• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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's economy vs Bush's economy[W:125]

DrOrange

New member
Joined
May 17, 2016
Messages
14
Reaction score
3
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
So a good friend a little while ago told me that Obama has had both a healthier economy, and better growth with the economy than Bush had. This contradicted what I thought to be the truth, so I did a little research and this is what I found. Buckle up, because it's long:

TL;DR: The previous claim is false. By the standards of Unemployment, GDP, and Mean household income for both the middle class and the lower class: Bush has had both a better economy and better economic growth.

So, when Obama took office unemployment was at 7.8%, and it raised steadily from there up until February of 2013. In 2013 it looks like Obama’s policy shifted to a more economy-centric focus, and now he’s gotten unemployment down to 5%, but Bush had it as low as 4.4% when he was in office, and it never raised above 6%

Gross Domestic Product when Obama took office was $14,383.9 billion, and is now up to $18,221.1 billion, a 26.6% increase. By contrast, in the last four years of Bush’s presidency, GDP increased by 21.4% from $11,988.4 to $14,549.9 billion. That means Bush has increased GDP by 21.4% per office term and Obama has only increased GDP by 13.9% per office term.

Mean household income for the middle 20% of the nation increased from 2009 to 2014 from $49,534 to $54,041, a 9% increase over 5 years (average of 7.1% each 4 years). It increased from 2004 to 2008 from $44,411 to $50,132, a 12.9% increase over 4 years.

Mean household income for the lowest 20% of the nation increased from 2009 to 2014 from $11,552 to $11,676, a 1.1% increase over 5 years (average of 0.8% each 4 years). It increased from 2004 to 2008 from $10,244 to $11,656, a 13.8% increase over 4 years.

So by the standards of unemployment, Gross Domestic Product, and Mean household income for both the middle and lower class, Bush has had a healthier economy, and had better growth with the economy than Obama.

Sources:
United States Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics
United States Department of Commerce: Bureau of Economic Analysis
United States Department of Commerce: Bureau of the Census
 

DrOrange

New member
Joined
May 17, 2016
Messages
14
Reaction score
3
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the economy

So a good friend a little while ago told me that Obama has had both a healthier economy, and better growth with the economy than Bush had. This contradicted what I thought to be the truth, so I did a little research and this is what I found. Buckle up, because it's long:

TL;DR: The previous claim is false. By the standards of Unemployment, GDP, and Mean household income for both the middle class and the lower class: Bush has had both a better economy and better economic growth.

So, when Obama took office unemployment was at 7.8%, and it raised steadily from there up until February of 2013. In 2013 it looks like Obama’s policy shifted to a more economy-centric focus, and now he’s gotten unemployment down to 5%, but Bush had it as low as 4.4% when he was in office, and it never raised above 6%

Gross Domestic Product when Obama took office was $14,383.9 billion, and is now up to $18,221.1 billion, a 26.6% increase. By contrast, in the last four years of Bush’s presidency, GDP increased by 21.4% from $11,988.4 to $14,549.9 billion. That means Bush has increased GDP by 21.4% per office term and Obama has only increased GDP by 13.9% per office term.

Mean household income for the middle 20% of the nation increased from 2009 to 2014 from $49,534 to $54,041, a 9% increase over 5 years (average of 7.1% each 4 years). It increased from 2004 to 2008 from $44,411 to $50,132, a 12.9% increase over 4 years.

Mean household income for the lowest 20% of the nation increased from 2009 to 2014 from $11,552 to $11,676, a 1.1% increase over 5 years (average of 0.8% each 4 years). It increased from 2004 to 2008 from $10,244 to $11,656, a 13.8% increase over 4 years.

So by the standards of unemployment, Gross Domestic Product, and Mean household income for both the middle and lower class, Bush has had a healthier economy, and had better growth with the economy than Obama.

Sources:
United States Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics
United States Department of Commerce: Bureau of Economic Analysis
United States Department of Commerce: Bureau of the Census
 

SenorXm/Sirius

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
15,202
Reaction score
11,142
Location
New York State, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the economy

when Obama took office unemployment was at 7.8%

Bush had it as low as 4.4% when he was in office, and it never raised above 6%

What? Your 'figures' and post starts out with a pretty big contradiction.

