Obama the first president to never have 3% growth in GDP

[1jkw]

4 minutes ago, snoughnut said:

They knew what they were doing, they wouldn't listen because there's too much for them to lose out on. The elites in this country (dems and reps) are playing Americans for fools, they get rich and we get to clean up the mess. Once again, we get the govt. we deserve. It's absolutely hilarious to me that no bankers or politicians are in jail and taxpayers had to pay for the mess SMH.

 

Yes, the old socialize losses privatize profits.

[Badger**]

Obama the first president to out spend all the other presidents combined. He claims we have a 12% unemployment rate here in the US LMAO try over 20%. On his first run for office Obama's platform was to cut the deficit now look the mess he put this country in.    

Case in point Milwaukee 16,000 people lost there government welfare in February 2016 and now there are marked as gainfully employed what maybe 3,000 found jobs if they are lucky??

When I was in the Milwaukee years pasts on a nice sunny day I would have maybe one or two guys asking for hand outs. This time in the cold driving rain I had more like thirty asking me for hand outs.

 

 

    

[racer254]

10 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

No doubt Detroit was under dem. control and it is fucked. And yes like it or not red states do get more federal assistance, you can goole it.

I don't have to google it.  I want to know your thoughts on what they get for federal assistance and why.  This is beyond who gets more federal assistance.

[1jkw]

2 minutes ago, racer254 said:

I don't have to google it.  I want to know your thoughts on what they get for federal assistance and why.  This is beyond who gets more federal assistance.

SNAP benefits for one.

[racer254]

3 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

SNAP benefits for one.

You mean the benefits that are bundled in with farm subsidies.  So valid comparisons can't be made?

Keep going.  Eventually, you may realize the bullshit.

[1jkw]

14 minutes ago, Axys1 said:

Obama the first president to out spend all the other presidents combined. He claims we have a 12% unemployment rate here in the US LMAO try over 20%. On his first run for office Obama's platform was to cut the deficit now look the mess he put this country in.    

Case in point Milwaukee 16,000 people lost there government welfare in February 2016 and now there are marked as gainfully employed what maybe 3,000 found jobs if they are lucky??

When I was in the Milwaukee years pasts on a nice sunny day I would have maybe one or two guys asking for hand outs. This time in the cold driving rain I had more like thirty asking me for hand outs.

 

 

    

Obama is not the first president to out spend all others it was Reagan then W and now Obama.

Obama has cut the deficit, he will also double or nearly double the debt just like W did but not triple it like Reagan did.

Unemployment  has been measured by the same method since Reagan and is always higher than the quote real unemployment rate.

Where I live in NEPA from 07 to 09 there were no jobs either and businesses closed now not only are they reopened many have expanded and it is very difficult to hire anyone.

[Badger**]

10 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

Obama is not the first president to out spend all others it was Reagan then W and now Obama.

Obama has cut the deficit, he will also double or nearly double the debt just like W did but not triple it like Reagan did.

Unemployment  has been measured by the same method since Reagan and is always higher than the quote real unemployment rate.

Where I live in NEPA from 07 to 09 there were no jobs either and businesses closed now not only are they reopened many have expanded and it is very difficult to hire anyone.

Did you fall off the short bus as a kid?? When Obama first came into office our deficit was 8 trillion now we are at 16 trillion.  

[jtssrx]

1 hour ago, 1jkw said:

Yes it was 10.6  not 9.

 

The debt will likely be 20 trillion, much of it will be from coming out of the financial collapse and the wars and interest on the debt.

Answer this question. How much of the debt incurred under Obama is the interest on the 10.6 Trillion and the Iraq and Afgan. wars?

Just an FYI the Debt Prior to Bush was 5.6 trillion. So why do you keep pretending all of the 10.6 trillion is from the war in Iraq? Furthermore I am not a supporter of Bush or the war in Iraq. However at the time I was just like the 99% of congress was. Unlike you I don't support republicans or Democrats. This bullshit pointing the finger crap your doing doesn't excuse the doubling of our national debt. If you want to excuse it that's your prerogative but your only making the problem worse.

[Mikeadoo]

1 hour ago, 1jkw said:

 

What states people are most  get the most federal assistance red or blue?

???

[racer254]

15 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

Obama is not the first president to out spend all others it was Reagan then W and now Obama.

Obama has cut the deficit, he will also double or nearly double the debt just like W did but not triple it like Reagan did.

Unemployment  has been measured by the same method since Reagan and is always higher than the quote real unemployment rate.

Where I live in NEPA from 07 to 09 there were no jobs either and businesses closed now not only are they reopened many have expanded and it is very difficult to hire anyone.

Who taught you about presidents and spending?

[jtssrx]

23 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

Obama is not the first president to out spend all others it was Reagan then W and now Obama.

