Obama's economy vs Bush's economy[W:125]

[mmi]

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.

Not true. The rate was 6.1 in Aug and Sept 2008, 6.5 in Oct, 6.8 in Nov, and 7.3 in Dec. As I noted, the rates in Jan and Feb 2009 (7.8 and 8.3) were experienced while Bush was still in the WH.

>>Prior to that point up through 2004, unemployment never grew past 6%.

Again, not true. U-3 ranged between 6.0 and 6.3 Apr-Oct 2003, was 6.0 in Dec 2002.

>>If you don't believe me, see for yourself: Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

I'm guessing you got that graph from a search return. You can access the BLS site directly for the data from the Current Population Survey at Household data series from the monthly A Tables.

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

2009-12 was a period of intensive care for the economy. Obummer had to stop the bleeding and then get the patient out of the hospital before he could get it back to work.

>>how do you propose we look at that, statistically speaking, to make a more objective picture. I'm reporting the numbers, and nothing else.

Imo, yers is a good faith, open-minded effort to understand what's been going on. We all have our opinions.

Ah, I didn't know that first bullet point

Interpreting data can be tricky.

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

I understand yer view on this. Fwiw, I'm not kidding. I have a blinding hatred of racism, and it does get the better of me.

>>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.

I'd point to Jun 2010, when it fell to 9.4, as an important month. There was a bump up to 9.8 in Nov, but that was quickly diminished.

please don't try to pretend that Bush 43 was a good steward of the economy - he wasn't.

I think ol' Doc Orange is looking for a discussion and not making any partisan claims.

MMI's use of phrases like that and "Obummer" merely indicate a polemic ploy by an Obama supporter.

They may indicate that to you. I use to them to express my disgust for the way the Right has cravenly exploited the president's race for political advantage.



>>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.

Truly moronic pseudologic.

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

If you figure it's a poor effort, I must be doing something right.

is there any evidence that Obama would have handled the financial crisis any better or much differently than Bush did?

I don't see how there could be. My thought is that he would not have advanced the policies that led to the crisis.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

I don't see how there could be. My thought is that he would not have advanced the policies that led to the crisis.

Except that he did. That's bias based myopathy there.

 

[SocialD]

Re: Obama's economy vs Bush's 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

Your data on household income is median not mean .. however median is the better measure to use.
One side note , if you look at the income for those same time periods adjusted for inflation then household income for that period for Bush lost about 600 dollars of buying power and during the Obama years lost about 1300 dollars.

 

[mmi]

Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

Except that he did.

When did Obummer advocate a dangerous deregulation of the financial sector?

 

[Fenton]

Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

When did Obummer advocate a dangerous deregulation of the financial sector?

Bush deregulated the Banks ?

Clinton signed the 2000 Commodities and Futures Modernization act AND the 1993 Riegle Neal Interstate Banking Act

Obama was a ACORN Plaintiffs attorney in Chicago and shook down Banks for supposed " discriminatory lending practices "

Holder worked for Janet Reno and helped shake down numerous Banks and lending institutions for refusing to lower their lending standards

Would it kill you to do just a bit of research before making some uniformed and innane comment ?

 

[mmi]

Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

Bush deregulated the Banks?

His administration failed to regulate adequately, if at all.

>>Clinton signed the 2000 Commodities and Futures Modernization act AND the 1993 Riegle Neal Interstate Banking Act

A mistake. Bush did nothing to address it. And the last time I checked, Obummer was not Clinton.

>>Obama was a ACORN Plaintiffs attorney in Chicago and shook down Banks for supposed "discriminatory lending practices"

More of yer usual BS.

>>Holder worked for Janet Reno and helped shake down numerous Banks and lending institutions for refusing to lower their lending standards

Ditto, and unrelated to Obummer.

>>Would it kill you to do just a bit of research before making some uniformed and innane comment?

Two ens in inane. Yer "research" into the housing crisis is just a jumbled mess of ignorant, bigoted, right-wing crap.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

His administration failed to regulate adequately, if at all.

>>Clinton signed the 2000 Commodities and Futures Modernization act AND the 1993 Riegle Neal Interstate Banking Act

A mistake. Bush did nothing to address it. And the last time I checked, Obummer was not Clinton.

>>Obama was a ACORN Plaintiffs attorney in Chicago and shook down Banks for supposed "discriminatory lending practices"

More of yer usual BS.

>>Holder worked for Janet Reno and helped shake down numerous Banks and lending institutions for refusing to lower their lending standards

Ditto, and unrelated to Obummer.

>>Would it kill you to do just a bit of research before making some uniformed and innane comment?

Two ens in inane. Yer "research" into the housing crisis is just a jumbled mess of ignorant, bigoted, right-wing crap.