Anyway Bush really wasn't that much of a conservative. Not the way he spent money and how much the size of the government grew while he was president.

And the economy crashed on his watch too. Because of your contradiction with the Unemployment figure, the crash is something you seem to be ignoring.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Re: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the economy

Don't confuse Republicans with conservatives.
 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Re: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the economy

So a good friend a little while ago told me that Obama has had both a healthier economy, and better growth with the economy than Bush had. This contradicted what I thought to be the truth, so I did a little research and this is what I found. Buckle up, because it's long:

TL;DR: The previous claim is false. By the standards of Unemployment, GDP, and Mean household income for both the middle class and the lower class: Bush has had both a better economy and better economic growth.

So, when Obama took office unemployment was at 7.8%, and it raised steadily from there up until February of 2013. In 2013 it looks like Obama’s policy shifted to a more economy-centric focus, and now he’s gotten unemployment down to 5%, but Bush had it as low as 4.4% when he was in office, and it never raised above 6%

Gross Domestic Product when Obama took office was $14,383.9 billion, and is now up to $18,221.1 billion, a 26.6% increase. By contrast, in the last four years of Bush’s presidency, GDP increased by 21.4% from $11,988.4 to $14,549.9 billion. That means Bush has increased GDP by 21.4% per office term and Obama has only increased GDP by 13.9% per office term.

Mean household income for the middle 20% of the nation increased from 2009 to 2014 from $49,534 to $54,041, a 9% increase over 5 years (average of 7.1% each 4 years). It increased from 2004 to 2008 from $44,411 to $50,132, a 12.9% increase over 4 years.

Mean household income for the lowest 20% of the nation increased from 2009 to 2014 from $11,552 to $11,676, a 1.1% increase over 5 years (average of 0.8% each 4 years). It increased from 2004 to 2008 from $10,244 to $11,656, a 13.8% increase over 4 years.

So by the standards of unemployment, Gross Domestic Product, and Mean household income for both the middle and lower class, Bush has had a healthier economy, and had better growth with the economy than Obama.

Sources:
United States Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics
United States Department of Commerce: Bureau of Economic Analysis
United States Department of Commerce: Bureau of the Census

In the military, we're taught that when we stand watch, we're supposed to leave it in better shape than it was when we first assumed the watch. Bush was our commander-in-chief. By that metric, on Bush's last day in office in 2009, what kind of shape was the economy in, as compared to how the economy was when he first took office?

Likewise, how's the economy under Obama now, as compared to the first day he took office?

The answer is crystal clear to any truly objective observer. Oh, I know, you'll claim "OMG the debt's gonna destroy America!!!!"...but the economy IS in FAR better shape NOW than it was when Obama first took office...and the economy under Bush was FAR worse on his last day in office as compared to the first day he was in office (when he inherited a budget surplus from Clinton, remember).
 

azgreg

Chicks dig the long ball
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
23,720
Reaction score
20,735
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the economy

What? Your 'figures' and post starts out with a pretty big contradiction.

Anyway Bush really wasn't that much of a conservative. Not the way he spent money and how much the size of the government grew while he was president.

And the economy crashed on his watch too. Because of your contradiction with the Unemployment figure, the crash is something you seem to be ignoring.

Apparently the minute Obama put his hand on the Koran, I mean bible, the unemployment rate jumped from 6% to 7.8%.
 
Last edited:

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Re: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the economy

Apparently the minute Obama put his hand on the Koran, I mean bible, the unemployment rate jumped from 6° to 7.8°.

Of course, the fact that when Obama first took office, Bush handed him an economy that was losing 800K jobs PER MONTH didn't have anything at all to do with that, huh? See, losing 800K jobs per month was all that Kenyan Muslim's fault and he gets ALL the blame for that...whereas the fact that we've had positive private-sector job growth every month since September 2010 - by far the longest such stretch in ALL American history - well, that Kenyan Muslim gets zero credit for that!

