Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on March 12, 2015, 07:09:26 PM
-
Since WWII most Americans have perceived Republicans as the party for best economic growth. But Obama's economic performance is unparalleled, and with Clinton's performances trounces Republican administrations
President Obama's Trifecta - Democrats Continue Economically Trouncing Republicans
This week marks the 6th anniversary of the stock market’s bull run, with the S&P up 206%. Only 3 other times since WWII have equities had such a prolonged, sustained growth series. Simultaneously, last week saw yet another month with over 200,000 non-farm jobs created, making the current rate of jobs growth the best in 15 years. And, in a move that has taken some by surprise, the U.S. dollar is hitting highs against foreign currencies that have not been seen in over 12 years.
It is a rare economic trifecta, and demonstrates America is doing better than all other developed countries.
It seemed an appropriate time to re-interview Bob Deitrick, Managing Director of Polaris Financial Partners, and author of “Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box” to obtain his take on the economy. Mr. Deitrick’s book reviewed America’s economic performance under each President since the creation of the Federal Reserve, and in direct opposition to conventional wisdom concluded presidents from the Democratic party were better economic stewards than Republican presidents. When published in 2012 Mr. Deitrick predicted that the economy would continue to do well under President Obama, and so far he’s been proven correct.
AH: Since we discussed “Obama’s Miracle Market” in January, 2014 stocks have continued to rise. Has this bull run surprised you, and do you think it will continue?
Bob Deitrick: No it has not surprised us. Looking across history since Hoover, Democrats in the White House have generally presided over good stock market gains. Since Clinton was elected Democratic administrations have done remarkably well, with both Clinton and Obama outperforming the best Republican presidents, which were Eisenhower and Reagan.
Looking at the S&P 500, Clinton and Obama have performed about the same with about a 17% annual rate of return through the first 62 months of office. Which is 70% better than the approximate 10% return of the best Republican presidencies economically.
It is worth noting that when we take a broader gauge of equities (which we used in the book,) including the more volatile NASDAQ index and the highly selective Dow Jones Industrial Average, then the market’s performance during the Obama administration is unchallenged. The last 6 years generated compound annual returns of 22.5% (including dividend reinvestment) which is the best improvement in equities of all time.
It is also worth noting that the collapse of equities has happened 3 times since 1900, and all under Republican administrations – Hoover, Nixon/Ford and Bush 43. Even Carter had a rising equities market, and the Clinton + Obama years were unparalleled.
We agree with many other analysts that this bull market is not complete. We think the stock markets are just past the halfway point in a secular bull cycle which will last, in total, 8 to 12 years.
AH: It was 6 months ago when you pointed out that President Obama outperformed President Reagan on jobs growth. At that time there were many, many naysayers. Yet, August’s numbers were later revised upward to over 200,000 and every month since has continued with strong jobs growth – some nearly 300,000. Are you surprised by the strength in jobs creation, and do you think it will stall?
Bob Deitrick: Both Reagan and Obama inherited a bad jobs marketplace. Both of them saw unemployment spike into double digits early in their presidencies. And both created jobs programs that brought down the percentage of people unemployed. Obama had a lesser spike than Reagan, and during the last 5 years unemployment rate fell faster than it did under Reagan.
Both Democrats, Obama and Clinton, had big decreases in unemployment due to their policies. From peak to trough in this current administration unemployment has fallen by 5.5 percentage points, a decline of 81%. Clinton oversaw unemployment decline of 3.1 percentage points, or 73%.
Both Democrats followed Bush Republican presidencies which had seen unemployment increase. During Bush 41 unemployment rose by 2 percentage points (5.4% to 7.3%,) and during Bush 43 unemployment nearly doubled from 4.2% to 8.3%. Not even the Carter presidency had unemployment increases anywhere close to the 12 years of Bush presidencies.
It is also worth noting that when comparing Obama and Reagan, Reagan undertook the largest increase in non-wartime deficit spending ever. He essentially used a form of “New Deal” debt spending on infrastructure and defense to stimulate jobs production. President Obama has been able to reduce the size of the annual deficit every year since taking office, in reality shrinking the amount of money spent by the government while simultaneously creating these new jobs. The only other president to accomplish this feat was Clinton, who actually balanced the budget during his presidency.