You are unaware of the point I was making. The point wasn't that Bush had fault in some areas but that Obama would have done anything differently. I'm not seeing any evidence of that. He was all for the loosening of mortgage standards to increase home ownership.

 

[mmi]

Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

Obama … was all for the loosening of mortgage standards to increase home ownership.

This is a mischaracterization. Liberals don't want "loosened standards," they want equal opportunity. Sometimes a policy of what might be called "affirmative action" is required to accomplish that.

The claim that working-class blacks and Hispanics buying homes they couldn't afford was the cause of the housing crisis is right-wing nonsense. It was brilliant but unscrupulous bankers with their complex derivatives, greedy investors chasing high returns, crooked mortgage companies manipulating property valuations, and middle-class whites who just had to cash in to have those kitchen and bath remodeling jobs. Simply another example of the oldest game in the book.

Private King: Everybody know … the poor always being effed over by the rich. Always have, always will.​

 

[Kobie]

Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

Obama was a ACORN Plaintiffs attorney in Chicago and shook down Banks for supposed " discriminatory lending practices "

"Supposed"?

 

[Eric7216]

Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

>>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.

Truly moronic pseudologic.

Well, there has been a fairly recent and fairly significant decline in those who think race relations in the US are good and there have been a number of fake racial "attacks" or incidents recently.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...t=recent+bogus+racial+attacks+in+US&FORM=VDRE

 

[iguanaman]

Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

You are unaware of the point I was making. The point wasn't that Bush had fault in some areas but that Obama would have done anything differently. I'm not seeing any evidence of that. He was all for the loosening of mortgage standards to increase home ownership.

Only an idiot can still think that Bush cared a hoot about minorities owning homes. How did that work out? Home ownership is still below 2000 levels mostly because of his "interest" in increasing home ownership. Obama would never go along with such a blatant scheme to enrich Wall Street at the middle classes expense. The housing bubble was nothing but a flim flam cooked up by the Banks to make tons of money and it could only have been pulled off with a willing Congress and CIC.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

This is a mischaracterization. Liberals don't want "loosened standards," they want equal opportunity. Sometimes a policy of what might be called "affirmative action" is required to accomplish that.

The claim that working-class blacks and Hispanics buying homes they couldn't afford was the cause of the housing crisis is right-wing nonsense. It was brilliant but unscrupulous bankers with their complex derivatives, greedy investors chasing high returns, crooked mortgage companies manipulating property valuations, and middle-class whites who just had to cash in to have those kitchen and bath remodeling jobs. Simply another example of the oldest game in the book.

Private King: Everybody know … the poor always being effed over by the rich. Always have, always will.​

No, actually the crooked mortgage companies were manipulating the mortgage bundle grading, not the property values. Look, I am not going into race/class/party warfare here. I am just asking what Obama would have done differently, and the answer appears to be nothing.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

Only an idiot can still think that Bush cared a hoot about minorities owning homes. How did that work out? Home ownership is still below 2000 levels mostly because of his "interest" in increasing home ownership. Obama would never go along with such a blatant scheme to enrich Wall Street at the middle classes expense. The housing bubble was nothing but a flim flam cooked up by the Banks to make tons of money and it could only have been pulled off with a willing Congress and CIC.

What's crazy is Bush is blamed both for implementing the programs and blamed for not doing enough when by all accounts, it was more than enough. So pick one or the other but you can't blame him for the sub prime and then say he didn't do enough. Paradoxical at best.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

Only an idiot can still think that Bush cared a hoot about minorities owning homes.

I disagree. I do think Bush genuinely wanted to increase home ownership in minority communities.

His policies for handling that were not perfect, but neither were anyone else's, including Obama. In particular, Obama's adjustments to foreclosure policies had very little effect.

 

[mmi]

Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

No, actually the crooked mortgage companies were manipulating the mortgage bundle grading, not the property values.

You don't think lenders and realtors seek to benefit from pressuring appraisers to play with valuations? I'd say it goes on all the time, and from what I understand, in the bubble environment it got to be quite a feeding frenzy.

>>I am just asking what Obama would have done differently, and the answer appears to be nothing.

Look again. My answer is that Obama would not have created the problem in the first place. You can, and I'm sure will, believe whatever you want.

So pick one or the other but you can't blame him for the sub prime and then say he didn't do enough.

I'm not following that at all. Bush trusted the private sector too much. Like many on the Right, he sees regulation as interference. I'm blaming his administration for applying this view to the home mortgage industry.

"Didn't do enough" what? I'm saying he didn't regulate enough.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

No, actually the crooked mortgage companies were manipulating the mortgage bundle grading, not the property values.