"If it's bad, blame Obama! If it's good, Obama must NEVER get credit!" - Conservative Dogma monthly newsletter
 

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
24,159
Reaction score
13,549
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Re: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the economy

Ummm....where's the "science" in all this? :roll:
 

shrubnose

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
19,463
Reaction score
8,731
Location
Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Re: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the economy

So a good friend a little while ago told me that Obama has had both a healthier economy, and better growth with the economy than Bush had. This contradicted what I thought to be the truth, so I did a little research and this is what I found. Buckle up, because it's long:

TL;DR: The previous claim is false. By the standards of Unemployment, GDP, and Mean household income for both the middle class and the lower class:
Bush has had both a better economy and better economic growth.

So, when Obama took office unemployment was at 7.8%, and it raised steadily from there up until February of 2013. In 2013 it looks like Obama’s policy shifted to a more economy-centric focus, and now he’s gotten unemployment down to 5%, but Bush had it as low as 4.4% when he was in office, and it never raised above 6%

Gross Domestic Product when Obama took office was $14,383.9 billion, and is now up to $18,221.1 billion, a 26.6% increase. By contrast, in the last four years of Bush’s presidency, GDP increased by 21.4% from $11,988.4 to $14,549.9 billion. That means Bush has increased GDP by 21.4% per office term and Obama has only increased GDP by 13.9% per office term.

Mean household income for the middle 20% of the nation increased from 2009 to 2014 from $49,534 to $54,041, a 9% increase over 5 years (average of 7.1% each 4 years). It increased from 2004 to 2008 from $44,411 to $50,132, a 12.9% increase over 4 years.

Mean household income for the lowest 20% of the nation increased from 2009 to 2014 from $11,552 to $11,676, a 1.1% increase over 5 years (average of 0.8% each 4 years). It increased from 2004 to 2008 from $10,244 to $11,656, a 13.8% increase over 4 years.

So by the standards of unemployment, Gross Domestic Product, and Mean household income for both the middle and lower class, Bush has had a healthier economy, and had better growth with the economy than Obama.

Sources:
United States Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics
United States Department of Commerce: Bureau of Economic Analysis
United States Department of Commerce: Bureau of the Census



You're full of it.

Get back with us in about 40 years after historians have a chance to rate Bush and Obama against all of the USA's presidents.

I predict that Obama will end up somewhere in the middle and Bush will be mighty close to the bottom.

Wait and see.

:lol:
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
19,124
Reaction score
12,781
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Re: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the economy

By the standards of Unemployment, GDP, and Mean household income for both the middle class and the lower class: Bush has had both a better economy and better economic growth.
None of what you say is "scientific proof." It's poorly devised statistical conjecture.

Bush was president during a massive housing and finance bubble, which was in the process of melting down when he left office.

Much of this was the culmination of years of legal and financial changes, and Bush was only one player among many.

Regardless, there is no way to pluck Bush out of the time of his administration, and imagine what would happen if he was not President during a massive bubble.


when Obama took office unemployment was at 7.8%, and it raised steadily from there up until February of 2013.
Unemployment was still rising when he took office; U3 peaked a little over 10% in 2010. It doesn't make sense to pluck out this one stat without proper context.

The better question is whether his policies had a positive impact on employment, and it seems the answer is generally yes, but not as good as it could have been, had Congress been more receptive to his policies. E.g. he was able to bail out the auto industry, which prevented massive economic damage to the US. The stimulus was also smaller than it should have been, but certainly got some economic activity going.

Bush, again, was presiding over a big bubble. His problem was he didn't even acknowledge it, or try to pop it early -- hardly a problem exclusive either to his office, or to party, or political position. Almost no elected official is going to be willing to stop a bubble early, since such actions will likely fail, and they will undoubtedly take the blame for the resulting downturn.

To his credit, Bush did set up TARP, and let Bernanke and Paulson drive; he also did not really politicize the disaster. It wasn't perfect, and does not fully balance out his participation in the bubble's creation, but I'd say he gets credit for that.


In 2013 it looks like Obama’s policy shifted to a more economy-centric focus, and now he’s gotten unemployment down to 5%, but Bush had it as low as 4.4% when he was in office, and it never raised above 6%
Bush was not coming into office, dealing with the worst economic downturn in over 60 years. Again... you can't look at unemployment out of context.


