Obama economic recovery: Built on govt (over)spending and $Trillions$ in debt

[JEDI]

so we are in an economic recovery using the stock market as a gauge.

but during Obama's tenure, the national debt went up $10T+ and quadrupled vs when Bush Jr left office.

so basically the econ recovery is just a gilded recovery because it's just Obama artificially propping up the econ by borrowing $trillions$?

 

[justoh]

What's the problem? Just keep on printing money.

 

[Jhhnn]

so we are in an economic recovery using the stock market as a gauge.

but during Obama's tenure, the national debt went up $10T+ and quadrupled vs when Bush Jr left office.

so basically the econ recovery is just a gilded recovery because it's just Obama artificially propping up the econ by borrowing $trillions$?

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Try again.

Perhaps you'd care to comment on the fact that trickledown supply side Reaganomics has been propped up by govt borrowing & spending since its inception, other than during a few years late in the Clinton presidency.

Probably not.

 

[Incorruptible]

OP you're right. There hasn't been a real recovery under obama since he just propped it up with trillions in new debt.

 

[Jhhnn]

OP you're right. There hasn't been a real recovery under obama since he just propped it up with trillions in new debt.

Obviously, then, there was no real recovery under GWB & a Repub Congress when they did the same thing.

 

[Incorruptible]

Obviously, then, there was no real recovery under GWB & a Repub Congress when they did the same thing.

Of course there wasn't you ignoramus. Love how you always go back to bush.

 

[HomerJS]

OP you're right. There hasn't been a real recovery under obama since he just propped it up with trillions in new debt.

So I guess your preference would have been do nothing or tax cuts for the rich?

 

[Incorruptible]

So I guess your preference would have been do nothing or tax cuts for the rich?

So I guess your preference would have been to make partisan attacks and act like the scumbag you are?

 

[madoka]

but during Obama's tenure, the national debt went up $10T+ and quadrupled vs when Bush Jr left office.

Why that's IRRESPONSIBLE and UNPATRIOTIC according to this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydZTHPkOnvE&feature=player_embedded

 

[Smoblikat]

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Try again.

Perhaps you'd care to comment on the fact that trickledown supply side Reaganomics has been propped up by govt borrowing & spending since its inception, other than during a few years late in the Clinton presidency.

Probably not.

According to your facts, bush was in office for 8 years and raised the national debt by 5T$...........hussein had been in office for 4 years and raised it 6T$.

 

[Jaskalas]

There is no recovery!
Until the economy is positive under ZERO government deficit.

To say otherwise to is believe that you can print your way into prosperity. To attack the dollar and everything it's worth. I might go so far as to call it economic treason.

 

[boomerang]

Why that's IRRESPONSIBLE and UNPATRIOTIC according to this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydZTHPkOnvE&feature=player_embedded

Perfect video to link to in this thread. :thumbsup:

As a nation we should be ashamed to have elected this lazy incompetent to one term let alone two.

 

[crownjules]

The stock market isn't a gauge of economic well being in the slightest. A common misconception. Nor is its rise in the last few years attributed to debt spending.

It's due to the Fed. They've offered near 0% loans to banks for many years now. And it's very convenient that investment banks and commercials banks were allowed to merge operations once again. So basically they can take out a loan, swap the money over to investments and make lots of money, then return the loaned amount with almost nothing to pay. That activity has inflated stock prices.

But Bernanke announced that will soon be coming to an end. Watch out as the stock market bubble begins to deflate.

Meanwhile, look at the real measures of economic activity (jobs growth and GDP growth) and one can see that this is a very slow recovery.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Yeah because austerity is a huge success over in the Euro zone. Let's blame Obama for all this when the collapse happened on the Republicans' watch and our Dem president is more Republican than Bush was. The parties are an illusion, you need to roll a higher save.

 

[BoberFett]

Obviously, then, there was no real recovery under GWB & a Repub Congress when they did the same thing.

We haven't recovered since Carter. The 80s and beyond has all been "prosperity" borrowed from the future.

 

[Jaskalas]

We haven't recovered since Carter. The 80s and beyond has all been "prosperity" borrowed from the future.

One might notice that it keeps getting exponentially more expensive.

 

[HendrixFan]

We haven't recovered since Carter. The 80s and beyond has all been "prosperity" borrowed from the future.

In the 90s the (at the time) largest deficits in history were reversed and brought back to surplus. We moved in the correct direction for almost a decade. It was also, not coincidentally, the decade in which prosperity flourished and the middle class grew.

 

[Meghan54]

According to your facts, bush was in office for 8 years and raised the national debt by 5T$...........hussein had been in office for 4 years and raised it 6T$.

How'd you get those figures?

Bush added $6.1T to the deficit. Remember, Bush's beginning deficit was $5.087T and ending deficit was $11.909T, a difference of $6.1T.