Sure, their writing mortgages to dogs and dead people had no effect on property values.
Oh, and I have a nice bridge in NYC for sale too...

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

You don't think lenders and realtors seek to benefit from pressuring appraisers to play with valuations? I'd say it goes on all the time, and from what I understand, in the bubble environment it got to be quite a feeding frenzy.

>>I am just asking what Obama would have done differently, and the answer appears to be nothing.

Look again. My answer is that Obama would not have created the problem in the first place. You can, and I'm sure will, believe whatever you want.



I'm not following that at all. Bush trusted the private sector too much. Like many on the Right, he sees regulation as interference. I'm blaming his administration for applying this view to the home mortgage industry.

"Didn't do enough" what? I'm saying he didn't regulate enough.

You are simultaneously blaming it all on Bush and also indicating he didn't do it for the same reasons the other politicians did. Your argument doesn't hold water, hell it doesn't even hold basketball sized rocks.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

Sure, their writing mortgages to dogs and dead people had no effect on property values.
Oh, and I have a nice bridge in NYC for sale too...

Your contribution to the thread or the lack of it is duly noted.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

Your contribution to the thread or the lack of it is duly noted.

Your inability to defend your argument that brokers had no effect on house prices is "duly noted", ergo, you have conceded the point.....brokers did have an effect on prices since their willingness to write mortgages for even non-humans and dead humans caused a flood of dollars (demand) into the housing market.

 

[mmi]

Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

You are simultaneously blaming it all on Bush

I blaming a lot of it on the Bush administration. Makes sense I figure, cuz they were in charge for eight years AND they strongly favoured deregulation.

>> and also indicating he didn't do it for the same reasons the other politicians did.

Oy "Didn't do" what?? What is it you think I'm saying the Bush crowd didn't do? Adequately regulate the home mortgage industry? Yes, I'm saying they didn't. How is saying that they didn't adequately regulate inconsistent with blaming them … for not regulating adequately?

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

Your contribution to the thread or the lack of it is duly noted.

He has a point. My house was paid for when the crash hit, so I had no dog in the fight. But in 2006 I had a realtor appraise my house for $450,000. LOL. It's a nice house, worth $250,000 to $300,00 then, and now. But $450,000? Nope, but 2006? The market was going wild. everyone was writing mortgages and houses were selling like crazy. The realtor was very sure he could sell it for $450,000.

It most certainly had an affect on property values and housing prices.

 

[BitterPill]

Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

He has a point. My house was paid for when the crash hit, so I had no dog in the fight. But in 2006 I had a realtor appraise my house for $450,000. LOL. It's a nice house, worth $250,000 to $300,00 then, and now. But $450,000? Nope, but 2006? The market was going wild. everyone was writing mortgages and houses were selling like crazy. The realtor was very sure he could sell it for $450,000.

It most certainly had an affect on property values and housing prices.

Come to think of it, I made a killing off the recession. Thanks, Bush!

Still, I'd give it all back if it meant the recession never happened.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

He has a point. My house was paid for when the crash hit, so I had no dog in the fight. But in 2006 I had a realtor appraise my house for $450,000. LOL. It's a nice house, worth $250,000 to $300,00 then, and now. But $450,000? Nope, but 2006? The market was going wild. everyone was writing mortgages and houses were selling like crazy. The realtor was very sure he could sell it for $450,000.

It most certainly had an affect on property values and housing prices.

Sure it did, but that was market pressure and demand. The demand was artificial, that doesn't mean it was deliberate or the responsibility of the banks. Now the bundle appraisal values, that's a direct fraud.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

Come to think of it, I made a killing off the recession. Thanks, Bush!

Still, I'd give it all back if it meant the recession never happened.

Oh yeah, part of me is still wishing I had put it on the market and sold it in 2006 for $450,000. But I didn't pull the trigger. We talked about it, but decided to sit tight for another couple of years. Well 2 years later was 2008, and then it was too late.

I could have made a very nice profit if I sold it then though. Very, very nice.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Re 1 of 2: Scientific proof that a conservative president is better for the econo

I blaming a lot of it on the Bush administration. Makes sense I figure, cuz they were in charge for eight years AND they strongly favoured deregulation.

>> and also indicating he didn't do it for the same reasons the other politicians did.

Oy "Didn't do" what?? What is it you think I'm saying the Bush crowd didn't do? Adequately regulate the home mortgage industry? Yes, I'm saying they didn't. How is saying that they didn't adequately regulate inconsistent with blaming them … for not regulating adequately?

No you want to say Bush was not doing it for the reason of growing home ownership. You seem to want to paint him as the villain no matter the situation and no matter what anyone else is doing. Its just partisan noise.