Seven Years Later, Recovery Remains the Weakest of the Post-World War II Era

[Grim17]

Obama did not have year of at least 3% growth, but he also did not preside over an economic collapse in the last year of his presidency like his predecessor. Bush had inherited a much better situation from Clinton, than he turned over to Obama.

With the exception of Clinton, every one of the last 6 presidents has faced a struggling economy, none of which can be attributed to policies they themselves put into place. The true measure of a president isn't whether they faced a recession, but the effectiveness of the policies they implemented in order to combat the economic decline.

Carter came into office with a crappy economy and the policies he implemented during 4 years in office only made things worse. His policies are responsible for creating what is known as "stagflation". He failed.

Reagan came into office with an economy that had been reeling for years, and early on in his first term faced another economic recession. His policies turned things around and led to years of economic growth and prosperity. Reagan's economic policies were a success.

Bush Sr. faced a small recession in mid 1990 and implemented policies that corrected the situation. Unfortunately, because it involved raising taxes, it lost him the election in 1992. Those policies did however, allow President Clinton to enter office with a strong and growing economy that remained strong until the last year of his presidency. So Bush's policies were a success.

George W. Bush entered office with an economy that was in a slight downturn. He implemented a policy involving tax cuts, but that policy was undercut by the terrorist attacks on September 11th which sent the economy into a tailspin. He then implemented a second round of tax cuts in 2003 and those tax cuts were effective in spurring economic growth and turning things around. Bush's economic policies were successful until the collapse of the housing market in 2007 brought the American economy to it's knees.

Obama entered office facing an economic disaster, but the question is, were his policies effective in turning things around? Based on what I have seen, I would have to say no. The action he took right after taking office was the $800 billion stimulus package, which ended up being the greatest waste of tax payer money in the history of the republic. It did nothing in the short term, or long term to bolster the economy. Adding to that, he and his democratic allies decided to focus on universal health care instead of economic stability. They pushed through the greatest government spending bill in history, right in the middle of the worse economic crisis since WWII. I call that "taking you eye off the ball" in a monumental way.

When you look at where we are today with years of small, sub-par GDP growth, record numbers of Americans not working, those who are employed getting fewer hours and smaller paychecks, and middle class families facing higher insurance premiums for coverage that many of them don't want or need, there is no way you can possibly say that Obama's economic policies have been successful.


.

 

[finebead]

With the exception of Clinton, every one of the last 6 presidents has faced a struggling economy, none of which can be attributed to policies they themselves put into place. The true measure of a president isn't whether they faced a recession, but the effectiveness of the policies they implemented in order to combat the economic decline.

George W. Bush entered office with an economy that was in a slight downturn. Bush's economic policies were successful until the collapse of the housing market in 2007 brought the American economy to it's knees.

Obama entered office facing an economic disaster, but the question is, were his policies effective in turning things around? Based on what I have seen, I would have to say no. The action he took right after taking office was the $800 billion stimulus package, which ended up being the greatest waste of tax payer money in the history of the republic. It did nothing in the short term, or long term to bolster the economy. Adding to that, he and his democratic allies decided to focus on universal health care instead of economic stability. They pushed through the greatest government spending bill in history, right in the middle of the worse economic crisis since WWII. I call that "taking you eye off the ball" in a monumental way.

When you look at where we are today with years of small, sub-par GDP growth, record numbers of Americans not working, those who are employed getting fewer hours and smaller paychecks, and middle class families facing higher insurance premiums for coverage that many of them don't want or need, there is no way you can possibly say that Obama's economic policies have been successful.

There is a whole lot of repub mythology in that over-simplified story. Carter faced high inflation brought on by the repubs, both Nixon and Ford tried to tamp it down and failed (remember wage and price controls under the repubs, and WIN buttons?, both failures). Carter did one of the most important things, he appointed lifelong dem Paul Volker as Fed chairman in 1978, and Volker raised interest rates until he broke the back of inflation which endures to this day, 35 years later. Reagan was smart enough to leave Volker as Fed chairman and let him finish the job he started, but Carter really started it.

Reagan had a lot of technology luck in his term, which was more important than anything Reagan did to help the economy. IBM legitimized the personal computer in corp. america in 1981 by introducing the IBM pc. Spreadsheets made people much more productive, as well as email made communications so much more efficient. The fuel efficiency standards enacted by the dem congress in the mid 70's kicked in, and combined with exploration spurred by $35 a barrel oil (vs. $10 in the late 60's), we had a glut of oil through the 80's and the price went back down to $10 a barrel for an extended period. These things were much more important than his tax cuts. The tax cuts never produced the increased income tax revenue promised, and that is why Bush I had to raise taxes in the 90's, breaking his stupid pledge, what an idiot, he did not deserve a second term. His economy was so bad he lost the 1992 election on Clinton's slogan "It's the economy, stupid", for which Bush had NO COMEBACK. He really was that stupid, a nice man, but not too bright, just like his sons.

You give Clinton no credit, but he took a moribund economy and made it crackle with life. He raised taxes on top of Bush I's increase, did not increase spending, and as the US deficit came down, the govt. left the credit market, allowing interest rates to come down naturally. He had some luck with the emergence of the internet, but he balanced the budget and overall did a good job.

The thing that you miss, is that the nature of the economy was changing decade by decade. In the 70's auto world you send 100 men in the ground to dig up iron and coal, send it on a train to Pittsburg and make steel, send it on a train to Detroit where more hundreds of people made a car. In the 2000's software world, 50 guys write Windows and create a huge boost to GDP and Bill Gates becomes one of the richest men in america, all on intellectual property, and no physical construction takes place.

So many things are changing it is not easy to attribute CAUSE to one thing. And nothing says that what worked 30 years ago would work today, which I think is a big part of the problem, trying to apply age old solutions to new age problems. That is why it has not worked since 2000, for repubs OR dems. People are just too stupid to figure it out, since its complicated. Politicians can tell them anything may work, and they will believe it if they THINK they are supposed to like the party message. Then they say, the insiders are the problem, lets try an outsider. They are destined to be just as disappointed, because they have not precisely defined what the problem is, so they will accept ANY solution.

 

[Grim17]

You give Clinton no credit, but he took a moribund economy and made it crackle with life.

Clinton deserves credit for keeping things humming along economically, but the policies were already in place before he even took office.

The reason I didn't mention him, was because he was never put in a position where he had to fix an economic downturn.

 

[year2late]

I didn't deflect to Obama. I asked a question you aren't prepared to answer. If deficits bother you like you claim, how do you feel about Obamas deficits, which are actually greater than Bush's. You wont answer and I understand why.

Again, you deflected towards Obama.

Obama got a nonsensical huge bill for Bush's war. A war with a bill that is still adding charges.

 

[year2late]

Yup

What idiot wages war but cuts taxes? They had no plan for the post invasion and no plan to pay for it, boggles the mind.

Our descendants had square foot gardens. We are given checks and told to buy stuff we don't need.

 

[finebead]

Clinton deserves credit for keeping things humming along economically, but the policies were already in place before he even took office.

The reason I didn't mention him, was because he was never put in a position where he had to fix an economic downturn.

No, Clinton did a tax increase on top of Bush I's tax increase, cancelling the Reagan tax cuts (that resulted in quadrupling the total national debt in 8 years). The growing size of the deficit is why Bush I broke his tax pledge and raised taxes. At least Bush I had integrity and did the right thing for the nation, even if it meant costing him re-election. I will always respect him for putting the nation first.

And no, Bush certainly did not set the table for Clinton. Bush lost the election over his mishandling of the economy. He was very popular after Desert Storm, but that was not enough to get him re-elected.

 

[Grim17]

No, Clinton did a tax increase on top of Bush I's tax increase, cancelling the Reagan tax cuts (that resulted in quadrupling the total national debt in 8 years). The growing size of the deficit is why Bush I broke his tax pledge and raised taxes. At least Bush I had integrity and did the right thing for the nation, even if it meant costing him re-election. I will always respect him for putting the nation first.

And no, Bush certainly did not set the table for Clinton. Bush lost the election over his mishandling of the economy. He was very popular after Desert Storm, but that was not enough to get him re-elected.

Again, you seem to missing the point that Clinton did not face an economic downturn until the end of his presidency, so never had to take action to correct it. Therefore he is irrelevant to the comparison being made between Obama and other presidents over the last 40 years.


.

 

[Grim17]

And no, Bush certainly did not set the table for Clinton.

The numbers don't seem to agree with you:

 

[Fledermaus]

the race card implies im trying to win an argument of some kind, I'm not

The race care implies you already lost any argument you may have had.

 

[Kushinator]

At no point was it said that the economy didn't expand but, that it was doing so slowly.

Why do you believe post-industrial economies (primarily driven by the service sector) to grow in par with previous periods of industrialization?

 

[Kushinator]

The numbers don't seem to agree with you:

So what you're saying is, raising taxes on the wealthy doesn't reduce economic activity, the way it is constantly portrayed?

 

[Conservative]

So what you're saying is, raising taxes on the wealthy doesn't reduce economic activity, the way it is constantly portrayed?