Obama has cut the deficit, he will also double or nearly double the debt just like W did but not triple it like Reagan did.

Unemployment  has been measured by the same method since Reagan and is always higher than the quote real unemployment rate.

Where I live in NEPA from 07 to 09 there were no jobs either and businesses closed now not only are they reopened many have expanded and it is very difficult to hire anyone.

This was written in 2014. The number are worse now.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2014/09/11/sorry-obama-fans-reagan-did-better-on-jobs-and-growth/#7a29aeb13c92

Supporters of President Barack Obama, such as one of his campaign donors Robert Deitrick, an Ohio financial advisor often quoted in Forbes and elsewhere, insist that the Obama economy has been much more robust than Ronald Reagan’s. Are they right?

Let’s look at some numbers. President Reagan entered office in a period of high inflation which was stamped out by high interest rates that in turn led to the 1982 recession. His job-creation record after that may fairly be termed outstanding: nearly 20 million more Americans were employed when he left office than when the recession ended. Overall, including the recession on his watch, Reagan’s net job growth over eight years was 16.1 million.

Ronald Reagan wearing cowboy hat at Rancho del Cielo. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Barack Obama entered office in different circumstances: He inherited a recession that was already well underway, which ended much earlier in his presidency than did the Reagan recession. If you think of the economic cycle like a bouncing ball, Obama entered office just as the ball was about to strike the pavement. The bounce, though, has proceeded in agonizingly slow motion. Some eight million jobs have been created under Obama since the mid-2009 end of the recession, with a net gain of about five million. Charting Obama and Reagan’s job-creation against overall U.S. population increases makes the picture look even worse for Obama, and the Reagan-era U.S. had a much smaller population. At any rate, more people have been added to the food-stamp rolls than the job rolls under Obama.

 

It’s misleading to compare employment rates during the two presidencies. Imagine 90 out of 100 people are employed, and because the economy looks like it’s picking up more steam 10 more people enter the workforce. If nine out of ten of them find jobs, the unemployment rate doesn’t go down at all, yet ten percent more people are employed.

Reagan’s economy was so strong that, for the last three-quarters of his administration, Americans were flooding  into the workforce. Under Obama, the opposite has happened, and those who have given up on working aren’t counted as unemployed. Even today, more than five years into the tepid recovery, labor-force participation remains at its lowest level since 1978. Don’t blame waves of retirement for that fact: the Census Bureau reported that, from 2005 to 2010, older Americans actually became more likely to be employed. The percentage of 65-69 year-olds remaining in the workforce jumped from 26 percent to 32 percent over a ten-year-period ending in 2012. Among those 70-74 the jump was even more startling: from 14 percent to 19.5 percent. Meanwhile workers in the prime of their lives have simply left the playing field.

Recommended by Forbes

 

How about overall growth? GDP under Reagan was turbocharged compared to the Obama years. The Reagan years brought annual real GDP growth of 3.5 percent – 4.9 percent after the recession. In inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars, GDP jumped from 6.5 trillion at the end of 1980 to 8.61 trillion at the end of 1988. That’s a 32 percent bump. As Peter Ferrara pointed out on Forbes, it was the equivalent of adding the West German economy to the U.S. one.

Under Obama, GDP up to June 30, 2014 has grown an anemic 9.6 percent, total . Reagan-era growth was far more than double the Obama rate.

Ah, but did all of that Reagan bounty trickle down to ordinary Americans, though? Yes. Real (inflation-adjusted) median household income shot up some ten percent in the Reagan years. It has flatlined under Obama.

English: Barack Obama delivers a speech at the University of Southern California (Video of the speech) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

How about Reagan’s spending record? Contrary to myth, and despite the opposition of a Democratic House of Representatives for his entire administration, Reagan achieved a reduction in federal spending as a percentage of GDP. That’s including his famed military buildup often credited with ending the Cold War and hence delivering the “peace dividend” that helped dampen federal spending in the 1990s, in which Reagan economic policy largely stayed in place. Spending fell from 22.9 percent of GDP to 22.1 percent in 1989, whereas under Obama it has hit as high as 25 percent and has steadily hovered above 24 percent. Total accumulated debt was at 53 percent of GDP when Reagan left office. Today it is at 102.7 percent of GDP, a level unprecedented since WW II. The debt has exploded by 66 percent in the Obama years.

Does a president control the economy like a puppeteer? No, nor does a president have the power to spend; that’s a Congressional duty. Nevertheless, to argue that the economy is doing better under Obama than it did under Reagan is at best obtuse and at worst partisan hackery.

Edited May 27, 2016 by jtssrx

[racer254]

You can tell that the liberal rhetoric for the last 8 years is to paint Reagan as a bad president to the people who were to young to remember his presidency.