Gross Domestic Product when Obama took office was $14,383.9 billion, and is now up to $18,221.1 billion, a 26.6% increase....
Again: Can't compare, as Bush was President during a huge bubble, and the worst effects hit during Obama's presidency.


Mean household income for the middle 20% of the nation increased from 2009 to 2014 from $49,534 to $54,041, a 9% increase over 5 years (average of 7.1% each 4 years). It increased from 2004 to 2008 from $44,411 to $50,132, a 12.9% increase over 4 years.
You didn't index your numbers for inflation. Fail

Income for everyone except the top 5% / 1% has been largely flat since the 1970s. Neither one did particularly well in that respect.


Last but not least, it doesn't make sense to look at two terms, one of which isn't even finished yet, and make a declaration on that basis.

Instead, let's look at historical data, covering numerous terms. Generally speaking, Republican Presidents make the debt worse. Note that much of the deficits during Obama's term -- which have fallen substantially from their highs -- were the result of Bush starting two wars, cutting taxes during wartime (an unprecedented and absurd move), and the recession.
GOP Presidents Have Been the Worst Contributors to the Federal Debt - The Atlantic

They do better by many other measures as well:

Salon38.1.png


Unemployment:
Salon38.3.png


and Income:
Salon38.5.png



But the real issue is that Presidents don't really have a big impact on the economy in the first place. The best things they can do are get lucky, and not screw up.
Which Presidents Have Been Best for the Economy? | US News
 

eohrnberger

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
44,022
Reaction score
28,722
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the economy

None of what you say is "scientific proof." It's poorly devised statistical conjecture.

Bush was president during a massive housing and finance bubble, which was in the process of melting down when he left office.

Much of this was the culmination of years of legal and financial changes, and Bush was only one player among many.

Regardless, there is no way to pluck Bush out of the time of his administration, and imagine what would happen if he was not President during a massive bubble.

Agreed, years of legal and financial changes in the landscape, both regulatory and business.

Had Bush not been in office, I do believe that the melt down would have unfolded similarly enough not to make a significant difference.

Unemployment was still rising when he took office; U3 peaked a little over 10% in 2010. It doesn't make sense to pluck out this one stat without proper context.

The better question is whether his policies had a positive impact on employment, and it seems the answer is generally yes, but not as good as it could have been, had Congress been more receptive to his policies. E.g. he was able to bail out the auto industry, which prevented massive economic damage to the US. The stimulus was also smaller than it should have been, but certainly got some economic activity going.

Bush, again, was presiding over a big bubble. His problem was he didn't even acknowledge it, or try to pop it early -- hardly a problem exclusive either to his office, or to party, or political position. Almost no elected official is going to be willing to stop a bubble early, since such actions will likely fail, and they will undoubtedly take the blame for the resulting downturn.

To his credit, Bush did set up TARP, and let Bernanke and Paulson drive; he also did not really politicize the disaster. It wasn't perfect, and does not fully balance out his participation in the bubble's creation, but I'd say he gets credit for that.



Bush was not coming into office, dealing with the worst economic downturn in over 60 years. Again... you can't look at unemployment out of context.



Again: Can't compare, as Bush was President during a huge bubble, and the worst effects hit during Obama's presidency.



You didn't index your numbers for inflation. Fail

Income for everyone except the top 5% / 1% has been largely flat since the 1970s. Neither one did particularly well in that respect.


Last but not least, it doesn't make sense to look at two terms, one of which isn't even finished yet, and make a declaration on that basis.

Instead, let's look at historical data, covering numerous terms. Generally speaking, Republican Presidents make the debt worse. Note that much of the deficits during Obama's term -- which have fallen substantially from their highs -- were the result of Bush starting two wars, cutting taxes during wartime (an unprecedented and absurd move), and the recession.
GOP Presidents Have Been the Worst Contributors to the Federal Debt - The Atlantic

They do better by many other measures as well:

Salon38.1.png


Unemployment:
Salon38.3.png


and Income:
Salon38.5.png



But the real issue is that Presidents don't really have a big impact on the economy in the first place. The best things they can do are get lucky, and not screw up.
Which Presidents Have Been Best for the Economy? | US News

Again, agreed. Not much influence, get lucky and not screw up - which is already quite enough of a challenge for some of them.
 

mmi

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
4,810
Reaction score
2,250
Location
is everything
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Obama's economy vs Bush's economy

Hey doc and welcome to the circus, er, I mean forum.

when Obama took office unemployment was at 7.8%, and it raised steadily from there up until February of 2013. In 2013 it looks like Obama’s policy shifted to a more economy-centric focus, and now he’s gotten unemployment down to 5%, but Bush had it as low as 4.4% when he was in office, and it never raised above 6%.

