a tale of two presidencies

[djAdvocate]

the US under communist Obama -vs- red-white-and-blue Bush:




wait: the public sector grew, the private sector shrank, and the stock market was down under the great American capitalist? 

how is that possible?

[rockon]

  1) Since they both were/are closer to communistic than capitialists there must be some other variable at play here.
  2) Since everything that happens during a presidents term is the fault of the one before him... whats the point?
  3) Since congress (actually the Tea Party) has blocked all of his legislation then any results would be credited to them?
  4) Missing years (2005-2009) on a chart always make me a little suspicous of the source and without a link it is hard to tell.

dj, you know I never let you off easy.

[happyhoix]

Well, Bush did start the Department of Homeland Security.

With more than 200,000 employees, DHS is the third largest Cabinet department, after the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security

But since this was an expansion of government related to defense, I guess this is a 'good' expansion?

[djAdvocate]

May 28, 2013 11:32:23 GMT -5 rockon said:

  1) Since they both were/are closer to communistic than capitialists there must be some other variable at play here.

my point is not what they both were.  my point is: who has the greater reputation for being a socialist?

  2) Since everything that happens during a presidents term is the fault of the one before him... whats the point?

i disagree with the premise that EVERYTHING that happened under Bush was Clinton's fault.  i would say that presidents have a real impact after the first year or two in office, in terms of shaping the job that congress does.  they also have an IMMEDIATE impact in discretionary areas, such as foreign policy. 

  3) Since congress (actually the Tea Party) has blocked all of his legislation then any results would be credited to them?

that is also not true.  Obama had a clear shot and a filibuster proof majority for over a year during his presidency.

  4) Missing years (2005-2009) on a chart always make me a little suspicous of the source and without a link it is hard to tell.

why?  this is a FIRST TERM comparison, rockon.  but rest assured, in four years, i will post the balance.

edit: i believe the source was "businessinsider.com"- another one of those socialist sites. 

dj, you know I never let you off easy.

true enough.  nor should you.  however, my entire point was that Obama has a reputation for being a Marxist, but i don't remember Bush ever getting that label.  do you?

[Deleted]

Hello dj.

I would call it "Crony Capitalism" with both.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism

Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of dirigisme.[1] Crony capitalism is believed to arise when political cronyism spills over into the business world; self-serving friendships and family ties between businessmen and the government influence the economy and society to the extent that it corrupts public-serving economic and political ideals.

[djAdvocate]

May 28, 2013 12:12:34 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

Hello dj.

I would call it "Crony Capitalism" with both.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism

Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of dirigisme.[1] Crony capitalism is believed to arise when political cronyism spills over into the business world; self-serving friendships and family ties between businessmen and the government influence the economy and society to the extent that it corrupts public-serving economic and political ideals.

i always thought of that term as meaning "greasing your buddy's hand".  i think the relationship is pretty much the opposite of this in both cases.  business runs government, and administrators are just figureheads.  this is a neo-fascist way of doing things, not Marxist by any stretch of the imagination.  but i digress.......

this is about how Bush is a better candidate for "Marxist of the Millennium" than Obama is.

[Deleted]

May 28, 2013 12:22:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 28, 2013 12:12:34 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

Hello dj.

I would call it "Crony Capitalism" with both.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism

Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of dirigisme.[1] Crony capitalism is believed to arise when political cronyism spills over into the business world; self-serving friendships and family ties between businessmen and the government influence the economy and society to the extent that it corrupts public-serving economic and political ideals.

this is about how Bush is a better candidate for "Marxist of the Millennium" than Obama is.

I don't know about that dj. Which one comes first "Chicken or Egg".
Maybe revolving door will do that to people.

[djAdvocate]

May 28, 2013 12:32:14 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

May 28, 2013 12:22:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is about how Bush is a better candidate for "Marxist of the Millennium" than Obama is.

I don't know about that dj. Which one comes first "Chicken or Egg".
Maybe revolving door will do that to people.

i am just going by the data, snowbird. 

[Deleted]

I can see that.dj

I would still call it "Crony Capitalism" is in full swing.

[rockon]

"however, my entire point was that Obama has a reputation for being a Marxist, but i don't remember Bush ever getting that label. do you?"

No but who really cares about labels? Much better to judge a man by his actions than by someone else's label. Is your point Bush should have been labeled Marxist or that Obama should not be?