We believe the economy is very strong, and along with other analysts think the jobs recovery will remain intact. With less war spending, lower oil prices, more people covered by insurance, and higher minimum wages consumers will continue to spend and the economy will grow. New technology products will bring more people into the workforce, and manufacturing will continue its renaissance. We expect that unemployment will continue falling toward 4.4% by summer of 2016, returning the economy to non-wartime full employment.
AH: For years many talk show hosts and guests have been declaring that the Fed was flooding the markets with cash and setting the stage for rampant inflation which would ruin the dollar and the U.S. economy. But in the last few months the dollar has rallied to rates we haven’t seen since the 1990s. Did this surprise you, and do you think the dollar will remain strong?
Bob Deitrick: We were not surprised. Ben Bernanke ranks right up there with the first, and probably best, Federal Reserve Chairman Marriner Eccles at knowing what to do to keep the American economy from collapsing in the wake of the country’s second depression. Only by re-inflating the economy with more cash, and keeping interest rates low, did America avoid a horrible repeat of the 1930s.
As a result of Democratic policies, America re-invested in growth. Which allowed companies to invest in plant and equipment and create new jobs, while lowering the deficit. This happened simultaneously with opposite policies being implemented in Japan and Europe (so called “Austerity”) which has caused their economies to weaken. And slowed demand from Europe has reduced growth rates in China and India, all leading global investors to return to the U.S. dollar as a safe haven. It is because of our economic strength that the dollar is returning to rates we have not seen since the Clinton presidency.
Many people recall the huge increase in the dollar’s value toward the middle of the Reagan presidency. However, as the U.S. deficits, and total debt, skyrocketed the dollar plummeted. By the time Reagan left office the dollar was worth almost the same as when he entered office.
The combination of lower taxes, plus costs for waging war in the middle east, sent the U.S. debt exploding again under Bush 43. What had been a balanced budget under Clinton, which had pushed the dollar almost back to post-war highs, was destroyed – causing the dollar to plummet 25%.
The dollar is now up 21% against a basket of world currencies. Given ongoing European weakness and the never-ending fight over austerity we see no reason to think the Euro will make a comeback any time soon. Rather, we predict the strong U.S. economy, especially with oil prices likely to remain low (and priced in dollars,) the U.S. dollar will continue to rally. It could well go back to Clinton-era highs and possibly approach the values during Reagan’s presidency. Should this happen it would be a record improvement in the dollar by any modern administration.
AH: Any concluding comments?
Bob Deitrick: I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats, and think of myself as a centrist. Most people, by definition, are centrists. I long believed that the GOP was the party which was best for the economy. But I could tell something wasn’t mating up with the conventional wisdom during the Bush 43 presidency, so I chose to research the performance of both parties.
The GOP has created an illusion that it is a better economic steward by promoting itself as the party with better business acumen; frequently touting elected officials from business schools and with MBAs rather than law degrees. The GOP, and the media leaders who identify with the GOP, tell Americans every chance they can that Republicans are the party of financial acuity and have the policies to create economic prowess.
Yet we found through our research that these claims were little more than myth. In the modern era, post Great Depression and with a strong Federal Reserve in place, Democratic administrations have been far better stewards of the economy and caretakers of the government’s wallet.
We have coached investors to be in this equity market, and remain long, since early in the Obama administration. We have continued to remain long, and continue coaching investors that in our opinion this remains the best course. We see the economy growing due to a balanced approach to jobs creation, spending and taxation. Were there less partisanship, such as occurred during the Reagan era when the Democrats controlled the Congress while Republicans controlled the administration, it might be possible for the economy to grow even more quickly.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2015/03/10/obamas-trifecta-democrats-continue-economically-trouncing-republicans/
-
Who had the Congress during Clinton's boom....and why was there a boom?.....
