Thread: What's Obama got that Bush didn't have?

What's Obama got that Bush didn't have?

The main stream media fawning over him.

I suppose this is a legitimate question coming from someone who is completely unaware of the history of the last 12 years.
Coming from someone who has lived in America for the last 12 years.... not so much.

George Bush launched two wars, neither turned out well, he was the only president since Herbert Hoover to leave office with lower private sector employment than the day he took office.
He turned record surpluses into a trillion dollar plus deficit, and presided over the largest financial collapse since 1930, at the very end of his 8 years, so it's hard to say he inherited the situation.
Obama, took office during a major financial downturn, he inherited a Trillion plus deficit and skyrocketing unemployment and a major financial collapse, arguably the toughest situation any president has faced at the beginning of his term since FDR, not to mention a Republican party intent on blocking his every policy.
Yet he got major legislation on the books, and has turned the economy around.
The only way Bush looks better is if you run the tape backwards, and start with trillion dollar deficits and disastrous military debacles, and finish 8 years earlier with Peace, Prosperity and record surpluses.

Originally Posted by goober

I suppose this is a legitimate question coming from someone who is completely unaware of the history of the last 12 years.
Coming from someone who has lived in America for the last 12 years.... not so much.

George Bush launched two wars, neither turned out well, he was the only president since Herbert Hoover to leave office with lower private sector employment than the day he took office.
He turned record surpluses into a trillion dollar plus deficit, and presided over the largest financial collapse since 1930, at the very end of his 8 years, so it's hard to say he inherited the situation.
Obama, took office during a major financial downturn, he inherited a Trillion plus deficit and skyrocketing unemployment and a major financial collapse, arguably the toughest situation any president has faced at the beginning of his term since FDR, not to mention a Republican party intent on blocking his every policy.
Yet he got major legislation on the books, and has turned the economy around.
The only way Bush looks better is if you run the tape backwards, and start with trillion dollar deficits and disastrous military debacles, and finish 8 years earlier with Peace, Prosperity and record surpluses.

100% fact free post... as each point made has been debunked on these pages multiple times before.

Originally Posted by tsquare

100% fact free post... as each point made has been debunked on these pages multiple times before.

I'm sure that's true in your mind....
Lets start with the fact that there were fewer private sector jobs when Bush left office than on the day he took office, and the fact that he is the only president since Herbert Hoover with that distinction.

Debunk that.....

Originally Posted by goober

I suppose this is a legitimate question coming from someone who is completely unaware of the history of the last 12 years.
Coming from someone who has lived in America for the last 12 years.... not so much.

George Bush launched two wars, neither turned out well, he was the only president since Herbert Hoover to leave office with lower private sector employment than the day he took office.
He turned record surpluses into a trillion dollar plus deficit, and presided over the largest financial collapse since 1930, at the very end of his 8 years, so it's hard to say he inherited the situation.
Obama, took office during a major financial downturn, he inherited a Trillion plus deficit and skyrocketing unemployment and a major financial collapse, arguably the toughest situation any president has faced at the beginning of his term since FDR, not to mention a Republican party intent on blocking his every policy.
Yet he got major legislation on the books, and has turned the economy around.
The only way Bush looks better is if you run the tape backwards, and start with trillion dollar deficits and disastrous military debacles, and finish 8 years earlier with Peace, Prosperity and record surpluses.

Well to start with, Bush didn't inherit any surplus, we've long since established the Clinton "Surplus" is nothing more than a myth both parties like to perpetuate since both claim credit for something that never happened. A common theme with all politicians. See yet again Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual for proof.

We have a much lower percentage of the population working than when Lord Owebama took office, if you plugged the same participation rate in, the Unemployment rate is about 11%. So that kills lie #2.

Lord Owebama has "ended" the 2 wars...where's the massive savings both were supposed to provide?

Owebama inherited a 1017 billion dollar increase to the debt for the budget year prior to his coronation. He promptly turned that into a 1885 billion dollar increase to the debt for the first budget he signed. A moment of high comedy would be the fact that the 1017 billion dollar budget increase in Bush's last year...is 212 billion LESS than any year Lord Owebama has experienced while in office.

Bush inherited a downturn in the economy from Clinton, and promptly turned it around by cutting taxes, not raising them. Something that despite the shrill screaming of the liberals didn't blow the debt up since revenues increased...considerably. Unfortunately it seems he loved to spend money he didn't have almost as much as Lord Owebama.

Bush while definitely no paragon of fiscal responsibility, or ever demonstrated even a moron level IQ looks positively brilliant by comparison.

