Obama the 4th worst president EVER in GDP Growth

[Jhhnn]

Where are the jobs, Mr. President?

Right here-

Or like this-

It takes awhile for the economy to get over being date raped, which is the story of the Ownership Society.

 

[soundforbjt]

And sadly, obama doesn't squat either.

No he stands to pee unlike you.😀

But seriously, do you think you could beat him on the basketball court?

 

[Blackjack200]

He didn't take office until 2009.

IIRC, The honest assessment is that the economy was in deep trouble going into 2008. The Fed, The Congress, and the Bush Administration all took steps to turn it around. Obama kept those policies going and increased the fiscal stimulus.

 

[repoman0]

Manning up means getting off your computer and squatting a relatively heavy amount for 5 sets of 5. Not a coin flip bet. I would suggest you man up, asap unless you like the diabetes slowly creeping in your waistline. When are you going to man up and work out?

Ahhh, this explains everything! You're in high school, the only place where what you squat has any bearing on non-squat form related opinions. In that case, I suggest getting off ATPN and your phone and paying attention in class, big guy :thumbsup:

 

[DAPUNISHER]

So, you're averaging all 8 years, and comparing them to Bush's 8 years?
Why don't we leave out the first 2 years?

Dec 31, 2015 3.12%
Dec 31, 2014 3.88%
Dec 31, 2013 4.05%
Dec 31, 2012 3.24%
Dec 31, 2011 3.64%
Dec 31, 2010 4.56%
Dec 31, 2009 0.11%
Dec 31, 2008 -0.92%
If we ignore the first 2 years, then every year has been higher than Bush's average.

edit: http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year 1st google result in searching for GDP growth by year

Brutal :thumbsup:

 

[Exophase]

Breakdown of GDP growth per year here:

http://useconomy.about.com/od/GDP-by-Year/a/US-GDP-History.htm

It's obvious to anyone who is looking at this honestly that Obama is not responsible for the huge -2.8% delta in 2009, which was clearly an outcome of events in 2008. Look at 2008 and 2009 by quarter. The huge hits were in Q4 2008 and Q1 2009. Q4 2008 (you know, when Bush was still in office) was the worst drop since 1982. You can't very well blame that on Obama! He looks bad because his presidency happened right after a market crash.

A lot of issues in the global economy have made growth hard for most non-developing countries in the past several years.

 

[SP33Demon]

So, you're averaging all 8 years, and comparing them to Bush's 8 years?
Why don't we leave out the first 2 years?

Dec 31, 2015 3.12%
Dec 31, 2014 3.88%
Dec 31, 2013 4.05%
Dec 31, 2012 3.24%
Dec 31, 2011 3.64%
Dec 31, 2010 4.56%
Dec 31, 2009 0.11%
Dec 31, 2008 -0.92%
If we ignore the first 2 years, then every year has been higher than Bush's average.

edit: http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year 1st google result in searching for GDP growth by year

And we've found the first person who not only didn't read the article in the OP but who thinks GDP growth rate is the real rate. Try again, champ. Obama hasn't popped 3% while Bush has twice in 04/05. Total fail of reading.

Obummer's average = 1.55%. Abysmal for an 8 year average and he had more than ample time to get it over 2 if he only hit 3% a few of the years. W's dad and Bill were hitting over 4%.

Dec 31, 2015 1.98%
Dec 31, 2014 2.47%
Dec 31, 2013 2.45%
Dec 31, 2012 1.28%
Dec 31, 2011 1.68%
Dec 31, 2010 2.73%
Dec 31, 2009 -0.24%
Dec 31, 2008 -2.77%
Dec 31, 2007 1.87%
Dec 31, 2006 2.39%
Dec 31, 2005 3.03%
Dec 31, 2004 3.12%
Dec 31, 2003 4.36%
Dec 31, 2002 2.04%
Dec 31, 2001 0.21%
Dec 31, 2000 2.89%
Dec 31, 1999 4.69%
Dec 31, 1998 5.00%
Dec 31, 1997 4.39%
Dec 31, 1996 4.45%
Dec 31, 1995 2.28%
Dec 31, 1994 4.13%
Dec 31, 1993 2.63%
Dec 31, 1992 4.33%
Dec 31, 1991 1.22%
Dec 31, 1990 0.65%
http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year

