TheChardo wrote:
The Problem
There are three words, when uttered together that turn me apoplectic: The Obama Economy. A recurring theme among conservatives has been that President Obama has had enough time to fix the economy, the recovery is anemic and that he cannot keep blaming Bush 43. That is if it is even acknowledged that the economy was in free fall when Obama took office. Also, I frequently hear statements like He didnt cause the recession, but he made it worse Neither statement holds water. The New York Times wrote on 9.1.2012: NOT since 1933 had an American president taken the oath of office in an economic climate as grim as it was when Barack Obama put his left hand on the Bible in January 2009. The banking system was near collapse, two big car manufacturers were sliding towards bankruptcy; and employment, the housing market and output were spiraling down.
How did we get here?
At the start of the Reagan Presidency, the national debt stood at less than $1T or 33% of the GDP. After 8 years of Reagan, the debt stood at almost $2.7T or 52.6% of the GDP a growth of 186.6%. Bush 41 did his part too by adding another 55.6% in just 4 years, bringing the debt to $4.2T or 65.9% of GDP. Clinton also contributed with another 35.6% over his eight years. This despite the popular belief that Clinton left a surplus to Bush 43 ( the debt actually grew from 4.4 Trillion in 1993 to 5.6T in 2000) However, it is true that the annual deficit was trending downward during those same years as was the deficit in terms of the percentage of GDP. In fact, at the end of the Clinton Administration, the US was on track to pay off its debt and accumulate $2.3T in savings by 2011 according to the non partisan Congressional Budget Office. Then, enter Bush 43 who blew it up with whopping 89% increase bringing it to $10. 7T at his departure. This is the result of the fact that Bush 43 continued where Reagan and to a lesser extent Bush 41 left off with supply side policies that reversed the trend of the Clinton years and added enormously to the debt. 49% of the increase under Bush was due to his spending increases and 24% because of tax cuts. It should also be noted that the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 7,949 at the end of Bush 42s term, down 24% during his second term alone. It was at 10,587 at the start of his first term and achieved an all time high of 14,164 as recently as October 9, 2007, just before the crash of 2008. It has now gained about 60% from its low point.
Yes it is true, in Obamas first term, another 5.7 T hit the books and the debt stood at 16.4 by the end of 2012 The important question is why the continuing rise of the debt on Obamas watch. When you subtract $1.6 trillion for George W. Bushs wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, $1.4 trillion in interest payments for outstanding debt dating from the Bush administration, and $1.6 trillion in lost revenue from Bushs tax cuts, the number dwindles to $1.1T in debt authorized by congress, as well as the president. Furthermore, much of government spending was caused by Bushs recession, during which more people were forced to apply for food stamps and other public assistance.
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities wrote in September of 2012: If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession. since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term. Currently, unemployment continues to be unacceptably high and more or less unchanged, the debt is growing, and the expansion of the economy is painfully slow. But is it fair to call it the Obama economy, suggesting that if he didnt cause it, he at least made it worse.
Lets not forget that the annual deficit has been decreasing however slightly over each successive year under the Obama Administration. The average decrease in the deficit over 3 years with Obama in office was 114.5B while the first 7 years of Bush 43 saw an average increase of 56.7 B and for the final year it was 100.4B
Yes, things could be better and people, particularly the jobless are understandably impatient. So lets look at what Obama has accomplished and tried to accomplish, keeping in mind that the list would be longer and the economy stronger in a less partisan political environment
.
The Problem br There are three words, when uttered... (
show quote)
If Obama was doing anything good, he wouldn't have to massage the jobless figures to exclude all of the underemployed.
He blamed Bush for 4 dismal years, then after dropping off all of the people that have been unemployed for over 2 years, and who are no longer able to be tracked because their unemployment benefits ran out, he makes claims of unemployment shrinking. Facts prove otherwise:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/10/05/real-unemployment-rate/
In reality, the only thing that is shrinking is private sector jobs. If it wasn't for his massive increase in government jobs (which actually draw more from the already highly burdened private sector thru taxes)his charts would show a continuous rise in unemployment..
