Started By
Message

re: Obama Economy 4th Worst of Any US President

Posted on 4/29/16 at 4:29 pm to
Posted by BHMKyle
Birmingham, AL
Member since Feb 2013
5076 posts
Posted on 4/29/16 at 4:29 pm to
quote:

Republicans ginned up debt fears b/c it's an easy way to hamstring a Democratic president.


This is unbelievable. One of the left's main criticisms of Reagan was that he increased our national debt to ridiculous levels. The left loves to talk about how Clinton was the only modern day president to balance the budget (despite the fact it was the GOP Congress that was actually responsible). And one of the main criticisms of the Iraq War was its cost.

Then came 2008, and then Senator Barack Obama said this during his campaign for president:

quote:

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.
- Barack Obama on July 3, 2008


So was that fear mongering?

Then Obama the Hypocrite came in and took our debt from $9 Trillion up to $19 Trillion!!! And he still has another 9 months left!

quote:

I'm not arguing that there isn't an unsustainable level of debt. I'm just saying we clearly haven't reached it, and likely won't for quite some time.


No one is saying we've already reached it. But in less than 8 years since Obama was sworn in as president, our debt has risen from 74% of GDP up to 104% of GDP. It's risen from $9 Trillion up to $19 Trillion. These types of increases in less than 8 years time is clearly dangerous... and its taking our country far closer to the point of being unsustainable at an unbelievably fast rate.

Anyone who thinks adding that much debt in such a short amount of time is healthy either needs to have their head checked or is so politically biased they can't admit truth.
This post was edited on 4/29/16 at 4:31 pm
Posted by WheelRoute
Washington, D.C.
Member since Oct 2013
1811 posts
Posted on 4/29/16 at 4:51 pm to
quote:

So was that fear mongering?


Partly. It was also partly good fiscal sense. Obama spent massive sums to bail us out of what would've been a serious depression, and the recession that did occur meant much lower tax receipts and huge increases in gov't outlays for things like unemployment, food stamps, etc. to weather the crisis. Bush spent massive sums to hand out tax breaks and pay for Medicare Part D.

And, to be fair, that quote was from 08 back when the Rogoff/Reinhard model was still assumed to be accurate.

Lastly, Dems were incensed a/b Reagan's spending b/c as a PERCENTAGE of the change in public debt it represents an increase that dwarfs Obama's (190% to say 90%). Irrespective of the danger it may or may not have posed, it was psychologically appalling. So some blowback was understandable (and good politics, if not great economics).

quote:

These types of increases in less than 8 years time is clearly dangerous


Why is it clearly dangerous? You can't answer this question.
Posted by Duke
Twin Lakes, CO
Member since Jan 2008
35701 posts
Posted on 4/29/16 at 4:53 pm to
quote:

are you saying it's better to be in debt than not?


Really depends if you need to invest or need to save.

It's really not surprising in the face of global economic weakness and Americans needing to get some debt off their books, government deficits have increased.

Cutting the debt for the sake of it is silly. Not wasting the debt on ineffective wasteful spending (F-35, the million different organizations running social programs, ect) is.
Posted by Robert Goulet
Member since Jan 2013
9999 posts
Posted on 4/29/16 at 6:28 pm to
quote:

We have an opportunity at the moment to borrow at insanely low rates to fund much needed infrastructure repair. We have the opportunity to invest in ourselves for peanuts.


Agree we need to update infrastructure and the good it would do for the economy. I understand we (FED) own most of the debt, but the foreign debt is nothing to sneeze at.

Anyway, what you claim sounds interesting, you have a link to some light reading on it?
Posted by Duke
Twin Lakes, CO
Member since Jan 2008
35701 posts
Posted on 4/29/16 at 6:40 pm to
quote:

the foreign debt is nothing to sneeze at.


It's not like any of them are going to call it in, even if they could. Our debt is used as collateral for financing in the developing world.

The big risk is getting too much debt, and wasting more and more tax revenue just to service it. Some sort of shock that would send interest rates soaring could be problematic very quickly, but that's arguably a remote risk with the current global economy.
Posted by Robert Goulet
Member since Jan 2013
9999 posts
Posted on 4/29/16 at 7:13 pm to
quote:

It's not like any of them are going to call it in, even if they could.


But if they did. The Saudis alone would hurt our economy and they could certainly afford to do it.

I agree with you that it wont likely happen, and I understand that foreign investment (in the form of debt) can be a good thing, but our economy is certainly vulnerable as has been proven in the recent past.
Posted by Duke
Twin Lakes, CO
Member since Jan 2008
35701 posts
Posted on 4/29/16 at 7:27 pm to
quote:

The Saudis alone would hurt our economy and they could certainly afford to do it.



You mean while they're rapidly trying to diversify their economy they'd choose to torpedo the global economy? They can't afford to do that.

