Obama says he inherited economic problems

The truth is, they said the same thing. In your OP, it was egregious whining. But when you hear that Ronny the Great said it, there are "other factors" involved.
Hackish, to say the least...
the truth is you are the lying hack in this instance. The TRUTH (as if you would know truth if i bit you on the ass) is Reagan and Obama both said they inherited an economic mess, BUT reagan went on to explain how he intended to fix it, while Obama went on to whine some more. Not once has Obama come to the people with a spech that says "These are the steps we need to take to get the economy moving again". NOT ONCE. You pull a few phrase from a speech that was 95% about how to fix the mess, and try to claim the speech was about whining that the mess was inherited. Obama is whining at a political fundraiser, and 99% of his speech was whining, 99% of it about how everything is someone else's fault. The speech from Reagan you reference was a SOTU address, and only a small portion of it even mentions the previous administration, or the hostility he faced from the democratically controlled house, or anything like that.

If you actually think the two are "saying the same thing", then the levels of your partisan hacking self deception are so profound as to be outright frightening.
 
the truth is you are the lying hack in this instance. The TRUTH (as if you would know truth if i bit you on the ass) is Reagan and Obama both said they inherited an economic mess, BUT reagan went on to explain how he intended to fix it, while Obama went on to whine some more. Not once has Obama come to the people with a spech that says "These are the steps we need to take to get the economy moving again". NOT ONCE. You pull a few phrase from a speech that was 95% about how to fix the mess, and try to claim the speech was about whining that the mess was inherited. Obama is whining at a political fundraiser, and 99% of his speech was whining, 99% of it about how everything is someone else's fault. The speech from Reagan you reference was a SOTU address, and only a small portion of it even mentions the previous administration, or the hostility he faced from the democratically controlled house, or anything like that.

If you actually think the two are "saying the same thing", then the levels of your partisan hacking self deception are so profound as to be outright frightening.

What speech of Obama's did you red?

Here's the full text of his remarks. I've highlighted the "inherited" portion:

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Well, first of all, let me just thank Don and Katrina, the entire clan for welcoming us all here today.

For those of you who helped to organize this, I couldn’t be more grateful. I know it’s a little warm, by the way, so any gentlemen who want to take off their jackets, I’m going to lead the way. (Laughter.) That's right, you can at least take the tie off, too. There you go. (Laughter.)

I have to tell you that the last time I saw Don and Katrina -- or the first time I saw them, rather, was down in Florida, and we had an extraordinary time there, and it was a scary time. It was a moment when we were going -- we were just getting a glimmer of the worst recession in our lifetimes, how bad it might be. And we had gotten a sense of how dysfunctional politics in Washington could be.

And there was a sense that for ordinary families, the American Dream, the idea that each successive generation can do a little better than the previous one, and that if people work hard and play by the rules, that they can succeed, that that had been diminished and people had begun to doubt it.

And thanks to the support of folks like you, we were able to win in 2008 and begin a process of transformation. Now, what I think has been clear certainly this week is that this process is not complete. With respect to the economy, we’ve had a couple of very difficult days in the stock market, but the truth of the matter is, is that the challenges go beyond the stock market. As Don said, we have been able to reverse what it turns out was an 8 percent contraction in the economy a quarter before I took office.

We’ve had 17 months now of consecutive private sector job growth. Corporate profits have been up. The credit markets have stabilized.

But what's absolutely true even before these last couple days in the stock market is that recovery wasn’t happening fast enough, and some of the headwinds that we’ve been dealing with are ones that are going to take some time to fix.

But the truth of the matter is, is that we now live in a global economy where everything is interconnected, and that means that when you have problems in Europe and in Spain and in Italy and in Greece, those problems wash over into our shores.

We have competition from China and India and Brazil, places that most folks didn’t think of in economic terms 30 or 40 years ago as competitors of the United States and now they’re competing and they’re producing more engineers and they’re producing more scientists. They are ready to steal market share, or at least win market share, from our companies, if we’re not careful.

We have a health care system that still spends way too much money, considering what it gives in return.

We still have a education system that's not educating enough of our kids.

And Lord knows we still have a dysfunctional political system in Washington, as we just witnessed over the last couple of weeks.

And so for all the progress that we’ve made over the last two-and-a-half years -- and that progress has been extraordinarily significant, not only health care reform but financial regulatory reform, making sure that we are starting to transform our education system with things like Race to the Top, which says we’re going to give more money to schools but we expect reform in exchange for more money; despite the transformations that have taken place in our foreign policy, where we are -- we have now ended the war in Iraq and we are transitioning into a posture where in Afghanistan, Afghans can take responsibility for their own security -- despite all those changes, we’ve got a lot of unfinished business.