[djAdvocate]

May 28, 2013 13:28:22 GMT -5 rockon said:

"however, my entire point was that Obama has a reputation for being a Marxist, but i don't remember Bush ever getting that label. do you?"

No but who really cares about labels?

you don't know me very well, do you? 

Much better to judge a man by his actions than by someone else's label.

agreed.  so Bush is the bigger Marxist, right?

Is your point Bush should have been labeled Marxist or that Obama should not be?

my point is that IF Obama is labeled a Marxist THEN Bush should be.

are we in agreement?

[rockon]

Much better to judge a man by his actions than by someone else's label.

"agreed. so Bush is the bigger Marxist, right?"

Not my job or intention to decide who fits what label the best. I had/have serious issues with both of them. I will say that IMO  neither of them promoted or helped true capitalism and that Obama'a label comes more from what he has stated he would like to do rather than what he has actually managed to get done and that at least some of his friends, supporters and appointees were very vocal about their opinions and support of Marxism. He kinda of made his own bed on that label regardless if he is more Marxist than Bush or not.

[djAdvocate]

May 28, 2013 13:58:05 GMT -5 rockon said:

Much better to judge a man by his actions than by someone else's label.

"agreed. so Bush is the bigger Marxist, right?"

Not my job or intention to decide who fits what label the best. I had/have serious issues with both of them. I will say that IMO  neither of them promoted or helped true capitalism and that Obama'a label comes more from what he has stated he would like to do rather than what he has actually managed to get done

but you also stated that you were more of an "actions speak louder than words" guy, right?  Bush's actions say to me "big government".

and that at least some of his friends, supporters and appointees were very vocal about their opinions and support of Marxism. He kinda of made his own bed on that label regardless if he is more Marxist than Bush or not.

but again, who cares what his BED is, right?  we care more about the JOB he did.  it is pretty clear, at least to me, that Bush failed to produce anything in his first four years that a capitalist would want in terms of RESULTS.  he gave us a much bigger government, and a failed equities market over his first four years.

the reason i am asking this- and the reason it matters to me- is it would appear that there is a DISCONNECT between the labeling and the performance- and that Bush would be THRILLED to have the kind of record, in terms of performance, that Obama had.

i just think it is odd, mostly.  actually, i think it is predictable, but odd works too.

[rockon]

  I think Bush and his presidency was a failure for this country. I also think Obama and his policy is a failure to this country. Do we agree on that much?

[rockon]

i just think it is odd, mostly. actually, i think it is predictable, but odd works too."


I (of course I'm a different duck) think it's odd that someone as well versed as yourself would be offended that Bush was not labeled a Marxist (you can't change history), start a thread without the supporting link (can't believe the mods didn't waterboard you for that one), post a chart with the center years missing, base a conclusion from a chart that shows the years most likely to be influenced by the previous administration.
Bush had plenty of labels of his own and there is probably a chart out there somewhere that would show Obama deserved them more.

[Deleted]

Taken in a vacuum, that would be a very convincing chart!  You must be trying to emulate the typical American "thinker" who doesn't understand cause and effect....

(Not to nitpick, but your chart shows state and local gov't employment, not federal.)

[Deleted]

May 28, 2013 11:38:26 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Well, Bush did start the Department of Homeland Security.

With more than 200,000 employees, DHS is the third largest Cabinet department, after the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security

But since this was an expansion of government related to defense, I guess this is a 'good' expansion?

Yet when the Patriot Act came up for renewal....Obama sure didn't miss a beat saying that it was a vital need for our national security.

I gladly voted for Obama in 2008, but I was "hoping" he would be the "change" that would undo the Patriot Act. Boy was I wrong!

[djAdvocate]

May 28, 2013 14:25:22 GMT -5 rockon said:

  I think Bush and his presidency was a failure for this country. I also think Obama and his policy is a failure to this country. Do we agree on that much?

i thought Bush's first term was much worse than his second.  if the same holds true for Obama, i might not be able to agree with you.

but we agree for now.

[djAdvocate]

May 28, 2013 14:46:21 GMT -5 rockon said:

i just think it is odd, mostly. actually, i think it is predictable, but odd works too."


I (of course I'm a different duck) think it's odd that someone as well versed as yourself would be offended that Bush was not labeled a Marxist

i think it is odd that you think i was offended.  puzzled would be the word i would use.

 (you can't change history), start a thread without the supporting link (can't believe the mods didn't waterboard you for that one)

i posted the link, at your request.

, post a chart with the center years missing,

i didn't post a chart with the center years missing.  i posted a chart of Bush's first term and Obama's first term.

edit: it was a fairly flattering chart for Bush.  he did much worse on the economics in his second term. 

base a conclusion from a chart that shows the years most likely to be influenced by the previous administration.

both charts are influenced by the previous administrations.  however, Obama was handed a disaster, and Bush was handed a relative success.  that would make Bush's failure all the more glaring.

Bush had plenty of labels of his own and there is probably a chart out there somewhere that would show Obama deserved them more.

then by all means, post it.  good luck with that.

[djAdvocate]

May 28, 2013 15:25:23 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

Taken in a vacuum, that would be a very convincing chart!  You must be trying to emulate the typical American "thinker" who doesn't understand cause and effect....

no.  what i was trying to do is speculate as to why Obama got labeled a socialist when government shrank under him, and capitalists were rolling in loot, and Bush is labeled a supply side hero, when his economics were an utter failure, and government GREW under him.

was i unclear?

(Not to nitpick, but your chart shows state and local gov't employment, not federal.)

does it?  huh.  let me see if i can fix that. 

[Deleted]

May 28, 2013 18:42:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 28, 2013 14:25:22 GMT -5 rockon said:

  I think Bush and his presidency was a failure for this country. I also think Obama and his policy is a failure to this country. Do we agree on that much?

i thought Bush's first term was much worse than his second.  if the same holds true for Obama, i might not be able to agree with you.

but we agree for now.

Good night! dj

You really knows how to sway the words!
Just kidding!

[djAdvocate]

ok, here is federal state and local:


this chart is from the BLS.

obama took over in jan 2009, when the FG was at +50k on the chart.  it is now flirting with -100k, for a loss of 150k jobs.
states have done much better- but they have a lot more employees, too.

i will see if i can find the same chart for Bush.  what do you think we will find, ib?  that uber-capitalist government shrinking feller that everyone seems to think we had, or the government ballooning communist that i say he was?

edit: i couldn't find a chart.  but Forbes claimed that Bush only grew employment 37,000 at the federal level in his two terms.  that is a small amount of growth, so i guess that they both win on that one.  REAGAN on the other hand, added almost 200k federal employees.....

SOCIALIST!!!! 

[djAdvocate]

May 28, 2013 18:49:36 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

May 28, 2013 18:42:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i thought Bush's first term was much worse than his second.  if the same holds true for Obama, i might not be able to agree with you.

but we agree for now.

Good night! dj

You really knows how to sway the words!
Just kidding!

thanks, i guess. 

hey, look.  i will admit that by this point in Bush's presidency i had pretty much given up hope on him.  then Katrina happened. 

[Deleted]

May 28, 2013 19:00:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 28, 2013 18:49:36 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

Good night! dj

You really knows how to sway the words!
Just kidding!

thanks, i guess. 

hey, look.  i will admit that by this point in Bush's presidency i had pretty much given up hope on him.  then Katrina happened. 

"Katrina"  could happen to any president's watch. dj 

They all do make a mistake time to time we call it "humanness".
Have a great evening.

[djAdvocate]

May 28, 2013 19:14:32 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

May 28, 2013 19:00:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

thanks, i guess. 

hey, look.  i will admit that by this point in Bush's presidency i had pretty much given up hope on him.  then Katrina happened. 

"Katrina"  could happen to any president's watch. dj 

yes, but it takes a special gift to botch a FEMA effort that badly.

They all do make a mistake time to time we call it "humanness".
Have a great evening.

there is human, and there is utter incompetence in the face of disaster.  Bush is the latter.

[tallguy]

May 28, 2013 19:00:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 28, 2013 18:49:36 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

Good night! dj

You really knows how to sway the words!
Just kidding!

thanks, i guess. 

hey, look.  i will admit that by this point in Bush's presidency i had pretty much given up hope on him.  then Katrina happened. 

Wow, you were far more charitable than I.  I had no hope for him even before he took office.        

[Deleted]

no. what i was trying to do is speculate as to why Obama got labeled a socialist when government shrank under him, and capitalists were rolling in loot, and Bush is labeled a supply side hero, when his economics were an utter failure, and government GREW under him.

Under Obama, it's state and local governments that shrank.  And they shrank because the economy sucked so badly.  But I suspect you'd be absolutely right that federal gov't employment grew more under GWB than under Obama.  Although since that had more to do with national security, I don't think socialism is the right word.

