Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mongo2116 who wrote (829551)	1/12/2015 1:01:47 PM
From: Sdgla	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB locogringo Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1574198

As usual you make shit up... and the reality is we have not yet recovered from the mess Clinton created. It’s not news that Barack Obama likes to blame George Bush’s ‘failed policies’ for all of the problems in America today. But now we know that after four years of Barack Obama the economic growth during the Bush years was greater than during the Obama era. ( Trading Economics) Despite the Clinton recession, the Attack on 9-11, Hurricane Katrina, two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the mortgage crisis that caused the 2008 financial collapse, GDP growth during the Bush years was higher than during the Obama years. Under George Bush GDP growth was an average 1.67 percent. Under Barack Obama GDP growth was an average 1.53 percent. (Numbers from Trading Economics) Remember this the next time Obama bashes George W. Bush.

To: Mongo2116 who wrote (829551)	1/12/2015 1:04:36 PM
From: Sdgla	4 Recommendations Recommended By FJB locogringo Tenchusatsu TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574198

Obama's Economy Is Worse Than Bush's, By Obama's Own Numbers [iframe id="google_ads_iframe_/7175/fdc.forbes/article-new_2" name="google_ads_iframe_/7175/fdc.forbes/article-new_2" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: bottom; max-width: none !important;"][/iframe] They can't even goose GDP growth with their spending (Photo credit: 401(K) 2013) President Obama is fond of saying that he came into office in 2009 when the economy was in free-fall, when we were suffering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, among other clichés. It’s time we took the President at his word, at face value. If the economy was in fact in a desperate state when Barack Obama became president in January 2009, then his economic policies should be measured, by common consent, from a low base. What this means is that any improvement, any increment of economic growth that occurred after early 2009 will look especially good. This is so because of the nature of fractions. Any change is greater, as a percentage, over a low base (a low denominator) than over a high one. In the four and a half years since the close of 2008, the American economy has grown at the inflation-adjusted rate of 1.6% per year. Is this number, 1.6%, any good? Let’s compare it to that obtained by President Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush. From the beginning of 2001 until the close of 2008—the W. term—economic growth averaged 1.7% per year. So W. wins by a nose. But as everyone knows, Bush came into office in the midst (as it turns out, at the peak) of one of the great historic booms in modern American economic history. From 1982 to 2000, the American economy expanded at a 3.7% rate. This included a big kick at the end of that run, 1995-2000, that measured 4.2% per year. The base, the denominator, of the W. record, was therefore notably high. When we say that the Bush record of economic growth was 1.7%, greater by a hair than Obama’s current 1.6%, we should also account for the fact that the predicate of the comparison is highly differential. Bush started from a high base and came in low. Obama started from a low base and came in worse. The statistic we are talking about here is that old warhorse of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Gross Domestic Product,” or GDP. GDP grew at a 1.7% per annum rate from the close of 2000 to that of 2008 and has gone up at 1.6% since. The thing about GDP is it is designed to flatter the government. Government spending is considered outright a component of GDP. Whatever dollars the government spends, it shows up in GDP. Now, to be sure, the rate of the federal government’s spending increase has slowed marginally from 2008—the year of TARP and all that. In the Bush years, federal spending in inflation-adjusted terms went up 3.9% per annum, more than double the rate of economic growth, astonishingly. Since 2009, federal spending has gone up at 2.5% per year, still well higher than the lame rate of GDP change. 1982-2000, when the economy was growing at 3.7%, real federal spending growth was notably slower, at 2.2% per year, and in the last big push of 4.2% GDP growth from 1995-2000, federal spending clocked only 1.6% growth. What we have, then, in the twenty-first century, is a baker’s dozen years of pathetic GDP growth, quite in contradiction with the best of recent American traditions. We also have a government that is growing as much as it possibly can, also in defiance of those traditions. Surely the reason that the Obama years have not seen even higher rates of federal spending growth is that the 2008 base—of government spending—was itself high. Furthermore, real-economy growth has come in so low since then that it is difficult for government to displace yet more of the private economy by spending. President Obama “inherited” (another favorite word of the president’s enablers) a low GDP base and did terribly with it, well worse in comparison to his much-maligned predecessor. He inherited a high government spending base and still managed to increase that number at a rate 50% above general growth. In a rational world, we’d stifle such a failure from still having access to the controls.

To: Mongo2116 who wrote (829551)	1/12/2015 1:07:32 PM
From: Sdgla	1 Recommendation Recommended By locogringo Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574198

Ranking the Presidents by G.D.P. {Obama revised to 0.57 } By FLOYD NORRIS JULY 29, 2011 5:09 PM July 29, 2011 5:09 pm 11 Comments The revised G.D.P. numbers damage the economic growth numbers for Obama and the George W. Bush administrations. FLOYD NORRIS Notions on high and low finance. There is an element of unfairness in attributing economic growth to a president, of course. The government has limited influence on the economy, and the president can have limited influence on government policy, as anyone watching the current debate in Washington has surely noticed. Normal economic cycles mean that growth is likely to be less impressive for a president who enters office at the end of a boom, as George W. Bush did, and better for one who enters when growth is weak, as Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan did. If normal cyclical factors return, and President Obama has a second term, his record should end up much better than it currently appears. If he loses, he could be like Gerald Ford, who also took office during a deep recession. With all those caveats, here are the annualized growth rates for real G.D.P. for every president who took office after the end of World War II. Each president is given credit for growth through the quarter before he left office. For those who left at the end of their terms, that would be the fourth quarter of the election year. For Richard M. Nixon, who resigned during the third quarter of 1974, it is through the second quarter of that year. Also shown are the figures for Presidents Bush and Obama that would have appeared had the numbers been calculated before today’s announcement of second quarter data and revisions to earlier numbers. They are listed in reverse order of growth. Barack Obama, 1.2% annual G.D.P. growth rate (previously 1.5%) George W. Bush, 1.6% (previously 1.7%) George H.W. Bush, 2.1% Gerald Ford, 2.2% Dwight Eisenhower, 2.5% Richard Nixon, 3.0% Jimmy Carter, 3.2% Ronald Reagan, 3.5% Bill Clinton, 3.8% Lyndon B. Johnson, 5.0% John F. Kennedy, 5.4%