[1jkw]

1 hour ago, jtssrx said:

Just an FYI the Debt Prior to Bush was 5.6 trillion. So why do you keep pretending all of the 10.6 trillion is from the war in Iraq? Furthermore I am not a supporter of Bush or the war in Iraq. However at the time I was just like the 99% of congress was. Unlike you I don't support republicans or Democrats. This bullshit pointing the finger crap your doing doesn't excuse the doubling of our national debt. If you want to excuse it that's your prerogative but your only making the problem worse.

I'm not pretending anything, I asked what amount of the debt accrued  by Obama was the interest on the 10.6 trillion that was on the books when he took office.

Then I asked what amount of the debt added under Obama was spent on the Iraq and Afgan. wars.

I never said that all of the debt was from the wars.

The debt grew by 5 trillion or nearly double as the housing boom and the jobs created by the wars made for  extremely strong tax revenues, then the worst economic times since the great depression happened, and the revenues dropped but the war in Afg. tripled in size and we had 2 more years of Iraq and all added costs of UE bennies and all the other shit the government spends money on.

[1jkw]

1 hour ago, Axys1 said:

Did you fall off the short bus as a kid?? When Obama first came into office our deficit was 8 trillion now we are at 16 trillion.  

Google US debt Jan. 2009.

It was 10.6 trillion and now 19 trillion.

[Badger**]

Just now, 1jkw said:

Google US debt Jan. 2009.

It was 10.6 trillion and now 19 trillion.

Close enough I'll take your word on it. So he doing a dam good job for us. 

[1jkw]

1 hour ago, jtssrx said:

This was written in 2014. The number are worse now.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2014/09/11/sorry-obama-fans-reagan-did-better-on-jobs-and-growth/#7a29aeb13c92

Supporters of President Barack Obama, such as one of his campaign donors Robert Deitrick, an Ohio financial advisor often quoted in Forbes and elsewhere, insist that the Obama economy has been much more robust than Ronald Reagan’s. Are they right?

Let’s look at some numbers. President Reagan entered office in a period of high inflation which was stamped out by high interest rates that in turn led to the 1982 recession. His job-creation record after that may fairly be termed outstanding: nearly 20 million more Americans were employed when he left office than when the recession ended. Overall, including the recession on his watch, Reagan’s net job growth over eight years was 16.1 million.

Ronald Reagan wearing cowboy hat at Rancho del Cielo. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Barack Obama entered office in different circumstances: He inherited a recession that was already well underway, which ended much earlier in his presidency than did the Reagan recession. If you think of the economic cycle like a bouncing ball, Obama entered office just as the ball was about to strike the pavement. The bounce, though, has proceeded in agonizingly slow motion. Some eight million jobs have been created under Obama since the mid-2009 end of the recession, with a net gain of about five million. Charting Obama and Reagan’s job-creation against overall U.S. population increases makes the picture look even worse for Obama, and the Reagan-era U.S. had a much smaller population. At any rate, more people have been added to the food-stamp rolls than the job rolls under Obama.

 

It’s misleading to compare employment rates during the two presidencies. Imagine 90 out of 100 people are employed, and because the economy looks like it’s picking up more steam 10 more people enter the workforce. If nine out of ten of them find jobs, the unemployment rate doesn’t go down at all, yet ten percent more people are employed.

Reagan’s economy was so strong that, for the last three-quarters of his administration, Americans were flooding  into the workforce. Under Obama, the opposite has happened, and those who have given up on working aren’t counted as unemployed. Even today, more than five years into the tepid recovery, labor-force participation remains at its lowest level since 1978. Don’t blame waves of retirement for that fact: the Census Bureau reported that, from 2005 to 2010, older Americans actually became more likely to be employed. The percentage of 65-69 year-olds remaining in the workforce jumped from 26 percent to 32 percent over a ten-year-period ending in 2012. Among those 70-74 the jump was even more startling: from 14 percent to 19.5 percent. Meanwhile workers in the prime of their lives have simply left the playing field.

Recommended by Forbes

 

How about overall growth? GDP under Reagan was turbocharged compared to the Obama years. The Reagan years brought annual real GDP growth of 3.5 percent – 4.9 percent after the recession. In inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars, GDP jumped from 6.5 trillion at the end of 1980 to 8.61 trillion at the end of 1988. That’s a 32 percent bump. As Peter Ferrara pointed out on Forbes, it was the equivalent of adding the West German economy to the U.S. one.

Under Obama, GDP up to June 30, 2014 has grown an anemic 9.6 percent, total . Reagan-era growth was far more than double the Obama rate.

Ah, but did all of that Reagan bounty trickle down to ordinary Americans, though? Yes. Real (inflation-adjusted) median household income shot up some ten percent in the Reagan years. It has flatlined under Obama.

