doesn't. Not when you defend and excuse the GOP failed policies over and over.

Are the Dems perfect? God no. And I call them out all the time on their BS. Including their role in the 2008 crash and Obama naming a PoS like Geithner to his 'economic team'.

Being a moderate means you criticize both sides. And you take the good and the bad from both sides. Saying you hate both parties(which is empty rhetoric) but then criticizing 'liberal' policies and the Dems 99.99% of the time doesn't make you a moderate.

Good Day.

I do criticize both sides, although I do admit to having a particular disdain for liberals but, the far right wackos aren't too far behind. I am a proud card carrying RINO but I don't see myself voting for Trump. In fact, I watched the townhall last night with Johnson/Weld and found it very refreshing. I'm not totally 100% lockstep in tune with the Libertarians but it was actually enjoyable watching politicians for once where I did't want to throw something at the television. Unless something changes somewhere, I'm voting Libertarian this year and I actually feel really good about it. How's that for being a moderate?

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

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

Unless something changes somewhere, I'm voting Libertarian this year and I actually feel really good about it. How's that for being a moderate?

OK, now that's a moderate. :applaud

 

[pdog]

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

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

This part cracks me up. When you're ready to discuss these topics instead of use them for a smoke screen for a silly correlation, go ahead and start a new topic that is aptly named and clearly makes your point.

 

[pdog]

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

"They promoted asinine "Austerity Budgeting". "
You mean the sequester... which was proposed and promoted by Obama, Gene Sperling and Sec Lew.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...651dc6a-1eed-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_blog.html

I find it laughable that Obama himself will claim he didn't propose it. but then be happy to try and take credit for the deficit spending reduction it caused. lol

Everybody knows that the sequester wasn't supposed to happen (nobody should have actually wanted to drive off the "fiscal cliff"). It was a temporary agreement in order to get passed the already asinine debt ceiling B.S. Of course the legislative branch didn't act and their it went.

That said, it's pretty easy to pin reduced growth and reduced deficit spending so I'm not sure what you're point is. As a libertarian don't you support smaller government? Because like it or not, a smaller public sector directly means less growth, until the private sector can take up the slack, and the private sector seems slow to do that. I know your next argument is going to be regulation (which again is another legislative branch function, not executive, but whatever). Please point to a regulation that is slowing private sector growth other than the ACA.

 

[Moderate Right]

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

Everybody knows that the sequester wasn't supposed to happen (nobody should have actually wanted to drive off the "fiscal cliff"). It was a temporary agreement in order to get passed the already asinine debt ceiling B.S. Of course the legislative branch didn't act and their it went.

That said, it's pretty easy to pin reduced growth and reduced deficit spending so I'm not sure what you're point is. As a libertarian don't you support smaller government? Because like it or not, a smaller public sector directly means less growth, until the private sector can take up the slack, and the private sector seems slow to do that. I know your next argument is going to be regulation (which again is another legislative branch function, not executive, but whatever). Please point to a regulation that is slowing private sector growth other than the ACA.

Public sector spending is just a code phrase for large deficits and national debt. Why don't we just get rid of all the private sector jobs and turn them all into public sector jobs, then no one would be a one percenter (except for our fearless leaders) and the US growth would be stupendous every year? NOT.

 

[Kushinator]

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

Public sector spending is just a code phrase for large deficits and national debt. Why don't we just get rid of all the private sector jobs and turn them all into public sector jobs, then no one would be a one percenter (except for our fearless leaders) and the US growth would be stupendous every year? NOT.

I am convinced you lack the intellectual capacity to have these discussions without enacting hefty fallacies, because you are frustrated with reality.

 

[ludin]

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

Everybody knows that the sequester wasn't supposed to happen (nobody should have actually wanted to drive off the "fiscal cliff"). It was a temporary agreement in order to get passed the already asinine debt ceiling B.S. Of course the legislative branch didn't act and their it went.