I only have a couple of minutes, but I wanted to get started on a response.

The 7.8% figure you cite was for January. That data was collected in Dec 2008. Obummer was inaugurated on Jan 20, 2009, and the data for the February report, when the measure was 8.3%, was based on responses to questions asked about the week of Jan 12-18, before the Negro communist was sworn in. The March report is the first one that he can legitimately be associated with, and U-3 that month was 8.7%.

The effects of the Great Recession continued to play through the labor market for several months after GDP growth turned positive in the second half of 2009. (In fact, I'd argue that it was Obama policy that caused to economy to return to expansion.) The rate in Oct 2009 topped out at 10%. How would you say Obama caused it to increase between March and October?

You say "it raised steadily from there up until February of 2013." That's not true. It began to decline in Nov 2009 and has dropped steadily since then. By Feb 2013, it was down to 7.7%. Since this is lees than 7.8%, perhaps that's what you mean to say — that it took that long to drop under the Jan 2009 rate.

How would you say "Obama’s policy shifted to a more economy-centric focus"?
 

DrOrange

New member
Joined
May 17, 2016
Messages
14
Reaction score
3
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the economy

What? Your 'figures' and post starts out with a pretty big contradiction.

Anyway Bush really wasn't that much of a conservative. Not the way he spent money and how much the size of the government grew while he was president.

And the economy crashed on his watch too. Because of your contradiction with the Unemployment figure, the crash is something you seem to be ignoring.

The increase from 6% to 7.8% can literally be accounted for in the last two months of Bush's presidency and the first month of Obama's. Prior to that point up through 2004, unemployment never grew past 6% If you don't believe me, see for yourself: Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

In the military, we're taught that when we stand watch, we're supposed to leave it in better shape than it was when we first assumed the watch. Bush was our commander-in-chief. By that metric, on Bush's last day in office in 2009, what kind of shape was the economy in, as compared to how the economy was when he first took office?

Likewise, how's the economy under Obama now, as compared to the first day he took office?

The answer is crystal clear to any truly objective observer. Oh, I know, you'll claim "OMG the debt's gonna destroy America!!!!"...but the economy IS in FAR better shape NOW than it was when Obama first took office...and the economy under Bush was FAR worse on his last day in office as compared to the first day he was in office (when he inherited a budget surplus from Clinton, remember).

That I must admit: Obama has improved the economy since 2008. However it seems like up until 2013, his policies weren't helping much.

Of course, the fact that when Obama first took office, Bush handed him an economy that was losing 800K jobs PER MONTH didn't have anything at all to do with that, huh? See, losing 800K jobs per month was all that Kenyan Muslim's fault and he gets ALL the blame for that...whereas the fact that we've had positive private-sector job growth every month since September 2010 - by far the longest such stretch in ALL American history - well, that Kenyan Muslim gets zero credit for that!

"If it's bad, blame Obama! If it's good, Obama must NEVER get credit!" - Conservative Dogma monthly newsletter

Of course it had something to do with it.
But then how do you propose we look at that, statistically speaking, to make a more objective picture.
I'm reporting the numbers, and nothing else.
 

DrOrange

New member
Joined
May 17, 2016
Messages
14
Reaction score
3
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re 2 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

Ummm....where's the "science" in all this? :roll:

None of what you say is "scientific proof." It's poorly devised statistical conjecture.

Bush was president during a massive housing and finance bubble, which was in the process of melting down when he left office.

Much of this was the culmination of years of legal and financial changes, and Bush was only one player among many.

Regardless, there is no way to pluck Bush out of the time of his administration, and imagine what would happen if he was not President during a massive bubble.



