Employment was rather week for a decade after Clinton left Bush a severe recession. Compare GDP drop:
Yep, he did. From 2000 to 2001, people lost a combined $5.7T of net worth. GDP growth went from ~8% to < 0. By your measure, Bush inherited unemployment rates that went from 4% to 4.7% to 5.8%.
Caught in a downward spiral of inevitability. Downward spirals always start somewhere. I think a drastic change in economic policy in the 1980s had more than a lot to do with it. Well, really, the philosophy behind the economic policy had all to do with it.
That is just so much hogwash. Bush is the one who started two wars without accounting for it in his budget, the one who took us from a creditor nation to a debtor nation, the one who create a whole new Medicare entitlement. Here's the facts from the Congressional Budget Office -
To answer the question, I do think Obama will win, but barely. The fact is, he did save us from a Depression, saved the US auto industry, passed healthcare reform, and killed Osama. These are not insignificant. That said, as a Democrat, I am disappointed in him. But I would still vote for him. Romney is far more vulnerable than generally thought of right now. He's too rich at a time when that is not a benefit, he's a serial flip flopper like John Kerry, he stands for nothing, and he passed Obamacare before Obama. I think the Obama campaign will make mincemeat out of him. I will say though Romney is smart and has a history of fixing things. I like that about him. But between Bain, his wealth, and being a liberal, then a moderate, and now a conservative, he shows himself to be a political whore. Not a winning combo.
That chart is absurd. For starters, Obama requested and spent 1/2 the TARP money. He also continues the wars for three years, but W gets credit for that spending. The shredder is where that graphic belongs.
You have absolutely no idea why that chart is ridiculous. But thanks for letting us know that a republican is somebody that leans republican.
OK blazerboy, I'll bite: Why is it ridiculous? Again, it comes from the CBO, a non-partisan oversight office. Let's hear some facts amigo.
Denny answered your question. But I'll add a few more comments: 1) You think Bush was a terrible president, yet you use him as a measuring stick for Obama. I think we should have higher standards. 2) The premise of your chart is silly. Your chart is not actually holding Obama accountable for any of the spending he has overseen. The majority of the spending on Bush's side should also be applied to Obama's side. He isn't even being held accountable for the "bush tax cuts" that were extended under his watch. All because this person was being irresponsible and put the word "new" in the chart title. 3) If you want a more reasonable picture from the CBO, you should take a look at the projected debt and deficit numbers.