And some of you have noted that I’ve now turned 50. (Laughter.) And these are dog years that Presidents live, so -- (laughter) -- so the gray hairs are accelerating much more rapidly than I anticipated. (Laughter.)

But I was in Chicago for a big birthday mash -- birthday celebration, and I made this point to folks. On that cold, wintry day of the Inauguration, or that beautiful day in Chicago, the day we won the election, I told people that this was not the end; this was just the beginning; that this was going to be a long, difficult journey; that for us to transform this country so that all these beautiful kids who are here today are getting the kind of America that we want them to have, it means that we’re going to have to get serious, and it means that we’re going to have to start working together much more effectively than we have in the past.

Now, here’s the good news. There are no challenges that we’re facing that we don't have the solutions to. We know what to do.

So the most recent discussions, obviously, have been about debt and deficit. Look, we do have a serious problem in terms of debt and deficit, and much of it I inherited when I showed up. And because of the financial crisis, it got worse. So there's no doubt that we’ve got to fix our long-term finances.

But there's a way to do this that doesn’t require radical changes in our commitment to the poor, and our commitment to seniors, and our commitment to building infrastructure, and our commitment to medical research.

What it requires is that those of us who have the capacity can pay our fair share when it comes to taxes, like we did just as recently as 2000, when Bill Clinton was President, and requires us to make some modest adjustments in programs like Medicare that allow us to get a better bang for our buck on health care.

And if we did those things over the course of 20, 30 years, because this is a 20- or 30-year problem, then the problem would be solved. It’s not rocket science. And it doesn’t require us to decimate the things that we know are going to help us grow and become competitive.

This is not rocket science in terms of how we can create more jobs in this country. Let me just use an example like infrastructure. I don't know if anybody here recently has been to Asia, and you go to Shanghai or you go to Beijing or you go to Singapore. The notion that these guys have better airports than us is astonishing.

Well, the truth is now would be a great time for us to rebuild America. Interest rates are low. All these folks who worked in the housing bubble, construction workers and contractors, they're ready to work. They're willing to come on a job on time, under budget.

We could transform America right now, rebuilding our roads and our bridges and our airports and also rebuilding a new infrastructure for the 21st century -- high-speed rail and a new generation of air traffic control that could actually save 15 percent of fuel costs and as a consequence reduce global warming. The problem is not that we can't do it. The problem is, is that we haven’t shown the political will to do it.

We can easily imagine ways in which we can finally gain energy independence in this country. And the fact of the matter is, is that we've already cut oil imports since I came into office and we can keep on going further by transforming our auto fleets and have folks driving electric cars, and develop those cars right here in the United States and put those folks back to work.

And we've already shown what we did in the auto industry, that even businesses that are troubled, if you go in there and you start harnessing American know-how and American ingenuity, and you give folks some support, that there is no reason why we can't be the single most efficient automakers in the world and significantly cut our dependence on foreign oil. What's missing is not the technical know-how. What's missing is the political will.

So here's the challenge, though. This is a democracy, and that means that we've got an entire other vision that's out there. And the Republican Party has been presenting its vision quite vividly over the last six months. And their basic vision is, is that they don't believe in government as a partner with the private sector in creating the kind of growth that we need.

And they've made a decision that in terms of how to deal with the budget deficit, all they want to do is they just want to cut. And they don't want to cut selectively and surgically. Their basic attitude is, you know what, Medicare, we can voucherize, even if it means $6,000 more in expenses for our seniors. And Pell Grants, we can cut some of those, even though it means that young people aren't going to be able to go to college.

And when it comes to medical research and when it comes to the kind of innovation agenda that's always been the hallmark of America, you know what, that's not important. The private sector can do it, even though the private sector will acknowledge that they're not going to be willing to put up the costs that helped to create things like the Internet.

And so, they've got a very different vision. And as a consequence of this debt ceiling debacle being behind us now, what we're going to have is 16 months in which we debate this vision for America. And it's going to be as fundamental a debate as 2008. In some ways, it may be even a more profound debate, because the contrast is going to be clearer and it's going to be sharp.

In the meantime, as President of the United States, my job is to work with Congress to try to get as much done as possible. Whether we're going to see any progress out of this Congress right now, because so far we haven't seen much when it comes to innovative ideas that actually put people to work and grow the economy, remains to be seen. And we're going to be working as hard as we can to make progress even in the midst of this sharply divided government.