Unemployment was still rising when he took office; U3 peaked a little over 10% in 2010. It doesn't make sense to pluck out this one stat without proper context.

The better question is whether his policies had a positive impact on employment, and it seems the answer is generally yes, but not as good as it could have been, had Congress been more receptive to his policies. E.g. he was able to bail out the auto industry, which prevented massive economic damage to the US. The stimulus was also smaller than it should have been, but certainly got some economic activity going.

Bush, again, was presiding over a big bubble. His problem was he didn't even acknowledge it, or try to pop it early -- hardly a problem exclusive either to his office, or to party, or political position. Almost no elected official is going to be willing to stop a bubble early, since such actions will likely fail, and they will undoubtedly take the blame for the resulting downturn.

To his credit, Bush did set up TARP, and let Bernanke and Paulson drive; he also did not really politicize the disaster. It wasn't perfect, and does not fully balance out his participation in the bubble's creation, but I'd say he gets credit for that.



Bush was not coming into office, dealing with the worst economic downturn in over 60 years. Again... you can't look at unemployment out of context.



Again: Can't compare, as Bush was President during a huge bubble, and the worst effects hit during Obama's presidency.



You didn't index your numbers for inflation. Fail

Income for everyone except the top 5% / 1% has been largely flat since the 1970s. Neither one did particularly well in that respect.


Last but not least, it doesn't make sense to look at two terms, one of which isn't even finished yet, and make a declaration on that basis.

Instead, let's look at historical data, covering numerous terms. Generally speaking, Republican Presidents make the debt worse. Note that much of the deficits during Obama's term -- which have fallen substantially from their highs -- were the result of Bush starting two wars, cutting taxes during wartime (an unprecedented and absurd move), and the recession.
GOP Presidents Have Been the Worst Contributors to the Federal Debt - The Atlantic

They do better by many other measures as well:

Salon38.1.png


Unemployment:
Salon38.3.png


and Income:
Salon38.5.png



But the real issue is that Presidents don't really have a big impact on the economy in the first place. The best things they can do are get lucky, and not screw up.
Which Presidents Have Been Best for the Economy? | US News

It's scientific in the way that it looks at data and uses it to compare and contrast. Of course data is nothing without context, but without data context doesn't get you very far either.

And I'd be interested to know where you found your graphs, considering I used all government agencies for my data, and you used the Atlantic, which is pretty often slanted left.
 

DrOrange

New member
Joined
May 17, 2016
Messages
14
Reaction score
3
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: Obama's economy vs Bush's economy

Hey doc and welcome to the circus, er, I mean forum.



I only have a couple of minutes, but I wanted to get started on a response.

The 7.8% figure you cite was for January. That data was collected in Dec 2008. Obummer was inaugurated on Jan 20, 2009, and the data for the February report, when the measure was 8.3%, was based on responses to questions asked about the week of Jan 12-18, before the Negro communist was sworn in. The March report is the first one that he can legitimately be associated with, and U-3 that month was 8.7%.

The effects of the Great Recession continued to play through the labor market for several months after GDP growth turned positive in the second half of 2009. (In fact, I'd argue that it was Obama policy that caused to economy to return to expansion.) The rate in Oct 2009 topped out at 10%. How would you say Obama caused it to increase between March and October?

You say "it raised steadily from there up until February of 2013." That's not true. It began to decline in Nov 2009 and has dropped steadily since then. By Feb 2013, it was down to 7.7%. Since this is lees than 7.8%, perhaps that's what you mean to say — that it took that long to drop under the Jan 2009 rate.

How would you say "Obama’s policy shifted to a more economy-centric focus"?

Ah, I didn't know that first bullet point, thanks for point that out!

Also, Negro Communist? Are you kidding? Let's keep it civil please.

And yes, it is true that the Great Recession did continue to oppose the market for several months after Obama's presidency started. Data is nothing without context, but context is harder to report, so I'm just trying to report data.

And from looking at the graphs and tables themselves (again, I've been taking my data from the US Department of Labor themselves) I'd say the beginning of 2011 is the earliest unemployment could be considered to have started dropping. Until then it was volatile at best.
 