 

[SP33Demon]

Ahhh, this explains everything! You're in high school, the only place where what you squat has any bearing on non-squat form related opinions. In that case, I suggest getting off ATPN and your phone and paying attention in class, big guy :thumbsup:

^ I can't say much to this guy because he actually squats. Take note, fatties.

repo, I'm working from home and taking breaks. Heavy front squats and high rack pulls tonight when I can get this project done.

 

[fskimospy]

And we've found the first person who not only didn't read the article in the OP but who thinks GDP growth rate is the real rate. Try again, champ. Obama hasn't popped 3% while Bush has twice in 04/05. Total fail of reading.

Obummer's average = 1.55%. Abysmal for an 8 year average and he had more than ample time to get it over 2 if he only hit 3% a few of the years. W's dad and Bill were hitting over 4%.

Dec 31, 2015 1.98%
Dec 31, 2014 2.47%
Dec 31, 2013 2.45%
Dec 31, 2012 1.28%
Dec 31, 2011 1.68%
Dec 31, 2010 2.73%
Dec 31, 2009 -0.24%
Dec 31, 2008 -2.77%
Dec 31, 2007 1.87%
Dec 31, 2006 2.39%
Dec 31, 2005 3.03%
Dec 31, 2004 3.12%
Dec 31, 2003 4.36%
Dec 31, 2002 2.04%
Dec 31, 2001 0.21%
Dec 31, 2000 2.89%
Dec 31, 1999 4.69%
Dec 31, 1998 5.00%
Dec 31, 1997 4.39%
Dec 31, 1996 4.45%
Dec 31, 1995 2.28%
Dec 31, 1994 4.13%
Dec 31, 1993 2.63%
Dec 31, 1992 4.33%
Dec 31, 1991 1.22%
Dec 31, 1990 0.65%
http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year

Why do you think GDP growth has been low since 2008?

This should be a fun game. I wonder how many stupid things you will say.

 

[Exophase]

Obummer's average = 1.55%. Abysmal for an 8 year average and he had more than ample time to get it over 2 if he only hit 3% a few of the years. W's dad and Bill were hitting over 4%.

I don't know where you're getting 1.55% from. Oh wait, now I do, you took the sum from 7 years of data and divided it by 8. Sloppy, very sloppy.

Obama's 7 year average is 1.764%, Bush's was 1.781%, so pretty close and hardly something worth splitting hairs over. He'll need over 1.9% in 2016 to exceed Bush's average, which is fairly likely.

 

[SP33Demon]

Breakdown of GDP growth per year here:

http://useconomy.about.com/od/GDP-by-Year/a/US-GDP-History.htm

It's obvious to anyone who is looking at this honestly that Obama is not responsible for the huge -2.8% delta in 2009, which was clearly an outcome of events in 2008. Look at 2008 and 2009 by quarter. The huge hits were in Q4 2008 and Q1 2009. Q4 2008 (you know, when Bush was still in office) was the worst drop since 1982. You can't very well blame that on Obama! He looks bad because his presidency happened right after a market crash.

A lot of issues in the global economy have made growth hard for most non-developing countries in the past several years.

The -2.77 was charged to George W Bush, he didn't take office until 1/2009. So obama was only charged with the -0.24 from 2009.

 

[fskimospy]

The -2.77 was charged to George W Bush, he didn't take office until 1/2009. So obama was only charged with the -0.24 from 2009.

That doesn't change the fact that events after 2008 were strongly affected by it. It also doesn't change the fact that you can't do basic math.

 

[repoman0]

^ I can't say much to this guy because he actually squats. Take note, fatties.

repo, I'm working from home and taking breaks. Heavy front squats and high rack pulls tonight when I can get this project done.

A semi-civil response to a troll comment ... who would have guessed?

I really wish I had a rack at home too. I could work from home way more often. :thumbsup:

Troll comment aside, as others have pointed out, this thread is a clearly flawed analysis since it includes 2008 and 2009, and as far as I can tell the recession can't really be attributed to either Bush or Obama ...

edit: okay doesn't include 2008, but the math is still off and the recession comment re: 2009 still stands.

 

[SP33Demon]

I don't know where you're getting 1.55% from. Oh wait, now I do, you took the sum from 7 years of data and divided it by 8. Sloppy, very sloppy.

Obama's 7 year average is 1.764%, Bush's was 1.781%, so pretty close and hardly something worth splitting hairs over. He'll need over 1.9% in 2016 to exceed Bush's average, which is fairly likely.

The OP's author Louis Woodhill got a 2.10% RGDP rate for W. We'd have to see what numbers he's using, the multpl.com numbers seem off. For example, W hitting over 4% never happened yet multpl.com claims it did. I'd trust Woodhill before that multpl.com.

No matter what happens in 2016, Obama's record on economic growth will be considerably worse than that of the much-maligned George W. Bush. Bush 43 delivered RGDP growth averaging 2.10%, with two years (2004 and 2005) above 3.0%.

 

[Exophase]

The -2.77 was charged to George W Bush, he didn't take office until 1/2009. So obama was only charged with the -0.24 from 2009.

And yet, the numbers for 2009 are very different depending on where you draw the quarters for averaging. The site I linked has much worse 2009 numbers because of this. It's not clear which numbers the article used, but based on your other comment I have a feeling it wasn't the ones you gave.

 

[SP33Demon]

A semi-civil response to a troll comment ... who would have guessed?

I really wish I had a rack at home too. I could work from home way more often. :thumbsup:

Troll comment aside, as others have pointed out, this thread is a clearly flawed analysis since it includes 2008 and 2009, and as far as I can tell the recession can't really be attributed to either Bush or Obama ...

edit: okay doesn't include 2008, but the math is still off and the recession comment re: 2009 still stands.

Well, no rack at home just yet. I have it, but need to clean out the barn which hasn't been cleaned in years. Then I need a rotary drill to install the Rogue rack through the concrete. So tonight just going to run to the gym and out lift all the bodybuilders, heh. It's strangely satisfying deadlifting more than bodybuilders who don't train for strength but want to work in on the dead platform. We have some Lou-Ferrigno-Hulkish guys who actually deadlift, but do more T.U.T. than maxing out. Good times when these guys are scared to deadlift 500 but weigh 275. meh, I give them credit for going out of their comfort zone and at least trying. :thumbsup:

Regarding the numbers, yes only 2009 (-0.24) was charged to obama so that's only 1 year lost. He could've made it up in the next 7 to easily get over 2 like W. Hence why the article has him as the 4th worst economic prez in GDP growth.

 

[SP33Demon]

That doesn't change the fact that events after 2008 were strongly affected by it. It also doesn't change the fact that you can't do basic math.

The numbers from multpl.com are off. For the real numbers, look here:
http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp

Click on "Percent change from preceding period (Excel)".

Look at the year 2009, where the numbers tank. Multpl.com has the economy tanking in 2008 which is incorrect, it was 2009 that took the hit. Hence why Obama had negative growth. Let's calculate how much:

2009: 14418.7-14830.4= -411.7/14830*100 = -2.77%.
2010: 14783.8-14418.7= 365.1/14418.7*100 = 2.53%
2011: 15020.6-14783.8= 236.8/14783.8*100 = 1.60%

So on and so forth. So obama did take the -2.77 hit for 2009.

 

[Exophase]

The numbers from multpl.com are off. For the real numbers, look here:
http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp

Click on "Percent change from preceding period (Excel)".

Look at the year 2009, where the numbers tank. Multpl.com has the economy tanking in 2008 which is incorrect, it was 2009 that took the hit. Hence why Obama had negative growth. Let's calculate how much:

2009: 14418.7-14830.4= -411.7/14830*100 = -2.77%.
2010: 14783.8-14418.7= 365.1/14418.7*100 = 2.53%
2011: 15020.6-14783.8= 236.8/14783.8*100 = 1.60%

So on and so forth. So obama did take the -2.77 hit for 2009.

The big differences are because of revisions. These are the as-of 2013 revisions from the quarterly data:

2008: -2.7%, 2.0%, -1.9%, -8.2%
2009: -2.9%, -0.5%, 1.3%, 3.9%

Over time the revisions pushed more towards Q4 2008 from Q1 2009. Both were quite bad, although I'm seriously skeptical about your claim that the economy took the hit in 2009 over 2008. Look at any graph of market performance and you'll see the same thing, a big low point in Q4 2008 and the beginning of recovery in Q1 2009.

But it's really moot because you can't possibly make a credible argument that Obama was responsible for Q1 2009's numbers after a couple months in office. That's way too little time for executive action to be reflected in the GDP.

 

[soulcougher73]

These Trumpeter Swans are so annoying

 

[Jhhnn]

I do love it. During the GWB years, we cut taxes, went to war, doubled the national debt & let the banksters play out enough rope in the form of credit for the economy to hang itself. Of course it created jobs.

It's called false prosperity, a basic feature of banksterism since forever.

But Repubs are pissy about the job creation rate afterwards, even though it's higher than Dubya's time.

 

[Knowing]

Jobs created or saved were wrong, GDP growth predictions were wrong, fiscally and monetarily for the last 8 years we've been piling interventions on interventions. We still haven't met the long term average GDP growth rate of the United States and for some reason despite the lowest unemployment rate in decades there's no wage growth and only in the last quarter did spending on anything (in this case, recreational equipment) surpass healthcare spending.

Citibank is talking about QE4 and how many more rate hikes are we supposed to see this year?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Jobs created or saved were wrong, GDP growth predictions were wrong, fiscally and monetarily for the last 8 years we've been piling interventions on interventions. We still haven't met the long term average GDP growth rate of the United States and for some reason despite the lowest unemployment rate in decades there's no wage growth and only in the last quarter did spending on anything (in this case, recreational equipment) surpass healthcare spending.

Citibank is talking about QE4 and how many more rate hikes are we supposed to see this year?

I'm not a fan of questioning government economic reporting but above does make me think.

 

[Humpy]

Manning up means getting off your computer and squatting a relatively heavy amount for 5 sets of 5.

LOL I think that might be the most pathetic try-hard nonsense I've seen on this forum. There's been a ton of really really dumb shit posted here too. 🙂

What in the actual fuck does weightlifting have to do with politics? How dumb do you have to be to use squats as ammo in an argument?

 

[Sonikku]

Ouch. Want to know why Trump won the nomination? Because our economy isn't growing like it did under W. Trickle down worked better than anything obama ever did as the numbers will show. An average of 1.55% GDP Growth is 36% less compared to George W Bush's 2.1% over 8 years. Obama is the 4th worst ever, what a shitshow our country has become. Thanks obama for doing nothing for the economy.



http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art...mas_sad_record_on_economic_growth_101987.html

Well at least he regrets it.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/28/politics/barack-obama-new-york-times-interview/

$4000 less than when Bill took office. Are you shitting me? lol. Worst.modern.economic.president.ever.

Not often you see many people in the pro Bush crowd lol

 

[SP33Demon]

LOL I think that might be the most pathetic try-hard nonsense I've seen on this forum. There's been a ton of really really dumb shit posted here too. 🙂

What in the actual fuck does weightlifting have to do with politics? How dumb do you have to be to use squats as ammo in an argument?

Because if you're weak and/or not in shape then you're not a man. So man the fuck up if you're out of shape or weak. It's a very simple concept.