That said, it's pretty easy to pin reduced growth and reduced deficit spending so I'm not sure what you're point is. As a libertarian don't you support smaller government? Because like it or not, a smaller public sector directly means less growth, until the private sector can take up the slack, and the private sector seems slow to do that. I know your next argument is going to be regulation (which again is another legislative branch function, not executive, but whatever). Please point to a regulation that is slowing private sector growth other than the ACA.

:roll: Economic growth happens regardless of deficit spending.
why? because people always want to make money.

what deficit spending means is that the economy owes the government 1 dollar + interest at some point in the future.
No the private sector is actually quite quick what gets in the way is government that prevents the private sector from doing it's job.

Obama's regulations cost $197 BILLION, $848 per voter, $784 million PER DAY | Washington Examiner

that is what Obama's regulations has cost American people and businesses.
then we wonder why there has yet to be a 3% GDP growth.

anti-growth policies and regulations hamper growth.

 

[pdog]

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

Public sector spending is just a code phrase for large deficits and national debt.

no. public sector spending is money spent by the government. It really is that simple. Deficits nor debt is required in order to do it, but doing it with a deficit is the only way to do it without taxing. It's a simple concept. Try not to screw it up.

 

[pdog]

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

:roll: Economic growth happens regardless of deficit spending.
why? because people always want to make money.

It's not a black and white argument of growth vs no growth. It's the level of growth. And it's undeniable that $X dollars of deficit spending is AT LEAST $X dollars of economic activity that wouldn't otherwise be there.

what deficit spending means is that the economy owes the government 1 dollar + interest at some point in the future.

Show evidence that this has ever happened - I seem to recall that contrarians are quite keen on pointing out that the debt is always rising and never going down.

No the private sector is actually quite quick what gets in the way is government that prevents the private sector from doing it's job.

Yet you made no attempt to cite one regulation.

Obama's regulations cost $197 BILLION, $848 per voter, $784 million PER DAY | Washington Examiner

that is what Obama's regulations has cost American people and businesses.

Those costs equate to people enforcing those regulations - you know...jobs. The burden is on you to demonstrate that the private sector would some how create more than 197 billion in economic activity in the absence of those regulation. Further you'd also have to show that we're safer, less exposed to fraud, etc.

then we wonder why there has yet to be a 3% GDP growth.

It's easy - American workers are making less money so they have less to buy stuff. But go ahead, put that cart before the horse and tell me that businesses succeed regardless of demand.

anti-growth policies and regulations hamper growth.

nice bumper sticker, but this is a debate site. other than the ACA I'd like to see you demonstrate this.

 

[ludin]

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

It's not a black and white argument of growth vs no growth. It's the level of growth. And it's undeniable that $X dollars of deficit spending is AT LEAST $X dollars of economic activity that wouldn't otherwise be there.

This is an illusion it is also $X + interest that the economy has to pay back at a later date. so why did you leave that out? there are 2 sides to every financial equation this is
basic accounting.

By your logic if I find enough people to loan me a million dollars I am a millionaire.
not really I am a guy that borrowed a million dollars that has to pay it back. The only way to make me a millionaire
is to take that money and earn 2x the amount I borrowed plus interest.

Show evidence that this has ever happened - I seem to recall that contrarians are quite keen on pointing out that the debt is always rising and never going down.

Where do you think the debt comes from? it comes from the deficit that wasn't paid. So I did show evidence why did you ignore it?

Yet you made no attempt to cite one regulation.

You didn't read the article so your claim is unfounded.

Those costs equate to people enforcing those regulations - you know...jobs. The burden is on you to demonstrate that the private sector would some how create more than 197 billion in economic activity in the absence of those regulation. Further you'd also have to show that we're safer, less exposed to fraud, etc.

Umm no that is the cost to businesses to come into the requirements of those regulations. That was 197 billion dollars that could have gone to job
growth or other economic development but instead was made to comply with government regulations. so it didn't go anywhere.

Government jobs cost the economy money.

It's easy - American workers are making less money so they have less to buy stuff. But go ahead, put that cart before the horse and tell me that businesses succeed regardless of demand.

