(just received from a respected friend - with sources so you can check)"I thought you would be interested in this economic data. Some will appreciate it; some will not. It is all true.GDP - PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM PRIOR PERIOD3rd qtr, 2008 -3.7%4th qtr 2008 -8.9%-----------------------Start of Obama1st qtr 2009 -5.3%2nd qtr 2009 -0.3%-----------------------End of recession3rd qtr 2009 1.4%4th qtr 2009 4.0%\/\/4th qtr 2011 4.1%1st qtr 2012 2.0%2nd qtr 2012 1.3%Source: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2012/pdf/gdp2q1...S&P 500:12/31/2000: 132012/31/2008: 903; Percentage change during Bush years: Minus 32%9/25/2012: 1453 Percentage change during Obama years: Plus 59%National Debt:12/31/2007; $9.23 trillion6/30/2008: $9.5 trillion12/31/2008: $ 10.7 trillion; Percentage increase in 2008: 15.9%Percentage increase in second half of 2008: 12.6% or an annual rate of 25.2% 6/30/2009: $11.5 trillionPercentage increase in first half of 2009: 7.5% or an annual rate of 15% 12/31/2009: $12.3 trillion; Percentage increase in 2009 15%: 8/31/2012: $ 16.0 trillion Percentage increase between 12/2008 and 8/31/12: 50% (3.67 Years)Average rate per year since 12/31/2008: 13.6%source: www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htmOnce the recession started in 2008 Bush increased our debt by 15.9 % in 2008 and an annual rate of 25.2% in the second half. Obama increased the debt in the first half of 2009 by 7.5% or an annual rate of 15%, by 15% in all of 2009, and by 50 % in 3.67 years for an average annual rate of 13.6 %. What does this indicate?The country has two primary methods for addressing a recession - lower interest rates and government spending. During a recession, when the public is not spending, government needs to fill the gap. Otherwise, the country will deteriorate into a depression. This is true regardless of which party is in power. Interest rates were already very low so the only choice we had was to increase government spending. As shown above, once the recession hit in 2008 Bush did this at a faster rate than Obama.. The challenge now is how to deal with the debt. It will require painful sacrifices by all.Obviously the economy is not in great shape. Jobs are a major issue. Could Obama have done better? For sure. But the economy has improved since Jan 2009 when we were in a deep recession and the stock market was a lot lower. The fact that it has not improved faster despite the large deficits in 2008 and beyond demonstrates how deep the hole was!Any objective assessment of Obama's performance on the economy must give consideration to the status of the economy when he came into office. We are still dealing with the aftermath of that economy."(thanks LK)
"...We are still dealing with the aftermath of that economy."Yes. And we will be for a long time to come.
Just came across this. WSJ "live" is reporting that unemployment is at 7.8%. The lowest in four years. So now even that metric favors Obama since he inherited a higher rate from Bush.http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012/10/05/live-from-new-yor...5:32 am Obama Will Like This by Steven Russolillo Unemployment rate falls to 7.8%, the lowest level since January 2009. 5:32 am by Stephen Grocer Unemployment rate falls to its lowest level since Jan. 2009. This means that the rate is now lower than it was when Obama took office.
Houshold debt has also declined under Obama. The economic weakness is not cyclical, in my estimation, but systemic. The weakness has been there for years. We have created an economy that doesn't need a lot of labor to function very nicely for the labor it does need. Unskilled labor is an international commodity and fungible as pork bellies. Obama wants to invest in bring america into this century. The problem with Obama is he didn't sell it to the american people very well. FOR ALL THE PEOPLE. The Republicans are willing to trash 47%. Romney told us what Republicans think.
Houshold debt has also declined under Obama.The economic weakness is not cyclical, in my estimation, but systemic.The weakness has been there for years. We have created an economy that doesn't need a lot of labor to function very nicely for the labor it does need. Unskilled labor is an international commodity and fungible as pork bellies. I think this is true, but it depends on what you mean by systemic.Recessions that involve financial collapse generally have long, slow recoveries. This fits that description quite well.It is definitely systemic: we (as a country) have systematically deregulated our financial industry, and have paid and are paying a huge price for it. Our investment banks have found that they are the house and that they can make everyone else play by their rules. The results are as you might expect: they've been and are systematically looting the nation's pension plans, housing, and other major repositories of wealth.On the other hand, skilled labor is not doing much better than unskilled labor -- having a college degree is good (compared to not having a degree), but there have been large drops in median income to degreed employees as well as union and other typically non-degreed jobs.rj
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |