Five years ago today (1/2/2007) was the last time that Republicans held all three of the House, Senate, and Presidency.
How were things at the end of Republican control? Unemployment was at 4.4% and the national deb was under $8.7 Trillion.
Then, on January 3, 2007, Democrats took control of 2 of those 3 (the House and Senate), and have held a majority (2+ out of 3) ever since. Both unemployment and national debt have skyrocketed under majority-Democrat control!
I would like to use this chart in a report I am writing for school about how the current administration has disregarded basic economic principles. To do so I need to know the source you got your figures from. Thanks very much :)
Please, as several others have asked, provide the source for your figures. I am finding other numbers at various sites on the internet so do not want to pass this on without source info. thanks so very much.
Bush (dates are weekly so I can't get exact prices on Jan 20th): Jan 22 2001 = $1.582 (regular unleaded) Jan 21 2009 = $2.064 Difference = +$0.482 High price during Bush term = $4.588 on 6/16/2008 Difference between inauguration and high = +$3.006 (Almost a dollar higher than Obama from where they took office to the high under their watch)
Obama: Jan 21 2009 = $2.064 Jan 2 2012 = $3.635 Difference = +$1.571 High price during Obama term = $4.257 Difference between inauguration and high = +$2.193
David Gregory, of Meet the Press, first aired this chart in June, 2011. He aired it again July 10, 2011, when he was interviewing Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Hope this helps with the documentation for you report, Tami!
David Gregory, of Meet the Press, first aired this chart in June. He aired it again July 10, 2011, when he was interviewing Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Hope this helps with the documentation for you report, Tami!
I would like to see charts of this same information for Bush along with all the sources of this information. What about showing the GOOD Obama has done for this county as well??
I hear some of you bringing Bush into this. Bush is no longer president nor is he running so I don't see what his numbers have to do with this. This simply shows that the economy has not improved with the current president and clearly the voters did get change even though i'm not sure they were hoping for a change for the worse. Bush was not a great president. We get it, but what does Bush have to do with who we should vote for now?
I agree with tc4duke, Bush is gone with, no point in bringing him back. Its like beating a dead horse, this is the now and the future. What can we do now, that will help our future?
@tc4duke - Once Bush leaves office you can't magically make his effect on the economy disappear. His policies and (war) spending will have an effect on our economy for generations. So Obama has the unfortunate job of inheriting and trying to correct the course. The effects of this administration's policies are just being felt now. So in short, Bush is relavent to the conversation because of economic inertia.
Bush has nothing to do with this conversation?! Wow. So lets say I took your credit cards for 8 years and destroyed your finances then handed you back your keys. You think you'd be okay in 3 years?! Not to mention a do-nothing congress?? But hey be my guest; vote for flip-flopper Gingrich, or REAL job-killer romney, or hey how about Ron Paul lmao. That future looks so grim I'd literally move to Europe with their collapsing economy.
Sorry, without sources (which are normally listed at the bottom of all reputable charts) this just can't be taken seriously. Anyone could have made these numbers up.
The fourth-quarter GDP report adjusted for inflation came in at a mediocre 2.8%. Wall Street promptly sold off on the news. And we're now 10 quarters into the tepid Obama recovery, with its average quarterly growth rate of 2.4% annually. Deep recessions are supposed to breed strong snap-back recoveries. But it's not happening — even after an $800 billion government-spending package, a $2 trillion Federal Reserve balance-sheet expansion, a zero Fed interest rate (for three years and counting) and a whole bunch of temporary targeted tax cuts. It's the whole Keynesian bag of tricks, but it's still a very subpar recovery.
Way back when, Ronald Reagan used the supply-side model and rejected big-government Keynesianism.
thefriendlyjerk: OK. Now let's look at the REAL numbers:
The average unemployment rate for 8 years under Bush? 5.26% (7,837,000)Highest? 6.0% Under 3+ years of Obama? 9.26% (14,279,000)Highest? 9.6%
Source:http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.htm
Avg National Gas Prices (regular):
8 Years under Bush? $2.13 Lowest? $1.06 Highest? $4.11 % of time in office Prices were above $3.00? Approx. 14% % of time in office Prices were above $2.00? Approx. 51%
3+ years under Obama? $2.94 Lowest? $1.68 Highest? $3.97 % of time in office Prices were above $3.00? Approx. 47% % of time in office Prices were above $2.00? Approx. 99%
Overall, the Chart is correct. Obama has done FAR more damage to the economy in less time than Bush EVER did in twice the number of years. The numbers are irrefutable
Three years into Ronald Reagan's first term, I wonder how things were going?
But Bush lied and didn't tell NObama how bad it really was.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that this chart is missing is the percentage increase of job killing regulations.
ReplyDeletesource?
ReplyDeleteFive years ago today (1/2/2007) was the last time that Republicans held all three of the House, Senate, and Presidency.
ReplyDeleteHow were things at the end of Republican control? Unemployment was at 4.4% and the national deb was under $8.7 Trillion.
Then, on January 3, 2007, Democrats took control of 2 of those 3 (the House and Senate), and have held a majority (2+ out of 3) ever since. Both unemployment and national debt have skyrocketed under majority-Democrat control!
I would like to use this chart in a report I am writing for school about how the current administration has disregarded basic economic principles. To do so I need to know the source you got your figures from. Thanks very much :)
ReplyDeleteTami, if you go to a gubbermint school they'll likely FAIL you if you use it.
ReplyDeleteTami, I wish I had the source. This one was spotted on Facebook and I'm sure the figures are all publicly available.
ReplyDeletebut we never had hormone therapy of toddlers before, isn't that worth the collapse of the economy?
ReplyDeletePlease, as several others have asked, provide the source for your figures. I am finding other numbers at various sites on the internet so do not want to pass this on without source info.
ReplyDeletethanks so very much.
How about a comparison of numbers (that would be the unbiased, scientific thing to do) oh, and here are sources too what a novel idea:
ReplyDeleteThey need to compare the numbers to other presidents:
Bush was in office Jan. 20 2001 - Jan. 20 2009:
Unemployment Jan 2001 = 4.2%
Unemployment Jan 2009 = 7.8%
Difference = +3.6%
Under Obama:
Jan 2009 = 7.8%
Today = 8.2%
Difference = +0.4%
Source: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/lns14000000
How about gas prices:
Bush (dates are weekly so I can't get exact prices on Jan 20th):
Jan 22 2001 = $1.582 (regular unleaded)
Jan 21 2009 = $2.064
Difference = +$0.482
High price during Bush term = $4.588 on 6/16/2008
Difference between inauguration and high = +$3.006 (Almost a dollar higher than Obama from where they took office to the high under their watch)
Obama:
Jan 21 2009 = $2.064
Jan 2 2012 = $3.635
Difference = +$1.571
High price during Obama term = $4.257
Difference between inauguration and high = +$2.193
Source: http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/retail_gasoline_prices.html
David Gregory, of Meet the Press, first aired this chart in June, 2011. He aired it again July 10, 2011, when he was interviewing Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
ReplyDeleteHope this helps with the documentation for you report, Tami!
David Gregory, of Meet the Press, first aired this chart in June. He aired it again July 10, 2011, when he was interviewing Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
ReplyDeleteHope this helps with the documentation for you report, Tami!
I would like to see charts of this same information for Bush along with all the sources of this information. What about showing the GOOD Obama has done for this county as well??
ReplyDeleteI hear some of you bringing Bush into this. Bush is no longer president nor is he running so I don't see what his numbers have to do with this. This simply shows that the economy has not improved with the current president and clearly the voters did get change even though i'm not sure they were hoping for a change for the worse. Bush was not a great president. We get it, but what does Bush have to do with who we should vote for now?
ReplyDeleteI agree with tc4duke, Bush is gone with, no point in bringing him back. Its like beating a dead horse, this is the now and the future. What can we do now, that will help our future?
ReplyDeletelol @ no source and "spotted on facebook". great job.
ReplyDelete@tc4duke - Once Bush leaves office you can't magically make his effect on the economy disappear. His policies and (war) spending will have an effect on our economy for generations. So Obama has the unfortunate job of inheriting and trying to correct the course. The effects of this administration's policies are just being felt now. So in short, Bush is relavent to the conversation because of economic inertia.
ReplyDeleteBush has nothing to do with this conversation?! Wow. So lets say I took your credit cards for 8 years and destroyed your finances then handed you back your keys. You think you'd be okay in 3 years?! Not to mention a do-nothing congress?? But hey be my guest; vote for flip-flopper Gingrich, or REAL job-killer romney, or hey how about Ron Paul lmao. That future looks so grim I'd literally move to Europe with their collapsing economy.
ReplyDeleteSorry, without sources (which are normally listed at the bottom of all reputable charts) this just can't be taken seriously. Anyone could have made these numbers up.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the origin of these statistics? Anyone can produce a chart.
ReplyDeleteI call definite shenanigans! Look at real, unbiased, sites if you want to make any valid argument. Why are people allowed to post such propaganda???
ReplyDeletehttp://news.investors.com/Article/599237/201201271850/obama-
ReplyDeletetax-hikes-would-hit-economy.htm
The fourth-quarter GDP report adjusted for inflation came in at a mediocre 2.8%. Wall Street promptly sold off on the news. And we're now 10 quarters into the tepid Obama recovery, with its average quarterly growth rate of 2.4% annually.
Deep recessions are supposed to breed strong snap-back recoveries.
But it's not happening — even after an $800 billion government-spending package, a $2 trillion Federal Reserve balance-sheet expansion, a zero Fed interest rate (for three years and counting) and a whole bunch of temporary targeted tax cuts.
It's the whole Keynesian bag of tricks, but it's still a very subpar recovery.
Way back when, Ronald Reagan used the supply-side model and rejected big-government Keynesianism.
thefriendlyjerk: OK. Now let's look at the REAL numbers:
ReplyDeleteThe average unemployment rate for 8 years under Bush? 5.26% (7,837,000)Highest? 6.0%
Under 3+ years of Obama? 9.26% (14,279,000)Highest? 9.6%
Source:http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.htm
Avg National Gas Prices (regular):
8 Years under Bush? $2.13
Lowest? $1.06
Highest? $4.11
% of time in office Prices were above $3.00? Approx. 14%
% of time in office Prices were above $2.00? Approx. 51%
3+ years under Obama? $2.94
Lowest? $1.68
Highest? $3.97
% of time in office Prices were above $3.00? Approx. 47%
% of time in office Prices were above $2.00? Approx. 99%
Source:http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPMR_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W
Overall, the Chart is correct. Obama has done FAR more damage to the economy in less time than Bush EVER did in twice the number of years. The numbers are irrefutable
Hey Sparky - wanna update this?
ReplyDelete