-
Democratic administrations have been far better stewards of the economy and caretakers of the government’s wallet sorry
-
You know I google your articles right...this is an opinion piece by a pro Obama supporter who has been beating this drum since 2008. It is what it is.....facts are shaded to make Obama look good...facts are ommitted...counted or not. If you think things are good right now your smoking crack. Things were good under Clinton...things were good under Reagan...not so much under Bush one or two but not near as bad as they are now.
-
You know I google your articles right...this is an opinion piece by a pro Obama supporter who has been beating this drum since 2008. It is what it is.....facts are shaded to make Obama look good...facts are ommitted...counted or not. If you think things are good right now your smoking crack. Things were good under Clinton...things were good under Reagan...not so much under Bush one or two but not near as bad as they are now.
wow I gave you the link ::),facts are facts if all you have is he is a Obama supporter that's pretty weak.again if you can't dispute the facts in the article you really have nothing
-
Dude...the guy has been beating this drum since 2008. I'm not gonna go through every chart. You can't defend it either. I did enough research on the author to conclude that its his opinion and that he has a long track record of defending Obama while ommitting facts. If you think this economy is doing well for the country your smoking crack.
-
Democratic administrations have been far better stewards of the economy and caretakers of the government’s wallet sorry
lol
-
again if you have no facts than you have no facts :D :D
-
Democratic administrations have been far better stewards of the economy and caretakers of the government’s wallet sorry
That's bullshit. Dems tax the shit out people thinking it's a real solution. it's a quick fix and not a long term solution that eventually breaks down over time. It's like when they keep borrowing over and over again getting us deeper in debt. Would you keep taking loans to pay off an existing loan? Dems are HORRIBLE stewards. We're in over $18 trillion as of this second.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
-
That's bullshit. Dems tax the shit out people thinking it's a real solution. it's a quick fix and not a long term solution that eventually breaks down over time. It's like when they keep borrowing over and over again getting us deeper in debt. Would you keep taking loans to pay off an existing loan? Dems are HORRIBLE stewards. We're in over $18 trillion as of this second.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
the facts are the dems do a better job with the economy ;)
-
the facts are the dems do a better job with the economy ;)
Lol... Sure. Lol
-
Lol... Sure. Lol
I know that's not what fox news is telling you maybe you should broaden your horizons a little ;D
-
I know that's not what fox news is telling you maybe you should broaden your horizons a little ;D
I don't watch fox for the economic reports. But you seem to think just because there's a rise in the market the economy MUST be good. Lol
-
I don't watch fox for the economic reports. But you seem to think just because there's a rise in the market the economy MUST be good. Lol
LOL the market was just one part of it,your just playing dumb?right,please say yes
-
I didn't take it seriously and basically stopped reading when it began giving Obama any credit at all for the stock market performance of the last 6 years. Are people really that dumb that you give him credit for that? And do you realize that over two thirds of the growth was just getting back to even from Oct '07?
And for things like the sudden drop in the price of gas in the last few months? That had been steadily going up and up for the prior 5 years or so? Was that Bush's fault?
Are people blind to the labor participation rate making the real unemployment rate of 11% look like 5.5%?
Bush and Obama and other politicians have virtually no impact on these things, unless they are raising taxes and regulations, politicizing the fed (not a good thing), etc.
-
Since WWII most Americans have perceived Republicans as the party for best economic growth. But Obama's economic performance is unparalleled, and with Clinton's performances trounces Republican administrations
President Obama's Trifecta - Democrats Continue Economically Trouncing Republicans
This week marks the 6th anniversary of the stock market’s bull run, with the S&P up 206%. Only 3 other times since WWII have equities had such a prolonged, sustained growth series. Simultaneously, last week saw yet another month with over 200,000 non-farm jobs created, making the current rate of jobs growth the best in 15 years. And, in a move that has taken some by surprise, the U.S. dollar is hitting highs against foreign currencies that have not been seen in over 12 years.
It is a rare economic trifecta, and demonstrates America is doing better than all other developed countries.
