OK From your link: We'll use the U-3 (Official)Unemployment Rate
Bush started with 4.0% and when he left it was 7.3% -------+3.1%
Obama started with 7.8% (yep it went up a full 1/2% in one month!)
and continued to rise for 10 months.
and it is currently 8.3% ----------------------------------------+0.5%
Bush's unemployment increase was 6x worse than Obama

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Again from your link: We'll use the U-6 this time
Bush Start 7.1 --------- End 13.5 -----------------------------+6.4%
Obama Start 14.2 currently 15.1------------------------------+0.9%
And Again
Bush's unemployment increase was MORE THAN 6x worse than Obama

Now I ask you ... What is YOUR point?

Bush isn't running for re-election. No need for him to cook the books. It was a non-issue during the time Bush was in office.

Over the last few days, I've heard on the news that:

consumer spending is up
the stock market is up
GDP is up
employment is up
exports are up


The only thing not up is middle class buting power.

I'm sure we will be able to powerfully bute any day now

Meanwhile let's pretend the President has next to no ability to affect job creation or even the economy. It's a scary place to be, since we really want them to, and most of them promise improvement, but let's just pretend.

I'd say they have next to no ability to affect those things in a positive way.

They can always drive the bus off the road and over the cliff. You know, they could always declare martial law, and institute a daytime curfew. That would instantly stop the economy. (Just to throw out a ridiculous example to make my point.)

Doesn't matter. A big part of the election will be the economy, for which the current president is always held responsible, whether he is or not.

Plus, progressives argue (and vice-versa for conservatives, just an example) that the president with congress has the power to help the markets by intervening to strengthen the working class through infrastructure and small-business spending, and can hold him responsible for making the deal with congress. Plus, I've heard it fairly legitimately argued that if Obama wanted to risk the blowback from people like Merc accusing him of issuing edicts and declaring himself king, he actually COULD issue a host of stimulative executive orders. I'll try to find the link after I shower explaining the precedent for executive power for each of the measures proposed.

That's what we like to think. In reality, the economy is more powerful than all that, because it includes everything.

So often, well-intended and seemingly logical government measures wind up like pushing on a rope. The stimulus was like that. Hey let's have the government spend a huge amount, more than ever before, because economists tell us that government spending can take up the slack of less spending everywhere else.

And so they pushed that rope, but the economy failed to take up the slack. Why, well, that's a terrible and difficult question, because at the root of all economics is human behavior, and that's amazingly hard to predict.

All data shows that people, the economy, and the state of the nation improve when people are homeowners. Homeowners are stable, raise better families, are invested in their community, improve schools through local taxation, and have a future retirement plan in their home's equity.

So, let's have a government program to strengthen the working class by offering them mortgage deals!

Oops?! Well it was logical at the time.

I guess I misunderstood your argument. I assumed you meant that the president PERSONALLY couldn't do anything about it, not that government at all can't really do much about it. And that's really just a fundamental difference in beliefs, that it is hard to prove one way or the other because there's always a counterargument - because there's always a compromise. For example, I would say that it wasn't JUST the program to offer mortgage deals to the working class that "oops"ed, it was (more importantly, in my view) also a shortcoming on the financial side, with securitization and repackaging and all that fun stuff, that also encouraged banks to offer mortgages to people who REALLY couldn't afford it, etc.

So Fannie and Freddie supplied the wood, not the spark. The larger point is that Fannie and Freddie was government, intervening to strengthen the working class. And the economy said, well that outcome is going to be exactly the opposite of what was well-intended, because this is the economy, and everything's connected.

I see this all the time. How about college education. It works the same way. The government, with the best of intentions, announces that it will make available cheap money for people going to college. Thus several generations benefit from greater educations.

But over time, College, with all the best of intentions, finds a huge new market of people who can afford them, on top of the people who have enough to pay. Thus College increases its price by more than double the inflation rate. Now Government and all the people who can afford it are paying double (six figures at some places) for something with no additional worth.

Medicare part D. Government, with all the best of intentions, announces that they are going to pay for old people's drugs. The drug companies then double their prices to a marketplace that doesn't shop for value. Now Medicare has to pay even more and the drug companies get rich.

Grover Norquist controls the $ for all Republican re-election campaigns,
and for Republicans, re-election it is more important than anything.
His interview below has confirmed for me how the Republican hierarchy
views and actually intends to control the Presidency.

Thoughts about differences between Republican and Democratic presidents
first occurred to me when Ronald Regan slept through his term with a nice smile and movie-star personality.
George H.W.Bush was a single term President because he did not toe the Republican line on taxes.
But George W. Bush was exactly what the Republican hieracrchy wanted
... dumb but a "nice guy" who stayed in tow of Cheney and Rove.

Surprisingly, Norquist inadvertently complimented Obama, saying:
Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner
Richard Sincere
2/20/12

Grover Norquist surveys the 2012 political and legislative landscape

Good article, thanks for sharing. I do think Norquist lives in his own little world of understanding the process. I don't think Bush was that dumb and Obama certainly is not either.

You can't really believe that Lamp. That is a fantasy.

Completely true for both parties. And it is going to get much worse before it ever gets better.

Again, that is a stretch of the imagination.

Gosh Merc, I thought you were more attuned to the machinations of GOP politics.

Here's a link back to when the Republicans were, according to John Boehner,
going to come to agreement on the July, 2011 debt ceiling bill,
which included the lapse of the Bush Tax Cuts.

The press interviewed Norquist about the Norquist/ATR pledge,
and how he would respond if someone voted to allow the Bush Tax Cuts to lapse.

That link includes the "official ATR position statement",
and a recording of the interview in which Norquist says he
"... would denounce him as a tax raiser and a bad guy"
Within hours, Republicans got the message.

Boehner's agreement floundered, and he was embarrassed
time and again by the GOP sheep changing direction
and reneging on Boehner's previous agreements.

It's baaaaaack ! - If anyone but the 1% cares

The US Dow-Jones opened at a psychological level of 13,055 - best since mid-2007.

UG sure does...