Posted on Nov 7, 2015
6
6
0
I'm confused. Hasn't President Obama been disastrous for the American economy?
Since he was so bad for the America economy, can anyone explain the graphs?
http://www.electoral-vote.com/index.html
PS - Please don't tell me that the people who are running the website are "liberals" - I already know that and as far as I know a "liberal" 2 is identical to a "conservative" 2 (and that applies to any other number you want to name).
Since he was so bad for the America economy, can anyone explain the graphs?
http://www.electoral-vote.com/index.html
PS - Please don't tell me that the people who are running the website are "liberals" - I already know that and as far as I know a "liberal" 2 is identical to a "conservative" 2 (and that applies to any other number you want to name).
Posted in these groups: 
Barack Obama
Economy
Barack Obama Economy
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 18
1
1
0
No they are not after 7 years under this administration. They have cause a huge divide in the nation.
They have left us weak and vulnerable to attacks; worrying about gun control and global warming!
We need to instill fear by destroying terrorist cells without remorse or whimppy efforts.
They have left us weak and vulnerable to attacks; worrying about gun control and global warming!
We need to instill fear by destroying terrorist cells without remorse or whimppy efforts.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT - Sergeant Major; You have an excellent point. If everyone is terrified of the United States of America then the war on terror will be over.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I would recommend reading Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt for a good insight on how our economy works and what it means. It's only 211 pages so its a short read but it is packed with good information.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
i think we need to stop blaming the presidents and remember the fact that we all said that we will support them just like the constitution. Lets leave all the blaming to the civilian sector.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SFC (Join to see) - Staff; Do you really want to deprive the children of their toys and make them act like grownups?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Sir, with all due respect, I don't trust any unemployment number coming from a government agency. The true numbers are never shown.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSG (Join to see) - Staff; I agree that the "true" numbers are never shown - but what IS shown are the numbers for the specified definition of "true". As long as the specified definition isn't changed then the numbers are comparable with each other and trends can be determined.
It is, indeed, quite possible that the "real" unemployment numbers are directly related to the "reported" unemployment numbers but that it is not practicable to establish what the "real" numbers are due to a variety of factors. (For [a really silly] example, "Is a laid off Steelworker who has just won $50,000,000 in the State Lottery 'unemployed'?". For another [equally silly] example, "Is a disbarred lawyer who is not staying home and looking after the house and children while their wife carries on with her $500,000 per year job as a CEO 'unemployed'?".)
What you have to check is whether the "specified definition" has been changed. If it hasn't, then a decrease in the MEASURED "unemployment" almost certainly means a decrease in the REAL unemployment and an increase similarly means an increase.
By analogy, I may not know what my blood alcohol level is, but I can (usually) tell if I am more or less drunk than I was an hour ago.
It is, indeed, quite possible that the "real" unemployment numbers are directly related to the "reported" unemployment numbers but that it is not practicable to establish what the "real" numbers are due to a variety of factors. (For [a really silly] example, "Is a laid off Steelworker who has just won $50,000,000 in the State Lottery 'unemployed'?". For another [equally silly] example, "Is a disbarred lawyer who is not staying home and looking after the house and children while their wife carries on with her $500,000 per year job as a CEO 'unemployed'?".)
What you have to check is whether the "specified definition" has been changed. If it hasn't, then a decrease in the MEASURED "unemployment" almost certainly means a decrease in the REAL unemployment and an increase similarly means an increase.
By analogy, I may not know what my blood alcohol level is, but I can (usually) tell if I am more or less drunk than I was an hour ago.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
TSgt Kenneth Ellis
Lol. Obama has kept interest to 0. Great for the one percent. If it was not for Obama we would be at 5 to 6 percent growth. Oh and he prints slot of money too.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
TSgt Kenneth Ellis - Sergeant; Speculation is one thing. Controlling interest rates so that the economy doesn't tank due to bank failures is something else again.
You might be interested in the linked article.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/06/gdpinflation.asp
You might also find the S&P "Inflation Adjusted" GDP growth rate chart [ http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year ] interesting. The AVERAGE during Mr. Bush's term was 2.07% while the AVERAGE (for the information currently available) during Mr. Obama's term was 1.79%. Considering that a fairly large contribution to the US GDP is as a result of "war spending" (the highest annual increase in the US GDP was in 1943 and the increase was 78.21% [under a Democrat Presidency]) and considering that there was a lot less of that during Mr. Obama's term than during Mr. Bush's term, the numbers appear to be reasonably comparable.
You should also note that Mr. Obama "enjoyed" the "benefits" of the increase in housing prices and the "more affordable mortgages" which came into existence during Mr. Bush's administration. This probably had the effect of increasing the increase in the US GDP by an annual average of around -0.50%
You might be interested in the linked article.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/06/gdpinflation.asp
You might also find the S&P "Inflation Adjusted" GDP growth rate chart [ http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year ] interesting. The AVERAGE during Mr. Bush's term was 2.07% while the AVERAGE (for the information currently available) during Mr. Obama's term was 1.79%. Considering that a fairly large contribution to the US GDP is as a result of "war spending" (the highest annual increase in the US GDP was in 1943 and the increase was 78.21% [under a Democrat Presidency]) and considering that there was a lot less of that during Mr. Obama's term than during Mr. Bush's term, the numbers appear to be reasonably comparable.
You should also note that Mr. Obama "enjoyed" the "benefits" of the increase in housing prices and the "more affordable mortgages" which came into existence during Mr. Bush's administration. This probably had the effect of increasing the increase in the US GDP by an annual average of around -0.50%
The Importance Of Inflation And GDP | Investopedia
Learn the underlying theories behind these concepts and what they can mean for your portfolio.
(1)
(0)
TSgt Kenneth Ellis
I appreciate you comments. But it has been seven years and I don't like how Obama is handling the economy. I've lived in San Bernadino and he could not even comfort the victims . I wish you a happy and prosperous New Year. I'm voting you up not because I agree but how you handled your response.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
TSgt Kenneth Ellis - Sergeant; As long as both sides are using the same facts, then (usually) the conclusions are personal and there is nothing wrong with that.
The real problem comes into play when one side insists on using their own "facts" to support their opinion and the other side insists on ALSO using their own "facts" to support THEIR opinion. Without an agreement on which data to use then there is no reconciling the opinions as either "rational" or "irrational".
BOTH sides may be 100% correct in their evaluations BASED ON THEIR OWN FACTS. Of course that could also mean that NEITHER side is correct based on the actual facts.
The real problem comes into play when one side insists on using their own "facts" to support their opinion and the other side insists on ALSO using their own "facts" to support THEIR opinion. Without an agreement on which data to use then there is no reconciling the opinions as either "rational" or "irrational".
BOTH sides may be 100% correct in their evaluations BASED ON THEIR OWN FACTS. Of course that could also mean that NEITHER side is correct based on the actual facts.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
COL Ted Mc
SPC Rory J. Mattheisen - Spec; You give Mr. Bush too much credit. He had lots of help (before, during, and after his time as President of the United States of America).
(1)
(0)
SPC Rory J. Mattheisen
COL Ted Mc - Well you see, I missed the Bush bashing boat as I do not bash the President in office. At least I do not blame the people who voted for him, I mean he did lose the election twice and he still took office for 8 years...
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC Rory J. Mattheisen - Spec; You really should check out some of those resources. They save a whole lot of thinking because all you have to do is F&R "Bush" with "Obama" and they will serve you perfectly for the next 10 months.
Of course, if challenged then the portmanteau defense of "That's different." is equally applicable.
Of course, if challenged then the portmanteau defense of "That's different." is equally applicable.
(1)
(0)
1
-1
2
COL Jean (John) F. B.
Capt Walter Miller - You really need to quit embarrassing yourself, Captain. :-)
(1)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
President Obama is the best president in 50 years just for pushing for healthcare for all Americans.
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
COL Jean (John) F. B. - And... the employment picture is good enough, despite rampant disinformation that sways the stupid - People don't have to take crap jobs at KFC.
(0)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
Capt Walter Miller - Smoke and mirrors. Does not capture the millions who have quit looking for work, those who are working well below their old jobs or at part-time, instead of full-time jobs, etc., etc. Information put out by a corrupt Administration for the gullible sheeple.
(1)
(0)
1
-2
3
COL Jean (John) F. B.
Capt Walter Miller ... LOL... What a laugh. Reminds me of "Except for that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" or "Except for that, Ms. Kennedy, wasn't that a lovely drive?"
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google