It seemed an appropriate time to re-interview Bob Deitrick, Managing Director of Polaris Financial Partners, and author of “Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box” to obtain his take on the economy. Mr. Deitrick’s book reviewed America’s economic performance under each President since the creation of the Federal Reserve, and in direct opposition to conventional wisdom concluded presidents from the Democratic party were better economic stewards than Republican presidents. When published in 2012 Mr. Deitrick predicted that the economy would continue to do well under President Obama, and so far he’s been proven correct.
AH: Since we discussed “Obama’s Miracle Market” in January, 2014 stocks have continued to rise. Has this bull run surprised you, and do you think it will continue?
Bob Deitrick: No it has not surprised us. Looking across history since Hoover, Democrats in the White House have generally presided over good stock market gains. Since Clinton was elected Democratic administrations have done remarkably well, with both Clinton and Obama outperforming the best Republican presidents, which were Eisenhower and Reagan.
Looking at the S&P 500, Clinton and Obama have performed about the same with about a 17% annual rate of return through the first 62 months of office. Which is 70% better than the approximate 10% return of the best Republican presidencies economically.
It is worth noting that when we take a broader gauge of equities (which we used in the book,) including the more volatile NASDAQ index and the highly selective Dow Jones Industrial Average, then the market’s performance during the Obama administration is unchallenged. The last 6 years generated compound annual returns of 22.5% (including dividend reinvestment) which is the best improvement in equities of all time.
It is also worth noting that the collapse of equities has happened 3 times since 1900, and all under Republican administrations – Hoover, Nixon/Ford and Bush 43. Even Carter had a rising equities market, and the Clinton + Obama years were unparalleled.
We agree with many other analysts that this bull market is not complete. We think the stock markets are just past the halfway point in a secular bull cycle which will last, in total, 8 to 12 years.
AH: It was 6 months ago when you pointed out that President Obama outperformed President Reagan on jobs growth. At that time there were many, many naysayers. Yet, August’s numbers were later revised upward to over 200,000 and every month since has continued with strong jobs growth – some nearly 300,000. Are you surprised by the strength in jobs creation, and do you think it will stall?
Bob Deitrick: Both Reagan and Obama inherited a bad jobs marketplace. Both of them saw unemployment spike into double digits early in their presidencies. And both created jobs programs that brought down the percentage of people unemployed. Obama had a lesser spike than Reagan, and during the last 5 years unemployment rate fell faster than it did under Reagan.
Both Democrats, Obama and Clinton, had big decreases in unemployment due to their policies. From peak to trough in this current administration unemployment has fallen by 5.5 percentage points, a decline of 81%. Clinton oversaw unemployment decline of 3.1 percentage points, or 73%.
Both Democrats followed Bush Republican presidencies which had seen unemployment increase. During Bush 41 unemployment rose by 2 percentage points (5.4% to 7.3%,) and during Bush 43 unemployment nearly doubled from 4.2% to 8.3%. Not even the Carter presidency had unemployment increases anywhere close to the 12 years of Bush presidencies.
It is also worth noting that when comparing Obama and Reagan, Reagan undertook the largest increase in non-wartime deficit spending ever. He essentially used a form of “New Deal” debt spending on infrastructure and defense to stimulate jobs production. President Obama has been able to reduce the size of the annual deficit every year since taking office, in reality shrinking the amount of money spent by the government while simultaneously creating these new jobs. The only other president to accomplish this feat was Clinton, who actually balanced the budget during his presidency.
We believe the economy is very strong, and along with other analysts think the jobs recovery will remain intact. With less war spending, lower oil prices, more people covered by insurance, and higher minimum wages consumers will continue to spend and the economy will grow. New technology products will bring more people into the workforce, and manufacturing will continue its renaissance. We expect that unemployment will continue falling toward 4.4% by summer of 2016, returning the economy to non-wartime full employment.
AH: For years many talk show hosts and guests have been declaring that the Fed was flooding the markets with cash and setting the stage for rampant inflation which would ruin the dollar and the U.S. economy. But in the last few months the dollar has rallied to rates we haven’t seen since the 1990s. Did this surprise you, and do you think the dollar will remain strong?