But I want everybody to understand if we are going to get to the vision that we all believed in, in 2008, and we still believe in, it is going to be imperative that we run a clear, forceful campaign. And I can't do that without your support.

I'm not going to be able to mobilize the country around some of the tough, necessary choices that need to be made unless we've got the kind of grassroots support at every level that you guys so vividly displayed back in 2008.

But I believe we can do it. I joke sometimes not only is my hair gray, but I got a little dings here and there -- (laughter) -- from some of the battles we've been fighting. But I remain as fundamentally optimistic now as I was when I started running in 2007. And the reason I'm optimistic is because of you.

When I meet the American people, they believe in common-sense solutions to problems. When I meet the American people, they know that if somebody works hard, they should be able to find a job and get paid a decent wage. And they should have some basic protections when they retire. They shouldn't go bankrupt when they get sick. And every kid should be able to get a great education and be able to go to college.

When I talk to the American people, they understand that we can't just have a foreign policy that's based on our military, but diplomacy matters as well, and that our commitment to help other countries develop their own capacities is something that is good for us.

And they understand, most of all, that what makes America great is not just the height of our skyscrapers or the size of our GDP, but it's also our mutual regard for each other and our ability in this incredible diversity that we have to see that as a strength and not a source of weakness, and to be able to bring people together.

So that's the project, and it is unfinished. And I don’t know about you, but I think we have no choice but to finish it. We cannot go backwards at this point, so we're going to have to go forward. We're going to have to go forward. (Applause.) And the only way I'm going to be able to go forward is with you.

So I appreciate you guys coming out on a muggy, Washington-style summer night. And my hope is, is that this is just the beginning of your commitment to what is going to be a tough road ahead over the next 18 months. But then, another four years of tough stuff that we're going to have to do in order to deliver the kind of America we want.

So with that, I'm going to take two questions and then I'm going to move on to the next thing. But I'm sure that somebody here must have a couple of questions.
 
When Obama took office, we were in a recession and the country had experienced the steepest decline in quarterly GDP since 1958, -8.9% in the 4th quarter of 2008. When Reagan took office, we were not in a recession and in the 4th quarter of 1980, the economy grew by 7.6%.

In short. You're full of shit.
And GDP is the ONLY measure of economic health?

What was inflation at when Obama took office, and what is inflation at now?

What was inflation when Reagan took office? What was inflation 2.5 years later?

You do understand, don't you, that 7.6% growth under 11.2% inflation is, effectively, negative growth, right?

What was UE when Reagan took office? What was UE 2.5 years later?

What was UE when Obama took office? What is UE at now?

In short, you want the one full of bovine cookies, go look in a mirror.
 
When Obama took office, we were in a recession and the country had experienced the steepest decline in quarterly GDP since 1958, -8.9% in the 4th quarter of 2008. When Reagan took office, we were not in a recession and in the 4th quarter of 1980, the economy grew by 7.6%.

In short. You're full of shit.

Double digit inflation
Double digit unemployment went Carter left office
Military in shambles

3% inflation
7.8% when Obama took office

GDP.... for Reagan....

1981 3,126.8 5,982.1 2.54%
1982 3,253.2 5,865.9 -1.94%
1983 3,534.6 6,130.9 4.52%
1984 3,930.9 6,571.5 7.19%
1985 4,217.5 6,843.4 4.14%
1986 4,460.1 7,080.5 3.46%
1987 4,736.4 7,307.0 3.20%
1988 5,100.4 7,607.4 4.11%
1989 5,482.1 7,879.2 3.57%

Yes, Reagan allowed Volcker to do what was necessary, to let the country feel the pain needed to get us back on track. He thus averaged 1.71% GDP growth his first three years.

Obama

2009q1 13,893.7 12,663.2 -1.71%
2009q2 13,854.1 12,641.3 -0.17%
2009q3 13,920.5 12,694.5 0.42%
2009q4 14,087.4 12,813.5 0.94%
2010q1 14,277.9 12,937.7 0.97%
2010q2 14,467.8 13,058.5 0.93%
2010q3 14,605.5 13,139.6 0.62%
2010q4 14,755.0 13,216.1 0.58%
2011q1 14,867.8 13,227.9 0.09%
2011q2 15,003.8 13,270.1 0.32%

annually....

2009 13,939.0 12,703.1 -3.49%
2010 14,526.5 13,088.0 3.03%

As for the 4th quarter of 1980... yes, it was high, which is TYPICALLY what we see when coming out of a recession. The two previous quarters in 1980 were NEGATIVE, the second quarter down over 8%, the third down another 0.8%.

Taking a look at the last four quarters under Obama....