SenorXm/Sirius

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
15,202
Reaction score
11,142
Location
New York State, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

The increase from 6% to 7.8% can literally be accounted for in the last two months of Bush's presidency and the first month of Obama's. Prior to that point up through 2004, unemployment never grew past 6% If you don't believe me, see for yourself:

Yeah, it was still on Bush's watch. Someone can't just pick a day during Bush's presidency and say up to that day the rate was so, and so. If on his last day in office it was 7.8%, then that's it. And that's not 6%.

Anyway again. None of this matters. Bush 2 was NOT a conservative. Not even close. So the whole point of this whole thread is pointless.
 
Last edited:

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
19,124
Reaction score
12,781
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Re: Re 2 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

It's scientific in the way that it looks at data and uses it to compare and contrast. Of course data is nothing without context, but without data context doesn't get you very far either.
There is nothing "scientific" about citing a handful of statistics, without any context, and with obvious biased intent.

Merely citing numbers is not "science."


And I'd be interested to know where you found your graphs, considering I used all government agencies for my data, and you used the Atlantic, which is pretty often slanted left.
:roll:

Everyone is using the same economic data -- GDP, unemployment, etc. Get with the program, kthx
 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

The increase from 6% to 7.8% can literally be accounted for in the last two months of Bush's presidency and the first month of Obama's. Prior to that point up through 2004, unemployment never grew past 6% If you don't believe me, see for yourself: Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Are you really trying to claim that Bush 43 was a good steward of the economy until the last two months of his presidency????

That's like trying to say that no one should have been at all concerned about all the gasoline that had been being stored around the old house with lots of exposed wiring in the years before the house actually burned to the ground. The GR had already officially begun in December 2007. If you'll recall, during the election McCain wanted to rush back to Washington to "help save the economy", and Obama famously said that the same discussions and decisions can be made on the road, that it's a good thing for the president to be able to multitask. And in September 2008, IIRC, was the first bailout of the financial institutions. Here's a bit of a list of what led up to the GR:

The majority report of the U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, composed of six Democratic and four Republican appointees, reported its findings in January 2011. It concluded that "the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve’s failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels."

Even in November of 2008, the international community - the Group of 20 - was looking back at what had already struck much of the developed world (from the same reference):

During a period of strong global growth, growing capital flows, and prolonged stability earlier this decade, market participants sought higher yields without an adequate appreciation of the risks and failed to exercise proper due diligence. At the same time, weak underwriting standards, unsound risk management practices, increasingly complex and opaque financial products, and consequent excessive leverage combined to create vulnerabilities in the system. Policy-makers, regulators and supervisors, in some advanced countries, did not adequately appreciate and address the risks building up in financial markets, keep pace with financial innovation, or take into account the systemic ramifications of domestic regulatory actions.

So please don't try to pretend that Bush 43 was a good steward of the economy - he wasn't. He'd been handed a budget surplus and frittered it away (for instance, Medicare Part D - part of which included a law that Medicare was not allowed to negotiate with Big Pharma over drug prices). He took us into two wars AND slashed taxes, which meant that the entirety of the cost of the wars was - and still is - paid on our national credit card...and we'll be paying the interest on those wars for the rest of your life and mine.

Bush 41, however, was a very good steward of the economy - better than Clinton, IMO, so please don't think that I'm stating all of the above out of partisan spite. But the numbers and the documented history plainly show that Bush 43 was a poor steward of the economy indeed...and Obama has in many ways been a superior steward, especially given the fact that all the while, he faced a level of political opposition greater than any other president has faced since the Civil War.
 

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
17,881
Reaction score
10,794
Location
Rocky Mtn. High
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Re: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the economy

So a good friend a little while ago told me that Obama has had both a healthier economy, and better growth with the economy than Bush had. This contradicted what I thought to be the truth, so I did a little research and this is what I found. Buckle up, because it's long:

TL;DR: The previous claim is false. By the standards of Unemployment, GDP, and Mean household income for both the middle class and the lower class: Bush has had both a better economy and better economic growth.

