BO's Records...

[Gipper]

Cash for clunkers cost $3 billion, just to shift car sales forward a few months. The Public-Private Investment Partnership, despite cheap federal loans, generated 3% of the $1 trillion claimed, and toxic assets still hobble some financial institutions. The Dodd-Frank financial reform law institutionalized "too big to fail" amid greater concentration of banking assets and mortgages in Fannie and Freddie. The foreclosure relief program permanently modified only a small percentage of the four million mortgages the president promised. And even Mr. Obama now admits that the shovels weren't ready in all those "shovel-ready" stimulus projects.

Perpetually overpromising and underdelivering is not remotely good enough, not even for government work. No corporate CEO could survive such a clear history of failure. The economic records set on Mr. Obama's watch really are historic (see nearby table). These include the first downgrade of sovereign U.S. debt in American history, and, relative to GDP, the highest federal spending in U.S. history save the peak years of World War II, plus the highest federal debt since just after World War II.

The employment picture doesn't look any better. The fraction of the population working is the lowest since 1983. Long-term unemployment is by far the highest since the Great Depression. Job growth during the first two years of recovery after a severe recession is the slowest in postwar history.

Moreover, the home-ownership rate is the lowest since 1965 and foreclosures are at a post-Depression high. And perhaps most ominously, the share of Americans paying income taxes is the lowest in the modern era, while dependency on government is the highest in U.S. history.

That's quite a record, although not what Mr. Obama and his supporters had in mind when they pronounced this presidency historic.

President Obama constantly reminds us, with some justification, that he was dealt a difficult hand. But the evidence is overwhelming that he played it poorly. His big government spending, debt and regulation fix has clearly failed. Relative to previous recoveries from deep recessions, the results are disastrous. A considerable fraction of current joblessness, lower living standards, dependency on government and destroyed savings is the result. Worse, his debt explosion will be a drag on economic growth

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904583204576544712358583844.html

How anyone can believe BO is a successful president is beyond me. He is a complete disaster in so many ways. And, now his silly jobs plan is more of the same foolish economic policies which have devastated America.

2012 is looking like a complete blowout on par with Reagan's destruction of the peanut farmer. The Rs better nominate a conservative.

When will dems and moderates ever learn?

 

[Pandora]

Change you can believe in!!!

 

[Openmind]

How anyone can believe BO is a successful president is beyond me. He is a complete disaster in so many ways. And, now his silly jobs plan is more of the same foolish economic policies which have devastated America.

2012 is looking like a complete blowout on par with Reagan's destruction of the peanut farmer. The Rs better nominate a conservative.

When will dems and moderates ever learn?

Funny! Do you realize what that "list" clearly shows: We are in a situation (and not because of Obama's presidency, but because of Bush's presidency) that COMBINES the worse elements experienced in America since the 1900's:

1. Strong recession
2. WAR not on one but two fronts!

If you can't see that. . . If you still believe that it is just a "coincidence," you are either dishonnest or blind.

But whatever!

 

[Dr.Who]

Funny! Do you realize what that "list" clearly shows: We are in a situation (and not because of Obama's presidency, but because of Bush's presidency) that COMBINES the worse elements experienced in America since the 1900's:

1. Strong recession
2. WAR not on one but two fronts!

If you can't see that. . . If you still believe that it is just a "coincidence," you are either dishonnest or blind.

But whatever!

Oh it might be arguable that some of those are just the situation - though I doubt you would have given GW the same benefit of the doubt.

But many of those are clearly the direct result of obama policies. The some others he himself claimed he would take care of so even Obama does not think they are out of his control. And at least one of them he bragged about because he actually thinks it is a good thing.

And in a larger sense the recession itself would have been over by now if it were not for obama polices. Regarding the war: do you remember the Feb 2009 words "After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home" Clearly he thought the wars would be winding down by now and they are not. He took responsibility for both the economy and the wars and he failed to deliver.

 

[Openmind]

Oh it might be arguable that some of those are just the situation - though I doubt you would have given GW the same benefit of the doubt.

But many of those are clearly the direct result of obama policies. The some others he himself claimed he would take care of so even Obama does not think they are out of his control. And at least one of them he bragged about because he actually thinks it is a good thing.

GW didn't need "the benefit of the doubt!" He came in at a perfect time, and screwed it up.

You are entirely wrong (although I appreciate that you are honest enough to provide "some" leeway!). I would say that the MAJORITY of these elements are situational. . . directly related to decisions made under the Bush administration.

I grant you that (maybe) 10% is due to Obama's policies. . .nothing more!

 

[Dr.Who]

GW didn't need "the benefit of the doubt!" He came in at a perfect time, and screwed it up.

You are entirely wrong (although I appreciate that you are honest enough to provide "some" leeway!). I would say that the MAJORITY of these elements are situational. . . directly related to decisions made under the Bush administration.

I grant you that (maybe) 10% is due to Obama's policies. . .nothing more!

Recessions occur on average every 11 years and are over in 2. The fact that Bush had a recession after 8 years in office is statistically likely.

The fact that Obama has not seen the end of the recession is not statistically likely.

After this many years in office Obama owns this and it is immature (of him) to keep blaming the past admin.

 

[Openmind]

Recessions occur on average every 11 years and are over in 2. The fact that Bush had a recession after 8 years in office is statistically likely.

The fact that Obama has not seen the end of the recession is not statistically likely.

After this many years in office Obama owns this and it is immature (of him) to keep blaming the past admin.

Except that. . ..all recessions are not "created equal!"