2010q3 14,605.5 13,139.6 0.62% 2.48%
2010q4 14,755.0 13,216.1 0.58% 2.33%
2011q1 14,867.8 13,227.9 0.09% 0.36%
2011q2 15,003.8 13,270.1 0.32% 1.28%


I wonder... do you think his policies have us on track for a fourth year like Reagan?
 
over 2 years later and obama has inherited this economy - dungheap

over 2 years later, reagan did not inherit recession - dungheap

funny how apologists think
 
And GDP is the ONLY measure of economic health?

Not at all. But it is a good measure of the overall economy.

What was inflation at when Obama took office, and what is inflation at now?

I think we were deflating when Obama took office (-0.4%) and now we're right around the FED target of about 2%, though it did decline recently. The president doesn't really have much control over inflation, though. That's part of the FED's mandate.

What was inflation when Reagan took office? What was inflation 2.5 years later?

Inflation was sky high when Reagan assumed office and was much lower 2.5 years later.

You do understand, don't you, that 7.6% growth under 11.2% inflation is, effectively, negative growth, right?

You do realize, don't you, that inflation is not at 11.2% and that the economy is growing, not contracting, don't you?

What was UE when Reagan took office? What was UE 2.5 years later?

In January 1981, unemployment was at 7.5%. In July 1983 it was at 9.4%. Net change +1.9%

What was UE when Obama took office? What is UE at now?

In January 2009, 7.6%. July 2011, 9.1%. Net change +1.5%. Obama is better here.

In short, you want the one full of bovine cookies, go look in a mirror.

Ummmm . . .
 
Dow is up over 2,000 points since Obama took office, 27% of it value. At this point in Reagan's presidency the DOW was up 26% of its value.

so once again, obama inherited an economy that was better off than reagan's....thanks for that....again

and wow...that 1%....wow...obama is the man...wow...tell me, did the market LOSE 2000 points or whatever percent at the same time in reagan's term? of course not, but you don't mention facts like that because they do not conform to your world view
 
What speech of Obama's did you red?

Here's the full text of his remarks. I've highlighted the "inherited" portion:
I see you glossed over the entire republcian did this, republicans did that, republicans have a different vision, I want to work with Congress but the republicans won't parts. It was a pretty big part of the whole.

I do see he mentioned, in addition to the usual "tax the rich!", using rebuilding infrastructure to boost the economy, and I will give credit where credit is due that such is an action detail for moving the economy forward - and not even one with which I entirely disagree. So his was not ENTIRELY whining. Just mostly....

Of course, after spending 840 billion dollars, SUPPOSEDLY most of which was going to infrastructure, I have to ask, how much MORE does he want to spend on black hole projects? (I mean infrastructure rebuilding projects?)
 
the truth is you are the lying hack in this instance. The TRUTH (as if you would know truth if i bit you on the ass) is Reagan and Obama both said they inherited an economic mess, BUT reagan went on to explain how he intended to fix it, while Obama went on to whine some more. Not once has Obama come to the people with a spech that says "These are the steps we need to take to get the economy moving again". NOT ONCE. You pull a few phrase from a speech that was 95% about how to fix the mess, and try to claim the speech was about whining that the mess was inherited. Obama is whining at a political fundraiser, and 99% of his speech was whining, 99% of it about how everything is someone else's fault. The speech from Reagan you reference was a SOTU address, and only a small portion of it even mentions the previous administration, or the hostility he faced from the democratically controlled house, or anything like that.

If you actually think the two are "saying the same thing", then the levels of your partisan hacking self deception are so profound as to be outright frightening.

I appreciate how embarassed you must be that I posted that quote right after you said that Reagan NEVER whined about inheriting problems, but it is what it is, as they say. No amount of foot-stomping & namecalling on your part can erase the fact that you are now wildly spinning why their remarks are somehow "different," because you're a hack.
 
over 2 years later and obama has inherited this economy - dungheap

over 2 years later, reagan did not inherit recession - dungheap

funny how apologists think

When Obama was inaugurated, we were in a recession and, in the quarter preceding his inauguration, experienced the steepest decline in GDP since 1958. When Reagan was inaugurated we were not in a recession and, in the quarter preceding his inauguration, experienced significant growth. These are the facts.
 
I see you glossed over the entire republcian did this, republicans did that, republicans have a different vision, I want to work with Congress but the republicans won't parts. It was a pretty big part of the whole.

I do see he mentioned, in addition to the usual "tax the rich!", using rebuilding infrastructure to boost the economy, and I will give credit where credit is due that such is an action detail for moving the economy forward - and not even one with which I entirely disagree. So his was not ENTIRELY whining. Just mostly....

