PDA

View Full Version : Congratulations, O!



RWGR
05-30-2015, 07:16 AM
Obama Has Lowest Average 1stQ GDP Growth of Any President on Record

Even if you leave out the first quarter of 2009—when the recession that started in December 2007 was still ongoing--President Barack Obama has presided over the lowest average first-quarter GDP growth of any president who has served since 1947, which is the earliest year for which the Bureau of Economic Analysis has calculated quarterly GDP growth.

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/terence-p-jeffrey/blame-it-global-cooling-obama-has-lowest-average-1stq-gdp-growth-any

Barry Morris
05-30-2015, 09:08 AM
So what??

It's obvious from the three graphs on the page you show that the GDP has been steadily falling since 1950.

BFLPE
05-30-2015, 09:22 AM
GDP has been falling since 1950?

Interesting article though it doesn't show the Obama years any worse than the Bush years. For the years listed it looks like the average annual growth during the two Presidents terms to be about the same though more consistent through Obama's time in the big chair.

RWGR
05-30-2015, 09:23 AM
Barry, you do realize that spike at 1950 was the result of the WWII economy?

War economies are always vibrant and robust;but they are also fake, and unsustainable.

Look between 2000 and 2015, the Bush Economy v the Obama Economy.

Dubya wins

RWGR
05-30-2015, 09:24 AM
GDP has been falling since 1950?

Interesting article though it doesn't show the Obama years any worse than the Bush years. .

???

Bush has that artificial dip for the 9/11 attacks, but after that his economy never dipped below the line. Obama dipped, and then some.

BFLPE
05-30-2015, 09:39 AM
2008 shows shows negative annual growth. Bush was still the man then. 2009 shows a bigger fall though that is the result of the financial crisis that sure can't be blamed on the Obama administration.

You're saying the Sept. 11 attacks led to an artificial 1st quarter dip in '02?

The graph showing only first quarters looks bad for the Obama years. The graph showing annual numbers looks to average out close to even for the 2 if you leave out 2009. Since Obamas numbers are much worse for 1st quarters and overall averages are about the same it would seem likely that if one were to choose a different quarter to focus on the Bush years fare worse than the Obama years.

Average annual growth sure took a dip after Clinton left office though the trend of growth, that's growth Barry, has been downward since the 50's.

BFLPE
05-30-2015, 09:51 AM
War economies are always vibrant and robust;but they are also fake, and unsustainable.Wouldn't the Bush years be more of a War economy than the Obama economy? Certainly more so than the Clinton years even though the Clinton economy did much better than the Bush economy.

RWGR
05-30-2015, 09:52 AM
This looks "even" to you?

http://s8.postimg.org/j7lvrc7i9/Capture.jpg?noCache=1432993966

RWGR
05-30-2015, 09:53 AM
Wouldn't the Bush years be more of a War economy than the Obama economy?

Two wars of very different scales.

Bush's war was regional, and very small compared to WWII

BFLPE
05-30-2015, 10:00 AM
This looks "even" to you?

http://s8.postimg.org/j7lvrc7i9/Capture.jpg?noCache=1432993966

That's from the graph that only shows 1st quarters. It's clear the first quarter hasn't been good in the Obama years.

Now take a look at the yearly graph. '08 was negative, that was Bush. 2010,2012,2013 and 2014 were all higher annually than 2001,2002 and 2007. 2003,2004,2005 and 2006 had greater growth than anything since but it doesn't look like the average for the Bush years would be much different than the Obama years if you exclude 2009. Those years that Bush shows best would seem to back up your 'War economy' idea.