Bob Deitrick: We were not surprised. Ben Bernanke ranks right up there with the first, and probably best, Federal Reserve Chairman Marriner Eccles at knowing what to do to keep the American economy from collapsing in the wake of the country’s second depression. Only by re-inflating the economy with more cash, and keeping interest rates low, did America avoid a horrible repeat of the 1930s.
As a result of Democratic policies, America re-invested in growth. Which allowed companies to invest in plant and equipment and create new jobs, while lowering the deficit. This happened simultaneously with opposite policies being implemented in Japan and Europe (so called “Austerity”) which has caused their economies to weaken. And slowed demand from Europe has reduced growth rates in China and India, all leading global investors to return to the U.S. dollar as a safe haven. It is because of our economic strength that the dollar is returning to rates we have not seen since the Clinton presidency.
Many people recall the huge increase in the dollar’s value toward the middle of the Reagan presidency. However, as the U.S. deficits, and total debt, skyrocketed the dollar plummeted. By the time Reagan left office the dollar was worth almost the same as when he entered office.
The combination of lower taxes, plus costs for waging war in the middle east, sent the U.S. debt exploding again under Bush 43. What had been a balanced budget under Clinton, which had pushed the dollar almost back to post-war highs, was destroyed – causing the dollar to plummet 25%.
The dollar is now up 21% against a basket of world currencies. Given ongoing European weakness and the never-ending fight over austerity we see no reason to think the Euro will make a comeback any time soon. Rather, we predict the strong U.S. economy, especially with oil prices likely to remain low (and priced in dollars,) the U.S. dollar will continue to rally. It could well go back to Clinton-era highs and possibly approach the values during Reagan’s presidency. Should this happen it would be a record improvement in the dollar by any modern administration.
AH: Any concluding comments?
Bob Deitrick: I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats, and think of myself as a centrist. Most people, by definition, are centrists. I long believed that the GOP was the party which was best for the economy. But I could tell something wasn’t mating up with the conventional wisdom during the Bush 43 presidency, so I chose to research the performance of both parties.
The GOP has created an illusion that it is a better economic steward by promoting itself as the party with better business acumen; frequently touting elected officials from business schools and with MBAs rather than law degrees. The GOP, and the media leaders who identify with the GOP, tell Americans every chance they can that Republicans are the party of financial acuity and have the policies to create economic prowess.
Yet we found through our research that these claims were little more than myth. In the modern era, post Great Depression and with a strong Federal Reserve in place, Democratic administrations have been far better stewards of the economy and caretakers of the government’s wallet.
We have coached investors to be in this equity market, and remain long, since early in the Obama administration. We have continued to remain long, and continue coaching investors that in our opinion this remains the best course. We see the economy growing due to a balanced approach to jobs creation, spending and taxation. Were there less partisanship, such as occurred during the Reagan era when the Democrats controlled the Congress while Republicans controlled the administration, it might be possible for the economy to grow even more quickly.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2015/03/10/obamas-trifecta-democrats-continue-economically-trouncing-republicans/
your an idiot ... ZIRE and 5 trillion in Q/E kinda had something to do with the massive bull run when are experiencing. This is responsible for sending millions from the middle class to poverty while the top ten percenters have experiencd nearly 40% increase in wealth. Just three days ago Yellen said the economy was so fragile and that job participation rate not new jobs is reason for jobless rate. The person you worship has done the exact opposite and impoverished millions. Great job Obama.
-
again moron read the whole thing it's not just about Obama it's about the parties in general since the 30's.what is with you repubs only reading what you want in an article :D
-
Look ... under Obama GDP has grown 2.2 percent ... ie: nothing. 5- 10 million people disappear from the job market forever. Massive Quantitative Easing and Zero Interest Rate economy have boosted the capital markets like never before ... never. This has made each dollar buy a little less, meaning tens of millions of people have fallen from middle class to poverty.
98 million US adults work
92 million US adults don't work
108 million get some form of subsidy from fed government
This is the democratic plan for survival. Import million of uneducated, unskilled people ... drop million of working people into poverty and you have a recipe for existence.
