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%
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
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°.
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
None of what you say is "scientific proof." It's poorly devised statistical conjecture.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.
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.when Obama took office unemployment was at 7.8%, and it raised steadily from there up until February of 2013.
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.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%
Again: Can't compare, as Bush was President during a huge bubble, and the worst effects hit during Obama's presidency.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....
You didn't index your numbers for inflation. FailMean 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.
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:
Unemployment:
and Income:
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
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%.
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.
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).
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
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:
Unemployment:
and Income:
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
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"?
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:
There is nothing "scientific" about citing a handful of statistics, without any context, and with obvious biased intent.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.
:roll: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.
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
before the Negro communist was sworn in.
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
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.Another racist anti-Obama type, what's new.
Another racist anti-Obama type, what's new.
Moderator's Warning: |
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?