From Reagan to Trump: Here's How Stocks Performed Under Each President

 

[source]

Weekend Reading

Another Budget Trick From Lyin Ryan And Company
What Red States Are Passing Up As Blue States Get Billions
More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes...Why Do So Many Americans Believe The Opposite?
The Theory Behind Trump's Tax Cuts Is Exactly What Gave Us The Failed Bush Economy
Gov. Walker Endorses The Federal Tax Scam That Favors The Rich
Making America More Like Scandinavia
Who Wants To Market The Streetcar?
Don't Be Fooled By GOP Tax Reform Promises
Milwaukee's Riverwalk Earns Prestigious International Award
What More Evidence Of Collusion Do You Need?
Slippery Scott Is At It Again
GOP Bill Cuts Taxes For Private Jet Owners, Hikes Taxes On Students

Republican Benghazis

13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush’s Watch Without a Peep from Fox News

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51. 

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities. 

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed. 

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb. 

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people. 

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed. 

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.) 

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded. 

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities. 

March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two. 

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed. 

September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months. 

Prior to Benghazi, were there 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths under President George W. Bush?

Garamendi said that "during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died." There are actually different ways to count the number of attacks, especially when considering attacks on ambassadors and embassy personnel who were traveling to or from embassy property. Overall, we found Garamendi slightly understated the number of deadly attacks and total fatalities, even using a strict definition.

Presidential Vacations

[source]

Do As We Say, Not As We Do

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

Midweek Reading

Examples Of Bush & Republicans Using Government To Target Critics
Groups Targeted By IRS Tested Rules Of Politics
Six Facts Lost In The IRS Scandal
Washington Misses The Point On The Tea Party & The IRS
All Killer Tornadoes Since 1950
Itsa Pharmaceuticals To Pay $33.5 Million To Settle Claims For Paying Doctors To Push Drugs
US Cities Growing Faster Than Suburbs

Outrageous Outrage

The George W. Bush Presidency Was Really Bad

Weekend Reading

Why Not Worry About The Deficit Right Now?

Government Interest Expense on Debt Outstanding Relative to GDP

Myths About A New NBA Arena

Eight Facts About Terrorism In The United States

George W. Bush Was A Bad President

George W. Bush's Presidency In 24 Charts

Wisconsin Republican Aides Deleted Thousands Of Redistricting Files

The Great Tax Cut Experiment

Comedy Classics: Colbert Roasts Bush

The Great Pretender

Confirming my belief that Republicans are out of ideas:

Gov. Scott Walker Proposes Cutting Income Taxes

Gov. Scott Walker pledged Thursday to cut income taxes in the state budget he signs this summer, calling it the best way to spark the economy. But he also said the reduction would be phased in over a number of years.

Tax cuts, the best way to stimulate the economy?

As much as Republicans would like to forget George W. Bush's entire time in office, his two terms were recent historical proof of the fact that tax cuts do not spark the economy.

"In Bush’s first term, the economy shed 913,000 private sector jobs! 913,000! The only thing that saved Bush’s first term from being a complete economic disaster, in terms of employment, was robust public sector growth: The economy added 900,000 government jobs," recalls Andrew Leonard.

Ronald Brownstein adds, "On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially."

Do Republicans believe in any policies that actually work in reality?

Deficit Facts

"When President Obama took office in 2009 the deficit was already running at close to a record-setting pace. At the end of that fiscal year, it was $1.4 trillion. That’s “trillion” with a “T”. Ouch. Fiscal 2012 ended on Sept. 30. The final figures aren’t yet in, but at the moment the Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will be ... (drum roll) $1.1 trillion. So smaller. Not doubled at all," reported Peter Grier.  Did Obama Really Double The Deficit?

"It's worth noting, then, that as of today, the U.S. federal budget deficit has shrunk -- a lot. Obama inherited a deficit of nearly $1.3 trillion from Bush/Cheney the moment he took the oath of office. This year, however, according to the official data published by the Treasury Department, the deficit was $1.089 trillion," explained Steve Benen.  U.S. Budget Deficit Shrinks

Remembering The Bush Years (In Charts)

Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy:

• Consider first the median income. When Bill Clinton left office after 2000, the median income-the income line around which half of households come in above, and half fall below-stood at $52,500 (measured in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). When Bush left office after 2008, the median income had fallen to $50,303. That's a decline of 4.2 per cent. That leaves Bush with the dubious distinction of becoming the only president in recent history to preside over an income decline through two presidential terms. "What is phenomenal about the years under Bush is that through the entire business cycle from 2000 through 2007, even before this recession...working families were worse off at the end of the recovery, in the best of times during that period, than they were in 2000 before he took office," says Lawrence Mishel, president Economic Policy Institute.
• When Clinton left office in 2000, the Census counted almost 31.6 million Americans living in poverty. When Bush left office in 2008, the number of poor Americans had jumped to 39.8 million (the largest number in absolute terms since 1960.) Under Bush, the number of people in poverty increased by over 8.2 million, or 26.1 per cent. Over two-thirds of that increase occurred before the economic collapse of 2008. When Clinton left the number of Americans in poverty stood at 11.3 per cent; when Bush left that had increased to 13.2 per cent. The poverty rate for children jumped from 16.2 per cent when Clinton left office to 19 per cent when Bush stepped down.
• The story is similar again for access to health care. When Clinton left office, the number of uninsured Americans stood at 38.4 million. By the time Bush left office that number had grown to just over 46.3 million, an increase of nearly 8 million or 20.6 per cent. 

 

 

  

 

The Unemployment Rate

Republicans are pointing out that unemployment was 7.8 percent when Barack Obama took office.

It's now 8.1 percent.

See, that proves Obama is performing poorly. Obama has presided over an 4% increase in the unemployment rate.