(̅_̅_̅(̅(̅_̅_̅_̅_̅_̅̅()ڪ

Originally Posted by tsquare

100% fact free post... as each point made has been debunked on these pages multiple times before.

His desire to cling to the Clinton "surplus" when faced with irrefutable proof it never happened is the funniest.

Originally Posted by goober

I'm sure that's true in your mind....
Lets start with the fact that there were fewer private sector jobs when Bush left office than on the day he took office, and the fact that he is the only president since Herbert Hoover with that distinction.

Debunk that.....

Already have... time after time, year after year, using BLS charts.

You don't care...

Same with the 'trillion dollar deficit' for FY 2009, as signed by Barack Obama in March of 2009, held for him by the Democratic led Congress.

Facts, real live, true facts, are not an interest of yours goober. They never have been. They never will be.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Well to start with, Bush didn't inherit any surplus, we've long since established the Clinton "Surplus" is nothing more than a myth both parties like to perpetuate since both claim credit for something that never happened. A common theme with all politicians. See yet again Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual for proof.

We have a much lower percentage of the population working than when Lord Owebama took office, if you plugged the same participation rate in, the Unemployment rate is about 11%. So that kills lie #2.

Lord Owebama has "ended" the 2 wars...where's the massive savings both were supposed to provide?

Owebama inherited a 1017 billion dollar increase to the debt for the budget year prior to his coronation. He promptly turned that into a 1885 billion dollar increase to the debt for the first budget he signed. A moment of high comedy would be the fact that the 1017 billion dollar budget increase in Bush's last year...is 212 billion LESS than any year Lord Owebama has experienced while in office.

Bush inherited a downturn in the economy from Clinton, and promptly turned it around by cutting taxes, not raising them. Something that despite the shrill screaming of the liberals didn't blow the debt up since revenues increased...considerably. Unfortunately it seems he loved to spend money he didn't have almost as much as Lord Owebama.

Bush while definitely no paragon of fiscal responsibility, or ever demonstrated even a moron level IQ looks positively brilliant by comparison.

Thank you, Aces. You saved me the trouble: After reading T's initial response to him, I was going to search and, then, link to each debunking ... Now I don't have to.

Obama has a D behind his last name thus the media loves him thus history will be way more kinder to him

Originally Posted by tsquare

Already have... time after time, year after year, using BLS charts.

You don't care...

Same with the 'trillion dollar deficit' for FY 2009, as signed by Barack Obama in March of 2009, held for him by the Democratic led Congress.

Facts, real live, true facts, are not an interest of yours goober. They never have been. They never will be.

Pure unadulterated Bullshit.
here's the BLS link Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail [In thousands]
Here's total private employment for January 2001 -109,774,000
Here's total private employment for January 2009 -109,156,000

It's a fact that Bush is the only president since Hoover to preside over a decline in private sector employment.
BTW, total private employment for January 2013 is 110,920,000

Originally Posted by goober

Pure unadulterated Bullshit.
here's the BLS link Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail [In thousands]
Here's total private employment for January 2001 -109,774,000
Here's total private employment for January 2009 -109,156,000

It's a fact that Bush is the only president since Hoover to preside over a decline in private sector employment.
BTW, total private employment for January 2013 is 110,920,000

So did you intentionally set out to prove TSquare's comment?

The BLS Civilian Labor Force stats show quite clearly that Bush's first term (2001 thru 2004 figures) showed an increase in the civilian labor force from 1,725,227,000 to 1,768,555,000 (an increase of 43 million+) but in Obama's first four years, from 1,850,262,000 to 1,859,590,000 (a 9 million increase)...

They included this graphic: You can see how it increased dramatically during Bush's (fairly anemic) eight years, but levels off during Obama's administration.

Originally Posted by Good1

So did you intentionally set out to prove TSquare's comment?

The BLS Civilian Labor Force stats show quite clearly that Bush's first term (2001 thru 2004 figures) showed an increase in the civilian labor force from 1,725,227,000 to 1,768,555,000 (an increase of 43 million+) but in Obama's first four years, from 1,850,262,000 to 1,859,590,000 (a 9 million increase)...

They included this graphic: You can see how it increased dramatically during Bush's (fairly anemic) eight years, but levels off during Obama's administration.

It's true the labor force increased while Bush was president, What decreased was private employment. An unemployed person is a member of the civilian labor force.

Originally Posted by goober

It's true the labor force increased while Bush was president, What decreased was private employment. An unemployed person is a member of the civilian labor force.

Huh?

isn't private employment a subset of Civilian Labor Force?

Ha..ha..ha... try again goober...

Employment.png

Now... want to try for the trillion dollar deficit?

goober = 'when you are in a hole... keep digging!'