(Clinton's last budget was the FY '01 budget, which left a deficit of $5.807T. Bush's last budget was the FY '09 budget which left a deficit of $11.909T, and was passed in July '08. The incoming president is "saddled" with his predecessor's budget his first year, well, through October of his first year.)

 

[Meghan54]

In the 90s the (at the time) largest deficits in history were reversed and brought back to surplus. We moved in the correct direction for almost a decade. It was also, not coincidentally, the decade in which prosperity flourished and the middle class grew.

Even stranger, we raised taxes during that period.

 

[chucky2]

We also had a .com and tech bubble to support even doing that, else they'd have been just as bad. That bubble popped soon before Bush 2 took office. What bubble replaced those bubbles? The housing bubble.

I wouldn't purport that our Politicians did something magical in the 90's: They didn't. They simply were lucky.

Chuck

P.S. Dems ran Congress if I remember correctly Bush 2's last couple of years in. To make it sound like Bush 2 himself is solely responsible for the deficit is highly disingenous. Although, he does share large parts of the blame, as Obama does, for allowing them to happen.

 

[Lash444]

Does anyone have an unbiased document on the deficit? I guess i should ask the republicans for such a document...

Show me something where you arent throwing the cost of the war on to obama.

I realize that the bailout money could have been handled better... but just once id like to see a factual document from your side where a legitimate point is made that obama is taking thingz in the wrong direction on this point.

We needed a stimulus... no?
The deficit rate is shrinking... no?
A lot of his attributable debt was a hand he was dealt... no? (did he have a choice?)

I understand that 10trillion sounds great... but assume some people here want some facts. Show me something that can point to obamas decisions directly creating his deficit.

show me the numbers. break it down for me.

 

[BoberFett]

In the 90s the (at the time) largest deficits in history were reversed and brought back to surplus. We moved in the correct direction for almost a decade. It was also, not coincidentally, the decade in which prosperity flourished and the middle class grew.

The tech boom was mostly false prosperity fueled by speculation on Wall Street. What real productivity gains we did have was quickly negated by shifting massive portions of our economy offshore to people willing to work for next to nothing. The Wall Street tech bubble was quickly corrected during Dubya's term, though he did try to reinflate that bubble through the housing market. That didn't turn out well. We're trying to keep it going now through massive deficit spending, but that can't last forever either.

 

[HendrixFan]

The tech boom was mostly false prosperity fueled by speculation on Wall Street. What real productivity gains we did have was quickly negated by shifting massive portions of our economy offshore to people willing to work for next to nothing. The Wall Street tech bubble was quickly corrected during Dubya's term, though he did try to reinflate that bubble through the housing market. That didn't turn out well. We're trying to keep it going now through massive deficit spending, but that can't last forever either.

The tech boom was real. People who didn't have computers in the 80s were replaced by people who DID have computers in the 90s. People who didn't have internet access in the 80s were replaced by people who had internet access in the 90s.

The dot com bubble didn't start to form until 1997, at which point over 15 million jobs had already been created since 1992. That is real. Of course, 1997 was just the start of the formation of the bubble, which didn't peak until years later. During the bubble interest rates were raised multiple times to help cool it. It wasn't fueled by a reckless administration.

Yes there were some internet millionaires in the late 90s, but that does nothing to discount the 22 million jobs created over the 8 year span, the growth in the middle class and the large growth in minority income. Those had nothing to do with the bubble and wall street's gains.

We began shifting to a service economy during that time, but honestly that is the direction the world is heading. In 50 years most production will be entirely automated meaning the vast majority of any tangible good doesn't need human capital. Once that fully sets in we will have already needed to figure out how to parcel out the wealth that we don't need to work to create. We can use that opportunity to broaden the tax base and help grow the middle class and lift up people out of poverty. Or we can take the 00s approach and use those massive productivity gains to concentrate wealth and power to those at the top and widen the income gap further into third world levels of disparity.

 

[MiniDoom]

ok, let me get this strait. you're saying gw bush is responsible for the bad economy now, 5 years after he left office but bush sr isn't responsible for the good economy 5 years after he left office in 1997?

 

[werepossum]

The stock market isn't a gauge of economic well being in the slightest. A common misconception. Nor is its rise in the last few years attributed to debt spending.

It's due to the Fed. They've offered near 0% loans to banks for many years now. And it's very convenient that investment banks and commercials banks were allowed to merge operations once again. So basically they can take out a loan, swap the money over to investments and make lots of money, then return the loaned amount with almost nothing to pay. That activity has inflated stock prices.

But Bernanke announced that will soon be coming to an end. Watch out as the stock market bubble begins to deflate.

Meanwhile, look at the real measures of economic activity (jobs growth and GDP growth) and one can see that this is a very slow recovery.

Agreed - but can you really see a President McCain or a President Romney doing much different? Congress spends the money, and I can't see either gentleman growing a backbone on deficit spending until we the voters demand it - or at least permit it.