When was the last time the housing market crashed to this level?
When was the last time the whole banking system was close to bankrupcy,to the point that we dragged the rest of the world's banks into that situation?
When was the last time that (at the same time as the two previous situations occurred) we were spending 6 times more than ANY other power on military. . .because we are engaged in, not one but TWO wars?

With all those elements creating "the perfect storm," it is a wonder that Obamas managed to keep the "recession" from becoming a "depression!"

Did the great depression end in 2 years? Did a Republican administration dragged the country out of the great depression. . .by using "trickle down" theory and "cut taxes" theory?

I don't think so!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Recessions occur on average every 11 years and are over in 2. The fact that Bush had a recession after 8 years in office is statistically likely.

The fact that Obama has not seen the end of the recession is not statistically likely.

After this many years in office Obama owns this and it is immature (of him) to keep blaming the past admin.

Immature is not owning up for the fact that it was under a Republican white house the econ went in the ditch...Obama was blamed for it the day he took office...

 

[Gipper]

^^ there it is. Wow...just wow!

Two of our beloved HOP libs believe the failing economy is the fault of W and the Rs. And, if that is not illogical enough for you, BO has done a great job of KEEPING the economy from falling into a depression.

I ask again, how do we find common ground with such delusional people? Their blind partisanship for BO and Ds prevents them from thinking logically. IMO one can't effectively debate illogical people.

Can we get some more libs to chime in on this thread? THC1...how about you?

 

[Openmind]

^^ there it is. Wow...just wow!

Two of our beloved HOP libs believe the failing economy is the fault of W and the Rs. And, if that is not illogical enough for you, BO has done a great job of KEEPING the economy from falling into a depression.

I ask again, how do we find common ground with such delusional people? Their blind partisanship for BO and Ds prevents them from thinking logically. IMO one can't effectively debate illogical people.

Can we get some more libs to chime in on this thread? THC1...how about you?

You see, dear, from where I stand (and from where most reasonable people and economists stand), you and the extreme members in your party are suffering from delusion.

So. . .Just understand that what you perceive may be YOUR reality. It isn't everyone's!

 

[Dr.Who]

Except that. . ..all recessions are not "created equal!"

When was the last time the housing market crashed to this level?
When was the last time the whole banking system was close to bankrupcy,to the point that we dragged the rest of the world's banks into that situation?
When was the last time that (at the same time as the two previous situations occurred) we were spending 6 times more than ANY other power on military. . .because we are engaged in, not one but TWO wars?

With all those elements creating "the perfect storm," it is a wonder that Obamas managed to keep the "recession" from becoming a "depression!"

Did the great depression end in 2 years? Did a Republican administration dragged the country out of the great depression. . .by using "trickle down" theory and "cut taxes" theory?

I don't think so!

Factually speaking this recession has been longer than others. This recession is marked by three phases. In the first phase at the end of Bushes term it was not any deeper or harder than any other recession and was in fact very very mild. After Obama was in office for quite a while the third phase was deeper than a few recessions but was not deeper than the recession of '37 or the recession of '45 or the recession of '26 or the recession of '23 or twelve other recessions that I could name. In fact out of 28 recessions for which we have data all other recessions except for 10 were deeper. This recession was not that bad and we should have come out of it relatively quickly. This recession is not all that remarkable. (unless one counts that in the first phase when it was still extremely mild the media was calling it the worst since the great depression and at that time it was not worse by any single factor that one could measure it by)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

And why was it longer? Because of the stimuli and other gov interventions. These programs were designed to lessen the pain of recession with the full knowledge of everyone that they would lengthen it. The result however was that they both lengthened and deepened it.

At this point this recession is longer than every recession we have data for except for the recession of 1873. That is quite an accomplishment to inherit a mild recession and turn it into the second longest recession on record.

 

[Dr.Who]

You see, dear, from where I stand (and from where most reasonable people and economists stand), you and the extreme members in your party are suffering from delusion.

So. . .Just understand that what you perceive may be YOUR reality. It isn't everyone's!

Actually according to Rassmussin 42% of people blame Obama and the remainder are split between blaming: Bush, or other factors like dems or pubs or just congress. That probably means that a minority blame bush - I can't say for sure because the liberal newspaper that reported this hid the numbers. Which can only meant that they look bad for Obama.

What the newspaper DID say is this:

"The number of respondents blaming Bush is down from earlier in Obama’s regime. In May 2009, when Rasmussen first began asking the question, 62% said the bad economy was Bush’s fault and 27% blamed Obama."

So we know the number is down from 2009 when 62% blamed Bush. And if Obamas number went up from 27% to 42% then clearly Bushes number had to go down by quite a lot.


As far as who economists blame - good luck interpreting their mumbo jumbo, but feel free to show us that MOST of them blame Bush.

 

[Dr.Who]

Immature is not owning up for the fact that it was under a Republican white house the econ went in the ditch...Obama was blamed for it the day he took office...

Statistically at the beginning of Obama's term few blamed him and most blamed Bush. Now years into it more blame him and less blame bush - this is as it should be.

 

[Gipper]

You see, dear, from where I stand (and from where most reasonable people and economists stand), you and the extreme members in your party are suffering from delusion.

So. . .Just understand that what you perceive may be YOUR reality. It isn't everyone's!

Oh...so there can be TWO realities? I thought there was only one reality.

Either I am right or you are right. We both can't be right when we have completely opposing views.

 

[Openmind]

Oh...so there can be TWO realities? I thought there was only one reality.

Either I am right or you are right. We both can't be right when we have completely opposing views.

That is a statement I totaly agree with! We can't both be right.

You think you are, and that "I" am delusional.

I think you're wrong and that you live in an alternate "reality," also known as a delusion.