Is this a good comparison of Obama and Bush

Here are some good things that Obama has done:

-What the new uninsured numbers don’t tell us about Obamacare:

(Obamacare decreases uninsured rate from 17% to 13%)

-Looking To 2015, Economists See 5 Reasons To Celebrate

-unemployment drops to an all time low since Obama took office

-Gas prices at the lowest point in over a decade

-gdp growth at 5%. Highest since 2003

-Obamacare decreases federal government healthcare spending

-U.S. Economic Confidence Index at +2, Highest Since 2008

Here are some good things that Bush has done:

-Helped implement environmental regulations

Would you say that this is fair? Thoughts?

So what you're saying is, they're both horrible presidents?

Even the Wall Street Journal, arguably the most conservative paper in the United States gives Obama props for the economy and the stock market reaching record highs.

Cool, this should mean Obama is a far better president than Bush.

In general, Presidents have little influence over the economy.

>Aljosa and OP giving credit to Obama for low gas prices and high stock market.

smh

please don't tell me you're serious

i don't get it. When the economy was bad republicans blamed Obama, now they are saying Obama has nothing to do with it the quickly improving economy.

Yup that's the score. To be fair the president doesn't have much to do when it comes to gas prices, but that didn't stop republicans from hoping that they would sink Obama during the election.

I like how you guys are celebrating the low gas prices when it probably means the death of the American oil industry.

OT logic for you.

I am going to state the obvious and say that the oil industry is the most corrupt and fucked up of all the industries.

If it's good for the oil companies, it's bad for consumers. If it's good for consumers, it's bad for the oil companies.

So you would rather a temporary break at the pump at the expense of the shale oil industry and our economy. Good to know.

I think you missed the point of what I said.

I was implying that when it comes to oil, there is always a loser. Always.

I am saying that I wish it wasn't that way.

If that were true, we wouldn't have had a huge surplus under Clinton, followed by a massive deficit under Bush.

Ah. Fair enough.

This is what Obama's successful presidency looks like to the people of eastern Ukraine Novorossiya ...

Are you suggesting Americans should put up with high gas prices for the good of the American oil industry?

You sound like a true socialist.

@Stesilaus: *yawns* you're trying too hard (or not enough?), man.

Well, it depends on what I was "trying" to do.

I merely wanted to show the less rosy side of Obama's presidency and, yes, the destruction of Ukraine IS part of Obama's legacy.

Incidentally, those numbers in your post are fake anyway.

Let's first separate here a bit:

The deficit != the economy. But regardless, the president has little influence over the deficit anyway. Similarly, SUD is correct that the president has little influence over the economy in most cases.

The reasons for the surpluses and deficits you cite are complex, but most of them really originate in Congress and partisan strategy - not the presidency.

My biggest issue with the new push to [correctly] state that the president has little influence over the economy is that in many cases it's pushed by the same people who gave the president hell over the economy when it was still struggling. It's just a disingenuous dance that's so transparent it's embarrassing.

This is both very funny and sad on so many levels

And Celebrating the stock market's current state is equally laughable.

When are you people going to get a clue?

Weren't you advocating for lower gas prices earlier?

From a macro (albeit US centric) this a good thing. Lower gas prices will essentially give consumers an aggregate demand boost, and the extra supply that falls away will be the least efficient production. Some specific states will be at risk in terms of budget issues and localized recessions from what I've read, but the net effect is considered to be positive.

I don't think you need to look at numbers to see that Bush was a far worse president then Obama...

so?

@Allicrombie:

Replace Clinton with Monkey and Bush with Gorilla and the fallacy of your argument may become apparent to you. You haven't provided any causal relationship. Someone, anyone, had to be President.

It is probably beneficial in the short term, depending on what consumers & businesses do with the increase in discretionary cash.

All US production is less efficient than the key OPEC states, so following that argument to the extreme results in the annihilation of N American oil production. It wouldn't be so bad if we were talking about textiles, agriculture, or even manufacturing, but energy dependence on foreign sources, especially ME sources, is what gets the US in a lot of tricky situations.

In the long term, assuming it was measured in years to decades, it would likely be harmful in energy dependence, major decline of an existing economic sector, and an impediment/delay to the development of alternate energy solutions.

On the other hand, oil has likely been overpriced on the belief that China could continue to grow at a double digit pace forever, which is/was quite unrealistic. So a short term correction, or a milder long term correction, is likely a good thing.

I agree regarding geopolitical concerns and the like.

IMO the President's economic policies (really, the Democrat as a whole) contributed in small ways to the U.S. economy after 2008, but QE was the real cornerstone of the recovery and most of the credit should go to Ben Bernanke's (a Republican) Federal Reserve actions. The U.S. fiscal policy after the A.R.R.A. was largely contractionary and if it wasn't for QE it would probably look a lot more like Europe does atm.

If it's a "temporary break" then it's not going to "destroy" the American oil industry. Also, oil rents contribute less than 1% to U.S. GDP, while low oil prices mostly benefit the other 99+%. There's no "expense" to the economy here, at least not in the short term.

ROFL at that source. ROFL also at implying that Obama had any real control over the Ukrainian civil war.

Can we, as a community, just make the conscious decision to ignore stesilaus please. It's getting quite tiresome.

I actually used to pay attention to his posts and try to be impartial towards them. At certain occasions he seemed to make interesting points that are noteworthy perhaps. Lately though he went south. He lost me at "The democratically elected Assad's regime". I do believe that the U.S has contributed significantly to fucking up the Syrian uprising, as to the disintegration of the Ukraine, but to go as far as saying that Assad's regime is democratically elected and a blessing to the Syrian people is beyond nuts.

Bush tried to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage and flag burning.

How does everybody forget about that?

You are saying that everyone who is elected president of the United States acts or would act the same as any given president in any given circumstances. I disagree with your appeal to conformity considering the differences presidential candidates have had throughout the history of the United States.

No he isn't. He is saying that it's irrelevant which President is in power because they don't really influence this area. This was the original post:

@Aljosa23: That was my interpretation in regards to the economy with regard to his original statement, which is similar to what you are saying he is saying, but broader reaching. It felt ambiguous, so I sought to understand the scope of his message. No offense intended.

@Stesilaus: Massive troll....or seriously misinformed....OT you decide.

Bad comparison. Bush accomplished much more than the OP is given him credit for. Here are a few of the positive things I can think of that Bush accomplished:

Reduced taxes

Banned infanticide (Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002)

Created the Dept. of Homeland Security, and improved communication between various agencies involved in counterterrorism

Created the PEPFAR program which save many people from HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

Killed or captured roughly 2/3 of Al Qaeda's top leadership

Shut down the AQ Khan network

Got the Libyan government to hand over their nukes and cooperate in the War on Terror

I have no sympathy for the oil corporations. They've been price gouging us for years. Hell Chesapeake hired Kelley Clarkson to play their Christmas party. That cost an easy 100 thousand. They got plenty of money. It just all flows to the top...