Raising taxes on anyone takes money out of the private sector and the states to put it in the hands of the Govt. and that doesn't benefit the economy but it does increase govt. spending thus impacting the national debt

 

[Absentglare]

Hillary on Fox News Sunday just said Obama didn't spend enough and she will spend more on infrestructure project to get people back to work.

Where will that money come from?

Do we want more government jobs or more private sector jobs?

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Kushinator]

Raising taxes on anyone takes money out of the private sector and the states to put it in the hands of the Govt. and that doesn't benefit the economy but it does increase govt. spending thus impacting the national debt

How long will it take you to realize that all money (and then some) taken from the private sector goes right back into the private sector? We are talking basic **** here.

 

[Conservative]

So what you're saying is, raising taxes on the wealthy doesn't reduce economic activity, the way it is constantly portrayed?

What I find interesting in most of your posts is how you focus on Keynesian economics to promote bigger federal govt. ignoring that unless that govt. spending is in the private sector it doesn't truly benefit the economy only creating more and more powerful govt. thus adding to the massive debt we have. Reagan showed what happens when you spend money in the private sector, i.e. defense contractors and the multiplier affect that spending had something the left and apparently you still don't understand.

 

[Absentglare]

With the exception of Clinton, every one of the last 6 presidents has faced a struggling economy, none of which can be attributed to policies they themselves put into place.

Complete horse****.

President Bush 2's forced deregulation of the subprime lending policies at the state level crashed the economy. That is THE problem President Obama was faced with and he handled it far better than President Bush 2 tried to.

 

[Conservative]

How long will it take you to realize that all money (and then some) taken from the private sector goes right back into the private sector? We are talking basic **** here.

No, sorry much of it goes to entitlement spending and cuts down on discretionary spending which hurts the economy.

 

[Absentglare]

Raising taxes on anyone takes money out of the private sector and the states to put it in the hands of the Govt. and that doesn't benefit the economy but it does increase govt. spending thus impacting the national debt

First half, take out "and the states" and you'd actually be correct- second half, completely incorrect.

 

[Conservative]

Complete horse****.

President Bush 2's forced deregulation of the subprime lending policies at the state level crashed the economy. That is THE problem President Obama was faced with and he handled it far better than President Bush 2 tried to.

That is leftwing bull**** and typical of passing the buck and blame that belongs to more than Bush. It wasn't the deregulation alone that caused the crash but very low interest rates in the 90's after the dot.com bubble burst that led to increased real estate demand driving up prices.

 

[Conservative]

First half, take out "and the states" and you'd actually be correct- second half, completely incorrect.

So we have a proposal for a 4.2 trillion dollar budget does impact that national debt and all that does is increase govt. power

 

[Kushinator]

What I find interesting in most of your posts is how you focus on Keynesian economics to promote bigger federal govt. ignoring that unless that govt. spending is in the private sector it doesn't truly benefit the economy only creating more and more powerful govt. thus adding to the massive debt we have. Reagan showed what happens when you spend money in the private sector, i.e. defense contractors and the multiplier affect that spending had something the left and apparently you still don't understand.

We get it! It's only ok to run massive deficits when a Republican is in office.

 

[Conservative]

We get it! It's only ok to run massive deficits when a Republican is in office.

That is your opinion, both Reagan and Bush left office with the debt to GDP far less than 100% which it is today. Bush debt is much worse than Reagan's in that Reagan's debt to GDP was 50% whereas Bush's was 70%. Reagan created a peace dividend that was spent. Guess the definition of massive debt needs to be defined which you have yet to do

 

[Kushinator]

It wasn't the deregulation alone that caused the crash but very low interest rates in the 90's after the dot.com bubble burst that led to increased real estate demand driving up prices.

First and foremost, the dot com bubble didn't burst until AFTER 2000. Secondly:

Another instance of you not having a clue about the topic you choose to discuss.

 

[Kushinator]

That is your opinion, both Reagan and Bush left office with the debt to GDP far less than 100% which it is today. Bush debt is much worse than Reagan's in that Reagan's debt to GDP was 50% whereas Bush's was 70%. Reagan created a peace dividend that was spent. Guess the definition of massive debt needs to be defined which you have yet to do

It's not a matter of opinion, it is strictly an observation. Deficits are ok when they spawn from Republican administrations; your own words are a testament to this.

 

[Kushinator]

No, sorry much of it goes to entitlement spending and cuts down on discretionary spending which hurts the economy.

Entitlement spending flows back into the the private sector at nearly a 100% rate! Please try and keep up.