Having the number of tax burden jobs that we have is going to continue to haunt us.
His claim to an increase in oil and gas production is because of policies put into place by GWB, and the fact that North Dakota oil is on private land. That means he cant stop it. Remove those two things, and BHO's energy policy has either k**led or done away with massive amounts of American jobs in the energy sector. Where you ask? Well, coal for one. Pipelines, off shore drilling, etc. He cannot lie for ever. His blaming Bush is over, even liberals no longer believe that lie.
So, going way back to Reagan, would mean everyone since then had the same bad economic situation. We know that is just not true. How do you explain the unemployment rates for all of the presidents before Barry? You cant.
And, the law (The Housing and Community Development Act ) that allowed the housing bubble was actually a bill that was first passed under Carter in 1977, Here is a history including all major and minor changes over the years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
The changes over the years loosened the laws concerning how the loans were provided, and allowed the government entities to require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to dev**e a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing/credit (test or not.) This then opened up the market for all kinds of poor lending practices that eventually exploded in the housing bubble. These were a result of the changes made to the law in 1991 and 1992 with GHWB as president, and both the house and the senate controlled by the democrats.
In the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission report, blame is laid on a combination of things, but as with all things political, its findings are split down party lines.
In v****g on the adoption of the final report the Commission was split evenly along partisan lines, with Angelides, Born, Georgiou, Graham, Murren, and Thompson (appointed by Democrats Pelosi and Reid) all v****g in favor and Thomas, Hennessey, Holtz-Eakin, and Wallison (appointed by Republicans Boehner and McConnell) all dissenting. Among those dissenting Thomas, Hennessey, and Holtz-Eakin collaborated on a single report while Wallison, from the American Enterprise Institute drafted his alone and proposed that the crisis was caused by government affordable housing policies rather than market forces.
Here is an interesting time line that lead to the housing bubble.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble
Lots of good info, to be interpreted by partisans however they like.
Another article to compare reality with what a partisan gummitt panel ultimately decided to claim:
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6
Ultimately, ones political party will decide what information one chooses to believe. There are plenty of facts to prove that both democrats and republicans had a hand in the housing crash.
There are also lots of articles out there proving Obama's reaction was not a good one, and other that say he did the right thing.
Bottom line.........It was never GWB's fault, and actually came to be his last year in power.
It was in all likelihood a democrat controlled congress that made the rules that lead to the crisis.
The big thing is that BHO has been in charge for 5 years, blamed everyone but himself for the failure of the recovery, and will likely only take credit only if its good news.
He has proven to be the least t***sparent president in the last 50 years, and also the worst president for taking responsibility for his actions.
He also has proven he is more interested in being a rock star than he is in governing.
He has added more to the national debt than all of the other presidents combined. He has raised taxes on the rich, the middle class, and the poor. He will try to raise them some more in his lame duck term.
He has attempted to change us from a Constitutional Republic (he doesn't like to follow the constitution) to a Socialist Republic.
He has never released any of his college records, which probably show he was allowed to attend those high dollar schools for free because he is a minority, and he is best buddies with a known d******c t*******t who is also a c*******t.
He likes to blame America for all of the ills of the world, and he likes to slam Christians while doing everything in his power to hide the fact that Islamic nut bags are trying to k**l Americans and therefore should be enemies of the state.
He has several crisis' under his belt that could lead to impeachment if there were any congress men and women with a backbone or ethics, but alas, they are so worried about re-e******n, they are willing to do the "wrong" thing which is nothing.
There are plenty of links and information to prove my statement, but i'm guessing The Chardo can come up with one or two to prove his side of the story. If you read what i have posted, actually read it, you might just agree with me.
PS, dont post blogs, as they are just someones opinion, and therefore can be non factual.
quote=TheChardo The Problem br There are three wo... (