So, when Obama took office unemployment was at 7.8%, and it raised steadily from there up until February of 2013. In 2013 it looks like Obama’s policy shifted to a more economy-centric focus, and now he’s gotten unemployment down to 5%, but Bush had it as low as 4.4% when he was in office, and it never raised above 6%

Gross Domestic Product when Obama took office was $14,383.9 billion, and is now up to $18,221.1 billion, a 26.6% increase. By contrast, in the last four years of Bush’s presidency, GDP increased by 21.4% from $11,988.4 to $14,549.9 billion. That means Bush has increased GDP by 21.4% per office term and Obama has only increased GDP by 13.9% per office term.

Mean household income for the middle 20% of the nation increased from 2009 to 2014 from $49,534 to $54,041, a 9% increase over 5 years (average of 7.1% each 4 years). It increased from 2004 to 2008 from $44,411 to $50,132, a 12.9% increase over 4 years.

Mean household income for the lowest 20% of the nation increased from 2009 to 2014 from $11,552 to $11,676, a 1.1% increase over 5 years (average of 0.8% each 4 years). It increased from 2004 to 2008 from $10,244 to $11,656, a 13.8% increase over 4 years.

So by the standards of unemployment, Gross Domestic Product, and Mean household income for both the middle and lower class, Bush has had a healthier economy, and had better growth with the economy than Obama.

Sources:
United States Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics
United States Department of Commerce: Bureau of Economic Analysis
United States Department of Commerce: Bureau of the Census

Fascinating. Zero science herein. You are just throwing a bunch of numbers around and in the process you show a fair amount of ignorance about the economy, how the government works and the role of the government influencing the economy.

You make an argument supported by numbers that you do not understand. There is so much wrong with this, I do not know where to start. But, I will start with the premise that you are trying to make an argument of Republicans over Democrats, but only offer examples of one. There is nothing scientific about applying attributes to a whole population based upon a sample of one.



Secondly, the unemployment rate at 1/20/2009 is an abritrary to completely irrelevant starting point. What does the new President have to do with the unemployment rate at 1/21/2009 or 2/21/2009 or any near term point? Answer, to those that know something about economics, nothing. The economy is like a large tanker; it is not a speed boat, it doesn't turn right away.... Most of the events of early 2009 were set in motion months to years prior.

So, thanks for your ill-informed opinions... but, that is all they are. The only "science" within your entire post was the word "S-C-I-E-N-C-E".
 
Last edited:

Eric7216

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
3,050
Reaction score
698
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Obama's economy vs Bush's economy

Another racist anti-Obama type, what's new.
No, just another "liberal" trying to maintain the illusion that the US is a highly racist country. MMI's use of phrases like that and "Obummer" merely indicate a polemic ploy by an Obama supporter.

If we didn't have all these pseudo racism incidences which typically turn out to be planted by "liberals" we would have a lot less racism.
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Obama's economy vs Bush's economy

Another racist anti-Obama type, what's new.

Actually he's trying to defend Obama. Poorly I might add
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the economy

Moderator's Warning:
Merged dupe threads.
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
34,381
Reaction score
7,664
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the economy

Just a thought, is there any evidence that Obama would have handled the financial crisis any better or much differently than Bush did? Because he was a strong supporter of that element of Bush policy.

Im not pointing fingers either way, I just don't think if Obama had been in charge it would have made any difference at all.
 

SenorXm/Sirius

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
15,202
Reaction score
11,142
Location
New York State, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the economy

Just a thought, is there any evidence that Obama would have handled the financial crisis any better or much differently than Bush did? Because he was a strong supporter of that element of Bush policy.

Im not pointing fingers either way, I just don't think if Obama had been in charge it would have made any difference at all.

Probably not. Prezs get too much credit when the economy is good, and too much blame when it's bad. I never put all(some blame, not all) the blame for the crash on Bush, I still don't. The bubble and crash were because of policies and mistakes made by BOTH sides over 20+ years or so.

Could Bush, or any Prez in the 2000's stop the crash? Probably, there were signs, BUT no one was paying attention to those signs. The economy was going good, Wall Street and the banks were making money hand over fist. I doubt any president would have to balls, or even want to put the brakes on the bubble and the good times the bubble was creating.

Quite honestly any prez, even if he saw the signs would have probably just kept quiet and hoped the crash would happen after he was out of office. What politician would put the brakes on an economy going good? None that I know of.
 
Top Bottom