Of course, after spending 840 billion dollars, SUPPOSEDLY most of which was going to infrastructure, I have to ask, how much MORE does he want to spend on black hole projects? (I mean infrastructure rebuilding projects?)

Some think that about $1.5 Billion ought to do it, which - to point out again - is less than the market has lost in the last few days.
 
When Obama was inaugurated, we were in a recession and, in the quarter preceding his inauguration, experienced the steepest decline in GDP since 1958. When Reagan was inaugurated we were not in a recession and, in the quarter preceding his inauguration, experienced significant growth. These are the facts.

Double digit inflation
Double digit unemployment went Carter left office
Military in shambles

3% inflation
7.8% when Obama took office

GDP.... for Reagan....

1981 3,126.8 5,982.1 2.54%
1982 3,253.2 5,865.9 -1.94%
1983 3,534.6 6,130.9 4.52%
1984 3,930.9 6,571.5 7.19%
1985 4,217.5 6,843.4 4.14%
1986 4,460.1 7,080.5 3.46%
1987 4,736.4 7,307.0 3.20%
1988 5,100.4 7,607.4 4.11%
1989 5,482.1 7,879.2 3.57%

Yes, Reagan allowed Volcker to do what was necessary, to let the country feel the pain needed to get us back on track. He thus averaged 1.71% GDP growth his first three years.

Obama

2009q1 13,893.7 12,663.2 -1.71%
2009q2 13,854.1 12,641.3 -0.17%
2009q3 13,920.5 12,694.5 0.42%
2009q4 14,087.4 12,813.5 0.94%
2010q1 14,277.9 12,937.7 0.97%
2010q2 14,467.8 13,058.5 0.93%
2010q3 14,605.5 13,139.6 0.62%
2010q4 14,755.0 13,216.1 0.58%
2011q1 14,867.8 13,227.9 0.09%
2011q2 15,003.8 13,270.1 0.32%

annually....

2009 13,939.0 12,703.1 -3.49%
2010 14,526.5 13,088.0 3.03%

As for the 4th quarter of 1980... yes, it was high, which is TYPICALLY what we see when coming out of a recession. The two previous quarters in 1980 were NEGATIVE, the second quarter down over 8%, the third down another 0.8%.

Taking a look at the last four quarters under Obama....

2010q3 14,605.5 13,139.6 0.62% 2.48%
2010q4 14,755.0 13,216.1 0.58% 2.33%
2011q1 14,867.8 13,227.9 0.09% 0.36%
2011q2 15,003.8 13,270.1 0.32% 1.28%


I wonder... do you think his policies have us on track for a fourth year like Reagan?
 
so you would add to that which is causing the downturn and pretend that it will somehow help?

Panic & lack of confidence are causing the downturn. You'd be hard-pressed to make a concrete case that "it's all the fault of the stimulus." The period after the stimulus passed was a pretty extended market climb, in fact.
 
so once again, obama inherited an economy that was better off than reagan's....thanks for that....again

Not really, but you are free to believe otherwise if you wish.

and wow...that 1%....wow...obama is the man...wow...tell me, did the market LOSE 2000 points or whatever percent at the same time in reagan's term? of course not, but you don't mention facts like that because they do not conform to your world view

I never said Obama was the man, in fact I said his economic policies are bad. And, yes, the DOW lost 23% of its value from April of 1981 through August of 1982. The Dow can drop about 7% more before it reaches that level.
 
Not really, but you are free to believe otherwise if you wish.



I never said Obama was the man, in fact I said his economic policies are bad. And, yes, the DOW lost 23% of its value from April of 1981 through August of 1982. The Dow can drop about 7% more before it reaches that level.

you say his policies are bad, but yet you have done nothing but defend him compared to reagan....i don't think you realize how much of an apologist you are.
 
Panic & lack of confidence are causing the downturn. You'd be hard-pressed to make a concrete case that "it's all the fault of the stimulus." The period after the stimulus passed was a pretty extended market climb, in fact.

but when it went down under bush = all bush's fault

:rolleyes:
 
When Obama was inaugurated, we were in a recession and, in the quarter preceding his inauguration, experienced the steepest decline in GDP since 1958. When Reagan was inaugurated we were not in a recession and, in the quarter preceding his inauguration, experienced significant growth. These are the facts.

then why is it, obama is still inheriting the economy, but reagan at an earlier time did not inherit the economy (and recession is apart of the economy)?

the facts are these: if you claim obama has inherited today's economy, then reagan did in fact inherit the recession.
 
Back
Top