As the graph shows, unemployment was steadily increasing since the spring of 2008, under the direction of George W. Bush.

As you can see from this graph, when George W. Bush took office, the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent. Bush and the Republicans presided over an 86 percent increase in the unemployment rate. [If we only look at Bush's first term, which ended with a 5.7% rate, the unemployment rate increased 36 percent.]

[source]

Obama hasn't been able to make a dent in the unemployment rate, but he has held it at bay. We're no longer losing 750,000 jobs per month, as we were when George W. Bush handed over the reins. And, all this has been done despite the fact that the Republicans have opposed and obstructed every piece of legislation the Obama administration has proposed.

Aside:
Bill Clinton entered office with a 7.3% unemployment rate. Leaving office with a 4.2% rate, he presided over a decline of 43 percent in the unemployment rate.

Stock Update

The stock market has shown steady improvement over President Obama's first term. 

Republicans are supposedly worried about the economy and businesses. (Just let them run the show again - they know how to create jobs!) 

How can they claim the President is hurting business?

When you slam President Obama as being a socialist and for hating business, and when you obstruct all of his legislation, it's impossible to contort yourself around to then claim you're responsible for the things actually getting done. Republicans haven't supported anything the Democrats have proposed, but  the right-wing is somehow responsible for the good outcomes? 

The accused socialist and business-hater is good for business!  

Corporate profits are at all-time highs. The Dow Jones is as high as it's been since 2008 (see chart below).

Yet, business doesn't like the President? 

They don't appreciate the growth and the steady economic hand Barack Obama has demonstrated in helping the economy out of the ditch the Republicans drove it into?

Why? Oh, that's right...politics. Perpetuating the adult conversation we're not having. Thanks, Republicans.

[Source]

For Further Reading:
Barack's Increasing Stock

Jobs: Bush Versus Obama

From Think Progress, "Private sector job creation under President Obama has far exceeded private sector job creation under President Bush. 40 months into his presidential term, there are currently more private sector jobs in the economy than when Obama came into office. At the same point in President Bush’s term, the total number of private sector jobs was still down 1.7 percent from where it began.

The numbers are even starker when measuring each president’s record from the moment job creation returned. Private sector job creation returned in February of 2010, the 13th month of President Obama’s term. Since then, the economy has added 4.3 million private sector jobs, a 4 percent increase.

Under President Bush, the economy stopped shedding private sector jobs in July of 2003, fully 30 months into his administration. From that point until May of 2004, the economy added just 1.5 million private sector jobs, an increase of only 1.4 percent."

Andrew Leonard notes, "But the real eye-opener comes when we compare Obama’s numbers to George W. Bush’s. In Bush’s first term, the economy shed 913,000 private sector jobs! 913,000! The only thing that saved Bush’s first term from being a complete economic disaster, in terms of employment, was robust public sector growth: The economy added 900,000 government jobs. One wonders: Without the massive growth in the public sector during Bush’s first term, would he have been reelected?"

The only thing that didn't make Bush's first term job creation numbers a complete disaster was the growth of public workers - the government. Obama accomplished much better total job growth in his first term, even with an unprecedented decline in the number of public workers.

And, in general, the economy creates more jobs under Democrats - 42 million during Democratic administrations versus 24 million during Republican administrations.

Whichever period we choose to dissect, we can see the country is better off under the Democrats. Plus, the idea that President Obama has performed poorly is highly misguided. No doubt, we'd all rather see more robust job creation, to bring the unemployment rate down toward a more respectable 5 or 6 percent. But, if the millions of jobs created in Obama's first term is some colossal failure, then the nonexistent job growth during Bush's first term is the absolute worst performance we've ever seen. This is surely not an endorsement for giving the White House back to the Republicans whom have performed so comparatively poorly.

So, if the economy is the important issue we all should be focused on during this election (as Republicans seem to indicate), based on their past performance versus the current President's performance, the only choice is Barack Obama.

Weekend Reading

Bush Ignored Seven Warnings About Attacks
Dear Mr. Dimon, Is Your Bank Getting Corporate Welfare?
The Hard Lessons Of Wisconsin
How Policy Has Contributed To The Great Economic Divide
'Nuns On The Bus' Visit Paul Ryan's Office
Public Sector Layoffs
Reagan's Gone. You're Old. Get Over It.
The Rent Is Too Damn High
Revenge Of The Urban Nerds
The Scam Wall Street Learned From The Mafia
Twilight Of The Elites
Wages Continue To Fall

Sunday Reading

Bitter Money Fights Shaped U.S. History
Everything You Need To Know About Mormonism
The Fiscal Legacy of George W. Bush
Tax Foundation Figures Don't Represent Typical Household
Why Elites Fail
Windfall! Rich Get Richer From New Tax Credit

The Real Food Stamp President(s)

"Setting the record straight. Can you guess which president owns the first chart, about the increase in people who get food stamps, and which president owns the second one, about the rising cost of the program. I'm not going to tell you the answers, but I will give you two hints. There is a father and son in the answers, and neither is named Barack Obama."

h/t Crooks & Liars

Jobs

Mitt Romney feels President Obama has made the recession worse.

The latest jobs numbers dispute this fantasy.

John Boehner conceded the latest jobs figures were good, but claims Republican can do better.

To the graphical record:

Since George W. Bush had the worst record for job creation of any president, the claim by Republicans that they know how to create jobs also falls flat. President Obama, in the first three years of his first term, has created more jobs than Bush created over his entire two terms.

President Obama (with 23 consecutive months of private sector job growth) hasn't made things worse, and we have recent historical evidence debunking the claim Republicans can do better. Their policies drove the car into the ditch, Obama has had to get it out. Let's not give the wheel back to the Republicans.