Our economy (and everyone elses) is vulnerable, but no big player is going to choose to kill their bottom line. It's when no one sees the big downside coming that things go tits up.
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
109843 posts
Posted on 4/29/16 at 8:00 pm to
I find it hard to believe that Teddy Roosevelt is the 3rd worst US President. The man was a fricking legend.
Posted by vengeanceofrain
depends
Member since Jun 2013
12465 posts
Posted on 4/30/16 at 6:06 pm to
Any list that gas Teddy as the third worst president is a list you can't take seriously the man single handily made the Panama canal happen which made trade easier which made America more profitable

Presidents off the top of my head that had much, much shitter economies


Literally every president up until Andrew Jackson.

Every president afterward until Woodrow Wilson

Herbert Hoover

FDR (I like him but it's true)


Jimmy Carter


Dubba 2.0
Posted by BHMKyle
Birmingham, AL
Member since Feb 2013
5076 posts
Posted on 5/2/16 at 8:35 am to
quote:

Any list that gas Teddy as the third worst president is a list you can't take seriously


It's not a popularity list. It's factual numbers of how the economy performed during each presidency. Teddy may have been a good president, but GDP growth during his time in office was the 3rd worst. Facts are facts.
Posted by BHMKyle
Birmingham, AL
Member since Feb 2013
5076 posts
Posted on 5/2/16 at 8:42 am to
quote:

And, to be fair, that quote was from 08 back when the Rogoff/Reinhard model was still assumed to be accurate.


Right. I see how this works. When Democrat president blows our debt up, its time to "change" the system and how its measured. Makes perfect sense. Something tells me that if this were Year 8 of the McCain administration, and our debt levels were 104% of GDP, this system would still be highly regarded.

quote:

Lastly, Dems were incensed a/b Reagan's spending b/c as a PERCENTAGE of the change in public debt it represents


Right. So you are saying Democrats had every reason to be infuriated with debt during the Reagan administration, but if any conservative dares to criticize Obama then that's just fear mongering. I see how you operate.

quote:

Why is it clearly dangerous? You can't answer this question.


I absolutely can. The most difficult thing to do in Washington is cut spending or cut a program all together. Obama has inflated our government and our spending to unhealthy levels. As he so eloquently put it, he's added more debt than the first 43 presidents combined. And the problem is, that spending will only increase because no one in Washington is serious about cutting anything.

Now the economy is showing signs of a slow-down (from an already slow pace), and if the same level of spending continues that debt to GDP ratio will only soar that much further.
Posted by BhamDave
Member since Nov 2015
7 posts
Posted on 5/2/16 at 9:20 am to
Posted by kywildcatfanone
Wildcat Country!
Member since Oct 2012
119842 posts
Posted on 5/2/16 at 9:27 am to
quote:

BhamDave


Maddow Blog
Posted by The Spleen
Member since Dec 2010
38865 posts
Posted on 5/2/16 at 10:34 am to
quote:

If this meeting actually took place, it was probably a scheduled meeting that would have taken place no matter who had won the presidency


Here's a link about it. There are several more, I just posted the first result of a Google search.

LINK

And it wasn't the meeting that was unusual, it was the strategy adopted at the meeting. A strategy to fight everything Obama proposed.

quote:

The vitriol spewed at Bush by Democrats was off the charts.


Sure, but like I said that really didn't start on a widespread level until his second term. Obama has faced it from day one in office.

Posted by BHMKyle
Birmingham, AL
Member since Feb 2013
5076 posts
Posted on 5/2/16 at 12:00 pm to
quote:

Sure, but like I said that really didn't start on a widespread level until his second term. Obama has faced it from day one in office.


No. He's faced no such opposition. Refusal by Congress to support a President's agenda is one thing.... what Bush faced is entirely different.

Governor Howard Dean (D- VT) said he had proof that George Bush knew that the WTC was going to be attacked prior to the attack and did nothing about it.... basically saying George Bush was responsible for September 11th.

Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) stated that Bush allowed the September 11th attacks to happen because he and the elder President Bush wanted to make significant financial gain in the stock market.

Congresswomen Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) also introduced articles of impeachment against President Bush, with the reason basically being that he was a murderer and a liar.

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) said that Bush Administration's use of Guantanamo Bay Prison was the equivalent of Nazi concentration camps.

Senators Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Congressman Mike Thompson (D-CA) all traveled to Iraq in the lead-up to the Iraq War to meet with the Saddam Hussein regime.... completely defying President Bush as the US Commander in Chief. While there, they criticized President Bush on the foreign soil of our enemy.

And Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) went to Syria and met with Bashaar al Assad, and while there critized US foreign policy.

If you think Republican's refusal to vote for Obamacare or to favor things like Cap & Trade is the equivalent of Bush being called a murderer, likened to Hitler, and being subverted on foreign soil by Democrats meeting with our enemies.... then you need to get your head checked.

Give me examples of Republican Senators or Congressmen saying anything close to as vitriolic about Obama.
This post was edited on 5/2/16 at 12:01 pm
Posted by Old Money
Member since Sep 2012
36687 posts
Posted on 5/2/16 at 4:59 pm to
One factor = the whole economy?

quote:

Barack Obama will be the only U.S. president in history who did not deliver a single year of 3.0%+ economic growth.


I don't belive this

Here you go
LINK
This post was edited on 5/2/16 at 5:05 pm
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 4Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter