metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yep, he [Obama] led one of the longest sustained economic growths in American history, and he was advised to do so by Paulson and Bernanke, both conservative economists. Bad Obama-- bad, bad.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Obama's First Year Stock Market Gains more than Twice Trump's
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
That's as praiseworthy as taking the longest time to run a marathon.Yep, he [Obama] led one of the longest sustained economic growths in American history, and he was advised to do so by Paulson and Bernanke, both conservative economists. Bad Obama-- bad, bad.
tytlyf
Not Religious
GDP growth has been trending up for a decade. Under Obama the GDP was around 2-3% on average
United States GDP Growth Rate | 1947-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar
The trend was dismally slow.
Better policies would've yielded better results.
tytlyf
Not Religious
Do you think if you & I started looking at this quantitatively,
that you'd agree with me it was slow? Nah.
Obama's lack of help for homeowners, & his regulatory
interference with refinancing all kinds of real estate was
bad for recovery. It somewhat explains the bad numbers.
tytlyf
Not Religious
According to the chart, it appears you shouldn't be voting republican if you're trying to avoid slow recovery/growth. You're a BIll Clinton supporter if you like good GDP. Which one of Bill's policies do you think helped the GDP the most during his presidency?
Not mucking up Reaganonomics, the peace dividend, and signing NAFTA.
Tom
As you and I often agree, much of what happens in Washington is incorrectly attributed to the White House. So I can't help but point out that Republicans were firmly in charge of Capitol Hill, both while the economy was being trashed under Bush and weakly recovering under Obama. Of the last 16 years, post Clinton, the Republicans ran the Congress for 12, the first 6 and the last 6.
Tom
Always about parties with you.
I'm addressing poor policies under Obama.
It doesn't matter which party he's in.
I notice that you skipped the boom under Clinton when Pubs were again in control.
There was even one year when the CFR (Code Of Federal Regulations...a listing of
all) volume decreased. Not even Reagan achieved that.
I just don't see any immediate time correlation with party & economic performance.
People who focus upon such things are no doubt partisans looking for a comforting
correlation, & leaping to causation, while eschewing policy analysis.