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).
The real Unemployment rate is likely somewhere in the mid-20% or higher. UE numbers only report those who have applied for new benefits and those who are currently receiving benefits. It does NOT report those who have exhausted their benefits (and are still unemployed), nor those who have stopped seeking employment. You cannot honestly say the UE rate is somewhere lower than 10% when 35+% of Americans are unemployed. The math simply does not support that.
As for the economy, it only appears to be stable and positive. The truth is that the stock market is being artificially inflated by the Fed buying its own T-Bills (which are losing value), the Fed artificially keeping interest rates low, and currency manipulation that is done by continuously printing money that has no value. The only thing that sets our currency apart from Monopoly money is that the government has said that US Currency has value. Yeah, OK. I will continue to buy precious metals...
So revel in the LameStream Media's pronouncements that all is well and things are rosy and happy. Just pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. And don't be surprised when it all comes crashing down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#2009.E2.80.93present
Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Income inequality in the United States has increased significantly since the 1970s after several decades of stability, meaning the share of the nation's income received by higher income households has increased. This trend is evident with income measured both before taxes (market income) as well as after taxes and transfer payments. Income inequality has fluctuated considerably since measurements began around 1915, moving in an arc between...
As for why none of the benefits of the economic growth that has occurred have been distributed to "the poor", the simple fact is that "the poor" aren't "the investing class" and, as such, don't benefit from "the investments". (This is what's known as "Capitalism".).
I am sure that you are going to be able to find a lot of economic analysts who are going to be able to tell you that an 8% drop in "real median family income" works out to a drop of $2.190 (less than the price of coffee at Starbucks) per day for every $10,000 of "real family income". Of course, you are also going to have a hard time finding one of those economic analysts whose "real family income" actually dropped 8%.
"Micro-Capitalism" does have a tendency to promote widespread improvements in living conditions but doesn't actually have much to do with politics (the wellspring of all "rights" and "freedoms"). It also seldom is capable of funding large projects.
"Macro-Capitalism", on the other hand, has a tendency to promote improvements in living conditions for a small sub-set of the population and DOES have a lot to do with politics (the wellspring of "advantages" and "preferences"). It can, however, fund large projects.
The "trick" is to keep the two in balance.
The problem with figures like "average real income change" is that they are AVERAGES. If 99 people suffer a 1% drop and 1 person experiences a 99% increase, then the AVERAGE remains unchanged. Quite frankly, given how close the American economy came to tanking, I think that Mr. Obama did reasonably well (not "great", but "reasonably well"). Mind you, since "Congress" has consistently resisted taking any steps which would prevent a repeat of the incipient crash (or the flooding of money out of the country) - shovelling tons of cash into corporate treasuries isn't quite the same thing - the "issue" is going to raise its head again.
[ASIDE - My "suggestion" in 2007/8 was that the Democrats not even bother to run a candidate for President of the United States of America and simply campaign on the slogan of "OK, you broke it now let's see you fix it.". The odds would have been that by 2012 there would only have been one functional political party in the US (and it could have been EITHER the Republicans or the Democrats).
As far as a "jump" in interest rates is concerned, you might find the linked table of "Real Interest Rates" interesting.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FR.INR.RINR
While there are some good stats that can be shown, there are many more that show the true status of the economy and it is not good, even with the erroneous/manipulated data put out by the administration.
And, of course, it is completely unacceptable for "the administration" to "manipulate the data" by using exactly the same rules for data definition and collection as previous administrations did (and which showed previous administrations in a positive light).
Although BOTH the "non-Obama supporters" and the "Obama supporters" will agree that 2 plus 2 equals 4, they are not in agreement over the meaning of either "2" or "4"..
The Obama Administration is the embodiment of the old joke/definition of a good accountant, who, when asked, what 2+2 equals, answers, "what would you like it to be".
Of course the data has been "manipulated" - it's been "manipulated" in exactly the same manner as it was being "manipulated" when Mr. Bush was President, and when Mr. Carter was President before him, and when Mr. Bush's father was President before him and when Mr. ....
The difference, of course, is that when "our guy" is in charge then we accept the data uncritically but when "their guy" is in charge we are totally disgusted at the way that the data is being "manipulated".
This is a classic case of "But that's different.".
To answer the question directly, to say that the economy is a product of Bush's policies or President Obama's policies vastly oversimplifies a very complex model that has cycles and is affected by world events.
I can think of about a hundred people who have more of an effect on the economy than political leaders do. Politicians have large bearing on three segments today: Health care, government itself, and defense. and that power is not concentrated in any single person.
Prior to that, from 2006-2008 Democrats had significant majorities as well, and used that to attempt to alter Mr Bush's policies. One could make an argument that the paralysis and finger-pointing delayed a decent government response to obvious trouble signs in the real estate and venture capital markets as early as late 2007.
To say that the inauguration of President Obama was a panacea that "fixed" the economy ignores vast amounts of data and other factors that were at play.
When else has a single party enjoyed the same favourable conditions?
Obama is the most inept, divisive, corrupt, immoral, and racist president this country has ever had. It will take decades to undo the damage he and his Administration and sheeple have inflicted on this country.
. . .
What what about primary spending?
[see table at the to;\p
By that measure, we get even better results. There’s actually been a slight downward trend in the fiscal burden of government during the Obama years.
http://www.cato.org/blog/obama-really-most-frugal-president-over-past-50-years
Is Obama Really the Most Frugal President of the Past 50 Years?!?
It turns out Obama is only middle-of-the-pack in an era of big-spending government.
If Mr. Obama spends 20% more on the expenses for the Presidency and 1% less on the expenses for the rest of the country, do the total expenses go up or down?
For the last year that the figures are available the Brits spent around $58,000,000 on the Royal Family while Obama spent around 1.4 BILLION DOLLARS on the White House.
That 1.4 BILLION DOLLARS is a massive increase over the paltry $1,592,875,254.00 that Mr. Bush spent.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-presidency-costs-taxpayers-a-lot-but-thats-not-obamas-fault/
The Presidency Costs Taxpayers A Lot, But That’s Not Obama’s Fault
The Presidency costs taxpayers a lot of money, but that's been true for many, many years now.
You might be interested in this article
http://www.justfacts.com/nationaldebt.asp
Comprehensive and meticulously documented facts about the national debt. Learn about various measures of the national debt, contributing factors, consequences, and more.
Your second graph reflects money being dumped into the system by the Fed via 'quantitative easing.' Also, since when is it a good to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor?
On the other hand they weren't counted during Mr. Bush's presidency either.
So, other than the fact that the "real" unemployment rate is NEVER reported by any government, what is your point?
When you ask "...since when is it a good to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor?", I guess that the only answer that I can give you is "Since the invention of unregulated, free enterprise, oligarchy, capitalism.".
Say what you will about the magnitude of the figures, the patterns remain constant.
I recommend extending these charts to the left, and compare the S&P 500 and unemployment rates with the years of the Clinton presidency. Remember the dot-com bubble crash of 2000?
I question if blame for the housing bubble and the associated sub-prime mortgage crisis of 2008 should be directed at the President. It seems to me that much of the problems could be directed at world wide banking processes.
I've included a graphic for the S&P 500 [ https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/Daily_Linear_Chart_of_S%26P_500_from_1950_to_2013.png ] and there is a link to (a really nice chart of) the US unemployment rate below.
http://www.macrotrends.net/1316/unemployment-rate-historical-chart
Strangely enough some of the worldwide banks were MUCH less affected than the US banks were. The "worldwide" banks that adopted the US model of "heavy leverage, low reserves, high risk, and 'junk' securities" were the ones that were hit the hardest. The 'worldwide' banks that kept to the traditional/conservative practices of actually attempting to make only those loans that had a good chance of being repaid were hit MUCH less hard than the US banks.
Good points, good background data.
If we review the last associated data with the previous two years of full-two term presidential periods (1993-2000 (Clinton), and 2001-2009 (Bush)) - they begin with lows in unemployment, and generally end with rising unemployment; similarly, there are peaks in the S&P and dramatic falls in value.
I pray that nothing similar happens within this last year of the Obama presidential period.
Your point about the "worldwide banking system" is well-taken. There were and are excellent banks outside of the USA with traditional, solid, and conservative practices.
Still, the housing bubble (caused in some part by sub-prime mortgage sales) was also a significant issue for many countries beyond the USA, to include France, Ireland, Greece, the United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Romania, China, India, United Arab Emirates, etc. I should have more accurately referred to the "shadow banking system" rather than the worldwide banking system, which many believe aggravated the sub-prime mortgage crisis and led to a global credit crunch.
I think that it's necessary to separate "sub-prime mortgages" and "bundled sub-prime mortgage backed securities sales". With the first then the lender at least has the possibility of recouping a significant portion of their loan by realizing on the mortgage and actually acquiring real property (the old adage "Buy land, God has stopped making it." is still valid) while with the second the lender tends to end up with some really pretty wallpaper.
Most "bank lending" is predicated upon the knowledge that a SMALL percentage of the loans will default. (Credit cards are predicated upon the knowledge that a large percentage of the loans will default.) The sub-prime mortgages were predicated on not caring if any of the loans defaulted because what was important was for A to have a piece of paper that said "X owes Y $Z" which could then be sold to B for $Z-p at which point B would then bundle it with a bunch of other "X owes Y $Z" pieces of paper and sell the lot off for $Z-p+Q (which in some cases turned out to be higher than the total of all the $Zs in the bunch) - and, besides, it was now going to be C's problem.
Considering the scandal over setting the international foreign exchange rates and the participation of almost every major American bank in the events which almost led up to a generalized bank failure (with the "bad banks" dragging the "good banks" down with them [and which was averted almost solely due to "Welfare For The Rich"]) I think that a more appropriate term for "shadow banking system" would be "shady banking system".
The average person does not appear to realize that the amount of REAL "money" available is generally pretty limited in the rate that it can be expanded. HOWEVER the amount of "currency" which is available is limited only by the degree to which people aren't prepared to laugh at its pretencion to value. In this regard the American Dollar has a decided advantage.
BUT if that advantage is lost then all (economic) hell is going to break out.
Unfortunately it appears that the American populace has become addicted to its "McDonald's and Reality TV" in the same way that the Roman populace became addicted to its "Bread and Circuses". Equally unfortunately it appears that American politics is following the Roman model where the way to the top was to buy the support of the masses by pandering to their baser natures and financing the buying by
"looting the non-Romans".