On the one hand, you can't blame GWB for the growth in Muslim extremist-sponsored terrorism.  Although you can blame him for some significant excesses in terms of our response.  But Obama hasn't done anything to reverse that course.  Growth rate is not the proper metric.  If GWB and Obama accept the same level of gov't, then they are equally socialist (or fill in a more appropriate term).

The metrics on the economy during each president's first terms are really only loosely tied to their actions.  Neither Bush nor Obama are responsible for the crash and resulting recoveries of S&P500 due to the recessions that each of them inherited.  Also, part of the problem with your graph is that each of those crashes were not perfectly timed to the start of each term.  The one in 2008 started sooner (relative to the start of the presidential term), and that has a significant impact on what your graph looks like.

edit: i couldn't find a chart. but Forbes claimed that Bush only grew employment 37,000 at the federal level in his two terms.

Well in all fairness, if you counted gov't contractors, the picture might look different?  Even so, I'm shocked it was only 37,000.  So he must have cut a bunch of un-necessary bureacracy while at the same time adding defense and homeland security.  Maybe all that makes him a dictator, not a socialist!

[Deleted]

Hope it will work! Good morning everyone.
www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-29/volcker-sets-up-center-to-examine-trust-in-government.html

Paul Volcker, who served as chairman of the Federal Reserve System from 1979 to 1987, said today that he is forming a nonpartisan initiative to rebuild public trust in government.

The goal of the Volcker Alliance is to catalyze new thinking and action with respect to federal, state and local government in the U.S. and abroad, Volcker said in a statement.

“Trust in American government has been declining for decades and similar attitudes are evident in other democracies,” he said. “Trust rests on confidence, and too often government, at all levels, in the eyes of its citizens, has been unable to respond effectively to the challenges of the day.”

[djAdvocate]

May 29, 2013 6:35:54 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

no. what i was trying to do is speculate as to why Obama got labeled a socialist when government shrank under him, and capitalists were rolling in loot, and Bush is labeled a supply side hero, when his economics were an utter failure, and government GREW under him.

Under Obama, it's state and local governments that shrank.  And they shrank because the economy sucked so badly.  But I suspect you'd be absolutely right that federal gov't employment grew more under GWB than under Obama.  Although since that had more to do with national security, I don't think socialism is the right word.

of course it isn't.  my tongue is firmly imbedded in my teeth during this discussion.  it is not appropriate for Obama either.

On the one hand, you can't blame GWB for the growth in Muslim extremist-sponsored terrorism. 

why not?  can you think of an approach that would be LESS likely to attenuate Muslim extremism than the one Bush employed?

Although you can blame him for some significant excesses in terms of our response.  But Obama hasn't done anything to reverse that course. 

in terms of actions i agree.  in terms of the tone/rhetoric i disagree.  and make no mistake about it, rhetoric is a big part of what makes AQ tick.

Growth rate is not the proper metric.  If GWB and Obama accept the same level of gov't, then they are equally socialist (or fill in a more appropriate term).

The metrics on the economy during each president's first terms are really only loosely tied to their actions.  Neither Bush nor Obama are responsible for the crash and resulting recoveries of S&P500 due to the recessions that each of them inherited.  Also, part of the problem with your graph is that each of those crashes were not perfectly timed to the start of each term. 

i conceded that.  but will YOU concede that Obama was handed a significantly more disasterous bag of rocks than Bush?

The one in 2008 started sooner (relative to the start of the presidential term), and that has a significant impact on what your graph looks like.

edit: i couldn't find a chart. but Forbes claimed that Bush only grew employment 37,000 at the federal level in his two terms.

Well in all fairness, if you counted gov't contractors, the picture might look different?  Even so, I'm shocked it was only 37,000. 

me too.

So he must have cut a bunch of un-necessary bureacracy while at the same time adding defense and homeland security.  Maybe all that makes him a dictator, not a socialist!

LOL!

[Deleted]

why not? can you think of an approach that would be LESS likely to attenuate Muslim extremism than the one Bush employed?

I just meant the existence of it.

i conceded that. but will YOU concede that Obama was handed a significantly more disasterous bag of rocks than Bush?

Of course!  But overally, the economy moves up and down regardless.  People give Presidents way too much credit (or blame).  Although I consider the current gov't (not just Obama) an exception.  I think we've made the current situation worse than it needed to be.