And you want to take a victory lap for what ???? Seriously you want anyone to believe what 80 year moving average of bullshit means anything. Obama has succeeded in reshaping the US into a nanny state. Raising taxes and regulation, this economy will not grow, period. The very thing progressive liberals say they want ... is the exact opposite of what they do.
-
Bush vs. Obama on the Economy, In 3 Simple Charts
December 8, 2014
(http://y.ourfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/bushvobamaprivatesectorjobs1114.jpg)
Bush lost private sector jobs over the course of his eight years (the Wall Street Journal declared it the “Worst Track Record On Record” on jobs), while Obama has created a net of nearly 7 million private sector jobs during his presidency, and more than 10 million if you start counting after the Great Recession Bush handed Obama technically ended in mid-2009.
(http://y.ourfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/bushvobamaunemployment1114.jpg)
The above, like the other line chart below, is a simplified graph that removes all month-to-month fluctuation during their presidencies, to clarify the bottom line.
Now sometimes reductions in the unemployment rate are dismissed, because the lower percentage comes from unemployed people giving up and leaving the workforce instead of getting a job. In turn, analysts often look at the “employment-population ratio” to see what percent of our population is actually working. But the steady increase in job creation over the last year has begun to lift the employment-population ratio as well.
Under Bush, the employment-population ratio dropped 3.8 percentage points, from 64.4% to 60.6%. Under Obama, it fell another 2.4 percentage points as of last October, but since has risen a full point to 59.2%. If that pace continues in his last two years in office, Obama will leave office with a net positive increase.
Again, Obama’s overall record bests Bush’s … lest you thought Bush’s near-doubling of the unemployment rate was due to millions of people rushing to get back into the job hunt.
(http://y.ourfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/bushvobamacorporateprofits1114.jpg)
It may seem off-base to look at corporate profits when the middle class is still struggling. Median household income was down 4.2% on Bush’s watch and then another 4.9% during Obama’s first term. However, in the first year of Obama’s second term, median household income ticked up 0.3% (see Table H-5 on this Census Bureau page of household income data), the first year with an increase since 2007 (According to a 2013 report from the Economic Policy Institute, by one measure wages only grew 2.4% between 2000 and 2007, under Bush yet before the crash, then have basically stayed flat since.)
This could mean income declines hit bottom in 2012, and the other economic successes of the Obama administration are beginning to translate into improvements felt by the middle class. The other silver lining for the middle class is that inflation has been lower under Obama than Bush, so at least flat wages aren’t losing purchasing power.
Still, with stagnant wages being a persistent problem both before and after crash, presuming that wages can rise enough to rescue the middle class without any new policies would be a big risk.
A big debate awaits us on how we solve the problem of stagnant wages holding back middle-class prosperity. Considering that under Bush, corporations did worse than under Obama, household income still fell and private sector jobs were lost, perhaps conservative economic policies should not be our North Star.
-
All you have to do is look at the conditions of red states to see how great Republican economic principles are.
-
Your thesis is broken - presidents and governments do not create private sector jobs, do not increase stock market values or corporate profits, and they don't have anything to do with oil and gas drilling on private lands. And they most certainly do not control the price of a barrel of oil, which is the main factor in determining the price of a gallon of gas.
Most of the REAL jobs created in recent years are due to oil and gas booms on private lands. You will see this decline as the price of oil has greatly declined.
Corporate profits will increase when they hoard money away, when they can borrow at near-zero interest rates, when the dollar is devalued via excessive printing and pumping via fed asset purchases, and when foreign investments pour in as a result of these things. Earnings per share also increase on paper when companies buy back stock, which many have been doing.
Clinton was smart enough to largely stay out of the way and let the private sector do its thing. Obama is no Bill Clinton. GDP post-recession growth is anemic when compared to other post-recession periods.
And you can blame the '08 crisis largely on bad loans largely written due to bad regulations put in place by liberals, and also due to another dramatic oil selloff in '08 from $140 to $40 a barrel in a very short time period.