Nope as that has no bearing on growth. There is a reason that economic activity has not increased during Obama. he has given every reason for businesses
to recess not expand. businesses that should be going from 10-20 people to 50-100 people aren't.

NFIB survey shows small business owners not expanding due to political climate | The Courier-Tribune

nice bumper sticker, but this is a debate site. other than the ACA I'd like to see you demonstrate this.

I did already you evidently either didn't read the articles or ignored them.
which is typical.

 

[Moderate Right]

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

no. public sector spending is money spent by the government. It really is that simple. Deficits nor debt is required in order to do it, but doing it with a deficit is the only way to do it without taxing. It's a simple concept. Try not to screw it up.

But according to MMT the government doesn't actually use tax revenues to pay the country's bills.

 

[pdog]

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

But according to MMT the government doesn't actually use tax revenues to pay the country's bills.

So? How does my statement conflict with that?

 

[pdog]

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

This is an illusion it is also $X + interest that the economy has to pay back at a later date

when? when have we ever paid down our debt? and what does that even mean? How is swapping dollars for bonds paying anything back? We either have bonds outstanding or cash outstanding.

 

[iguanaman]

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

I do criticize both sides, although I do admit to having a particular disdain for liberals but, the far right wackos aren't too far behind. I am a proud card carrying RINO but I don't see myself voting for Trump. In fact, I watched the townhall last night with Johnson/Weld and found it very refreshing. I'm not totally 100% lockstep in tune with the Libertarians but it was actually enjoyable watching politicians for once where I did't want to throw something at the television. Unless something changes somewhere, I'm voting Libertarian this year and I actually feel really good about it. How's that for being a moderate?

It really isn't that moderate to oppose Trump but I appreciate your helping Hillary to win by not voting for him. That IS moderate.

 

[Moderate Right]

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

So? How does my statement conflict with that?

You need to reread your own statement.

 

[SocialD]

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

Sequester, me arse.

It was an outright refusal to indulge in Stimulus Spending confronted with the worst recession in the US since the Great Depression.

You are trying to rewrite history, because you refuse the truth. The article I posted tells that truth about how the T-Party cherry-picked data in order to substantiate its claim that "no new spending was necessary". Moreover, the Employment-to-population Ratio puts a lie to your notion of history; the ratio had bottomed out at 58.3%, a loss of 4.5% since 2008 when the mess started.

And "The SubPrime Mess" was under who's presidency? That of a Republican Presidency, for which we are also grateful for the war over in the Iraqi sandbox that cost the American Treasury 2.4 Trillion dollars.

You just do not want to believe historical fact. Typical of the Rabid Libertarian Right in America - all bluster and zero credibility ...
_______________________

Year revenue spending deficit
2010 2,162,706 3,457,079 -1,294,373
2011 2,303,466 3,603,056 -1,299,590
2012 2,449,988 3,536,951 -1,086,963
2013 2,775,103 3,454,647 -679,544 sequester goes into effect.
2014 3,021,487 3,506,114 -484,627
2015 3,249,886 3,688,292 -438,406

Apparently you don't know 'Sequester, me arse.. from a hole in the ground?

 

[SocialD]

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

Everybody knows that the sequester wasn't supposed to happen (nobody should have actually wanted to drive off the "fiscal cliff"). It was a temporary agreement in order to get passed the already asinine debt ceiling B.S. Of course the legislative branch didn't act and their it went.

That said, it's pretty easy to pin reduced growth and reduced deficit spending so I'm not sure what you're point is. As a libertarian don't you support smaller government? Because like it or not, a smaller public sector directly means less growth, until the private sector can take up the slack, and the private sector seems slow to do that. I know your next argument is going to be regulation (which again is another legislative branch function, not executive, but whatever). Please point to a regulation that is slowing private sector growth other than the ACA.

It was an ultimatum/threat and wasn't supposed to happen yes... but its better that it did.

 

[David_N]

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

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now let's see, how much national debt has been added under Obama? And you're not happy with that?

Not enough.