English: Barack Obama delivers a speech at the University of Southern California (Video of the speech) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

How about Reagan’s spending record? Contrary to myth, and despite the opposition of a Democratic House of Representatives for his entire administration, Reagan achieved a reduction in federal spending as a percentage of GDP. That’s including his famed military buildup often credited with ending the Cold War and hence delivering the “peace dividend” that helped dampen federal spending in the 1990s, in which Reagan economic policy largely stayed in place. Spending fell from 22.9 percent of GDP to 22.1 percent in 1989, whereas under Obama it has hit as high as 25 percent and has steadily hovered above 24 percent. Total accumulated debt was at 53 percent of GDP when Reagan left office. Today it is at 102.7 percent of GDP, a level unprecedented since WW II. The debt has exploded by 66 percent in the Obama years.

Does a president control the economy like a puppeteer? No, nor does a president have the power to spend; that’s a Congressional duty. Nevertheless, to argue that the economy is doing better under Obama than it did under Reagan is at best obtuse and at worst partisan hackery.

I never said the Obama economy is better than it was under Reagan.

Reagan tripled the debt, and was the first pres. to out spend all others put together.

Reagan didn't deal with 2 wars and the worst economic times since the depression, nor were the effects of off shoring and trade deals in place while he was pres.

[1jkw]

2 minutes ago, Axys1 said:

Close enough I'll take your word on it. So he doing a dam good job for us. 

So I'll ask you. Out of the debt added by Obama how much is the interest on the debt he inherited and the cost of the 2 wars he inherited?

[racer254]

33 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

I never said the Obama economy is better than it was under Reagan.

Reagan tripled the debt, and was the first pres. to out spend all others put together.

Reagan didn't deal with 2 wars and the worst economic times since the depression, nor were the effects of off shoring and trade deals in place while he was pres.

Can you give us the actual numbers for each president back to FDR?

 

And you want to put another clinton in office?

Edited May 27, 2016 by racer254

[jtssrx]

45 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

I never said the Obama economy is better than it was under Reagan.

Reagan tripled the debt, and was the first pres. to out spend all others put together.

Reagan didn't deal with 2 wars and the worst economic times since the depression, nor were the effects of off shoring and trade deals in place while he was pres.

You're assessment of the worst economic times since the great depression is a laugh. First and foremost there wouldn't have been an issue in 2007 if Bill Clinton didn't reverse the Glass/Steagal Act. You have a unique way of framing all these issues as problems created by republicans.

 

Bush is a fucking idiot. The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a waste of American lives and treasure. But please stop pretending the debt we are occurring today is a result of those wars.

 

[1jkw]

1 hour ago, racer254 said:

Can you give us the actual numbers for each president back to FDR?

 

And you want to put another clinton in office?

I'm sure you can Google it.

 

I never ever said I wanted HC in office.

 

[1jkw]

25 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

You're assessment of the worst economic times since the great depression is a laugh. First and foremost there wouldn't have been an issue in 2007 if Bill Clinton didn't reverse the Glass/Steagal Act. You have a unique way of framing all these issues as problems created by republicans.

 

Bush is a fucking idiot. The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a waste of American lives and treasure. But please stop pretending the debt we are occurring today is a result of those wars.

 

Bill Clinton signed a bill sponsored by 3 republicans, GLB ACT, every rep senator voted for the bill 1 dem voted for it 207 r house members voted for it 5 against, 155 d members voted for it and 51 against.

So a republican bill overwhelmingly supported by republicans, is a unique way of framing things?

The fact that federal regulators didn't do their jobs and bankers were allowed to break the law is what caused it, there were ample rules in place had they been enforced.

Please stop thinking that the 4 trillion plus we borrowed to fight the wars and the interest on that 4 trillion isn't part of the problem.

 

[Ebsell]

17 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

Bill Clinton signed a bill sponsored by 3 republicans, GLB ACT, every rep senator voted for the bill 1 dem voted for it 207 r house members voted for it 5 against, 155 d members voted for it and 51 against.

So a republican bill overwhelmingly supported by republicans, is a unique way of framing things?

The fact that federal regulators didn't do their jobs and bankers were allowed to break the law is what caused it, there were ample rules in place had they been enforced.

Please stop thinking that the 4 trillion plus we borrowed to fight the wars and the interest on that 4 trillion isn't part of the problem.

 

Definitely had a huge impact. Wars ain't cheap. 

[1jkw]

2 minutes ago, Ebsell said:

Definitely had a huge impact. Wars ain't cheap. 

Yes. And not only the cost of the war its self but the all time record high oil prices that stemmed from the destabilizing the ME. and of course the real reason market manipulation.

[Ebsell]

[Capt.Storm]

Never mind.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Capt.Storm