Bush vs. Obama on the Economy, In 3 Simple Charts
December 8, 2014
(http://y.ourfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/bushvobamaprivatesectorjobs1114.jpg)
Bush lost private sector jobs over the course of his eight years (the Wall Street Journal declared it the “Worst Track Record On Record” on jobs), while Obama has created a net of nearly 7 million private sector jobs during his presidency, and more than 10 million if you start counting after the Great Recession Bush handed Obama technically ended in mid-2009.
(http://y.ourfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/bushvobamaunemployment1114.jpg)
The above, like the other line chart below, is a simplified graph that removes all month-to-month fluctuation during their presidencies, to clarify the bottom line.
Now sometimes reductions in the unemployment rate are dismissed, because the lower percentage comes from unemployed people giving up and leaving the workforce instead of getting a job. In turn, analysts often look at the “employment-population ratio” to see what percent of our population is actually working. But the steady increase in job creation over the last year has begun to lift the employment-population ratio as well.
Under Bush, the employment-population ratio dropped 3.8 percentage points, from 64.4% to 60.6%. Under Obama, it fell another 2.4 percentage points as of last October, but since has risen a full point to 59.2%. If that pace continues in his last two years in office, Obama will leave office with a net positive increase.
Again, Obama’s overall record bests Bush’s … lest you thought Bush’s near-doubling of the unemployment rate was due to millions of people rushing to get back into the job hunt.
(http://y.ourfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/bushvobamacorporateprofits1114.jpg)
It may seem off-base to look at corporate profits when the middle class is still struggling. Median household income was down 4.2% on Bush’s watch and then another 4.9% during Obama’s first term. However, in the first year of Obama’s second term, median household income ticked up 0.3% (see Table H-5 on this Census Bureau page of household income data), the first year with an increase since 2007 (According to a 2013 report from the Economic Policy Institute, by one measure wages only grew 2.4% between 2000 and 2007, under Bush yet before the crash, then have basically stayed flat since.)
This could mean income declines hit bottom in 2012, and the other economic successes of the Obama administration are beginning to translate into improvements felt by the middle class. The other silver lining for the middle class is that inflation has been lower under Obama than Bush, so at least flat wages aren’t losing purchasing power.
Still, with stagnant wages being a persistent problem both before and after crash, presuming that wages can rise enough to rescue the middle class without any new policies would be a big risk.
A big debate awaits us on how we solve the problem of stagnant wages holding back middle-class prosperity. Considering that under Bush, corporations did worse than under Obama, household income still fell and private sector jobs were lost, perhaps conservative economic policies should not be our North Star.
-
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/11/rickards-cusp-25-year-depression.html
-
Your thesis is broken - presidents and governments do not create private sector jobs, do not increase stock market values or corporate profits, and they don't have anything to do with oil and gas drilling on private lands. And they most certainly do not control the price of a barrel of oil, which is the main factor in determining the price of a gallon of gas.
Most of the REAL jobs created in recent years are due to oil and gas booms on private lands. You will see this decline as the price of oil has greatly declined.
Corporate profits will increase when they hoard money away, when they can borrow at near-zero interest rates, when the dollar is devalued via excessive printing and pumping via fed asset purchases, and when foreign investments pour in as a result of these things. Earnings per share also increase on paper when companies buy back stock, which many have been doing.
Clinton was smart enough to largely stay out of the way and let the private sector do its thing. Obama is no Bill Clinton. GDP post-recession growth is anemic when compared to other post-recession periods.
And you can blame the '08 crisis largely on bad loans largely written due to bad regulations put in place by liberals, and also due to another dramatic oil selloff in '08 from $140 to $40 a barrel in a very short time period.
Absolute fact.
-
Your thesis is broken - presidents and governments do not create private sector jobs, do not increase stock market values or corporate profits, and they don't have anything to do with oil and gas drilling on private lands. And they most certainly do not control the price of a barrel of oil, which is the main factor in determining the price of a gallon of gas.
Most of the REAL jobs created in recent years are due to oil and gas booms on private lands. You will see this decline as the price of oil has greatly declined.
Corporate profits will increase when they hoard money away, when they can borrow at near-zero interest rates, when the dollar is devalued via excessive printing and pumping via fed asset purchases, and when foreign investments pour in as a result of these things. Earnings per share also increase on paper when companies buy back stock, which many have been doing.
Clinton was smart enough to largely stay out of the way and let the private sector do its thing. Obama is no Bill Clinton. GDP post-recession growth is anemic when compared to other post-recession periods.
And you can blame the '08 crisis largely on bad loans largely written due to bad regulations put in place by liberals, and also due to another dramatic oil selloff in '08 from $140 to $40 a barrel in a very short time period.
so bush was worse than Obama,i'll agree with that
-
so bush was worse than Obama,i'll agree with that
You're trolling, right? You can't really be this stupid? Or can you?
-
your not going to tell me bush was good for the economy
-
Absolute fact.
LOL at "presidents and governments do not create private sector jobs,"
Romney got in this trap (like most do).
He said govt doesn't create jobs, then bragged about how many jobs he created as governor. Can't have both lol.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/post/does-government-create-jobs-yes-and-no-romney-camp-says/2012/05/22/gIQA4cDTiU_blog.html
Ab-so-fucking-lutely, the government creates the environment for jobs to be gained, or lost, and it's laughable to even debate it. it's like saying "I don't create forest fires, but I do pour gas everywhere and flick my ciggies, and hey, if a fire happens, that's just the forest market forces at work..." LOL
-
This thread is a good indicator of how stupid the Getbig rightwingers are.
TS posted several links to back up his claims and all the rightwingers can do is reply with "LOL" or "Its not true".
Its clear they are used to FOX telling them how the world works and they are totally lost when they have to explain or support their opinions to people who is not indoctrinated.
-
There's just no reason for anyone to vote for Stupid any more. Democrats have the WH locked up till at least 2024.
-
There's just no reason for anyone to vote for Stupid any more. Democrats have the WH locked up till at least 2024.
Trying to project races that far into the future is unrealistic.
Who do Democrats have that are going to walk through presidential elections? Hillary will obviously be strong, but who else is there? Biden? Warren? I saw an article saying Al Gore should run. Now that is laugh out loud funny. :)
-
Trying to project races that far into the future is unrealistic.
Who do Democrats have that are going to walk through presidential elections? Hillary will obviously be strong, but who else is there? Biden? Warren? I saw an article saying Al Gore should run. Now that is laugh out loud funny. :)
EXTREME candidates win elections. Gore probably would win, and probably by a good margin. The base would RUN to vote for him. moderates would love him for their clinton nostalgia.
Moderates, rinos... they don't win POTUS. Obama was most liberal senator. he won twice by large margins. romney/mccain were both losers, and both RINO moderates.
-
You also believe Obama caused the stock market to go up. You have no credibility.
Governments do not create private sector jobs, unless you're perhaps talking government contractors.
Politicians CAN create an ENVIRONMENT for added jobs via low taxes and regs - a business-friendly environment. Not the same thing.
We are seeing taxes and regs raised greatly in the last few years.
You claim to have a MBA? ::)
http://jeffduncan.house.gov/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes (http://jeffduncan.house.gov/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes)
And of course we always get input from the peanut gallery of foreigners - most of whom don't vote, work, or pay taxes themselves.
LOL at "presidents and governments do not create private sector jobs,"
Romney got in this trap (like most do).
He said govt doesn't create jobs, then bragged about how many jobs he created as governor. Can't have both lol.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/post/does-government-create-jobs-yes-and-no-romney-camp-says/2012/05/22/gIQA4cDTiU_blog.html
Ab-so-fucking-lutely, the government creates the environment for jobs to be gained, or lost, and it's laughable to even debate it. it's like saying "I don't create forest fires, but I do pour gas everywhere and flick my ciggies, and hey, if a fire happens, that's just the forest market forces at work..." LOL
-
my point is the hypocrisy of it. Politicians keep saying "I created jobs in this govt position", but at the same time mock the idea with "govts don't create jobs!"
Politicians work together to form a govt, which creates the environment where the economy grows or shrinks.