Trump

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

You will try to defend your guy won't you? You are almost doing as good as job as Barr is at keeping Trump from being impeached.

We'll see. Obama hit 2.9% GDP rate without cutting the corporate tax rate to 20% and increasing the deficit to 1 Trillion to pay for the reduced tax revenue that is not coming in.

I'm not defending anyone. I'm just keeping you honest. You're the guy who is trying to act like a GDP expert while strangely pretending 2016 never happened.

Were you so squeamish about trillion-dollar-plus deficits back when Obama ran them four years in a row? Two of those massive red-ink spills occurred even with a GOP-controlled House (2011-2012) forcing Obama into a sequester to keep spending in check!

Federal Deficits Over $1 Trillion

2009 - $1,413 billion
2010 - $1,294 billion
2011 - $1,300 billion
2012 - $1,087 billion

The federal budget shortfall in the first full year under Trump's tenure (fiscal 2018, which ended last September 30) was $779 billion. Since the economy is growing, the deficit as a % of GDP was a still-manageable 4.0%. That's down from 8.6% in 2010, the first full year under Obama.

The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) is projecting a deficit of $897 billion for fiscal 2019. Even after the GOP tax cut, the deficit isn't ballooning. The worst you can say is - it appears to be increasing modestly. And tax revenues are NOT shrinking. According to the CBO, the federal govt will rake in $3,511 billion this year, 5.4% more than in 2018.

Bottom line is - we don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. If you're sincerely worried about the deficit, then tell us exactly which federal programs you want to cut.

By the way, the new corporate tax rate is 21%, not 20%. Can you read a graph? This one explains why it had to be reduced. Our rate was the highest in the 35-member OECD, because almost every other fucking country except the US had lowered theirs. Having the highest taxes in the OECD wasn't exactly encouraging growth or putting out a welcome mat for businesses to locate here.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by lustylad

I'm not defending anyone. I'm just keeping you honest. You're the guy who is trying to act like a GDP expert while strangely pretending 2016 never happened.

Were you so squeamish about trillion-dollar-plus deficits back when Obama ran them four years in a row? Two of those massive red-ink spills occurred even with a GOP-controlled House (2011-2012) forcing Obama into a sequester to keep spending in check!

Federal Deficits Over $1 Trillion

2009 - $1,413 billion
2010 - $1,294 billion
2011 - $1,300 billion
2012 - $1,087 billion

I was not squeamish at all. When Obama took office in Jan 2009, Bush43 left him with the worst recession since the great depression of 1929. The only president to come into office with worst conditions was FDR. The first 5 months of the 2009 budget belonged to Bush43. Obama had to do the TARP bailouts to rescue the banks, the American Auto industry and Wall street. Hundreds of troubled assets got bailed out with AIG getting a whopping 225 billion just for one troubled asset. When Obama left office in 2016 the Federal Budget deficit was reduced to 580 billion.

Comparing Trump's first two years to Obama's first two years is an apples to oranges comparison. Trump did not inherit a recession from Obama. Obama did not leave a Trillion dollar deficit for Trump either.

https://www.thebalance.com/current-u...eficit-3305783

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by lustylad

The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) is projecting a deficit of $897 billion for fiscal 2019. Even after the GOP tax cut, the deficit isn't ballooning. The worst you can say is - it appears to be increasing modestly. And tax revenues are NOT shrinking. According to the CBO, the federal govt will rake in $3,511 billion this year, 5.4% more than in 2018.

Bottom line is - we don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. If you're sincerely worried about the deficit, then tell us exactly which federal programs you want to cut.

The Balance does not agree with you on the deficit for fiscal year 2019. They have the deficit for fiscal year 2019 at $ 1 trillion as of April 16, 2019. The date of the last of update of their chart.

Spending: I will say this. Social Security is funded by the taxpayer thru 2034. Trump should not be taking money out of there to pay for the wall use it to increase military spending.

From the link: The second reason for the budget deficit.

Second is the impact of tax cuts. They immediately reduce revenue for each dollar cut. Proponents of supply-side economics argue that the government will recoup that loss over the long term by boosting economic growth and the tax base. But the National Bureau of Economic Research found that only 17% of the revenue from income tax cuts was regained. It also found that 50% of the revenue from corporate tax cuts was lost.

For example, the Bush tax cuts added $2.023 trillion to the debt between 2011 and 2020. The Congressional Research Service estimated that service cost on that debt would add another $450 billion.

Going forward, the Trump tax cut will reduce revenue. It's reducing the personal income tax rate, corporate taxes, and small business taxes. These cuts total $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. But the Joint Committee on Taxation said the cuts would stimulate growth by 0.7 percent annually. The increased growth will add revenue, offsetting some of the tax cuts. As a result, the deficit will increase $1 trillion over the next decade.




https://www.thebalance.com/current-u...eficit-3305783

[bb1961]

I love the "tax cuts increase in deficit"...all this shit means is the Gumment get less of your hard earned money...the people of the country are the ones that are supposed to do with less...HORSESHIT!!

These fuckers NEVER reduce spending just the rate of increase.
The spending on so called entitlements is out of control...when the Gumment get control of more of your money it is all squandered.

There are so many departments and programs that could be abolished or drastically cut that the saving would be astronomical and the left says the high deficit is because of tax cuts...THE GUMMENT HAVING LESS OF YOUR MONEY TO SQUANDER...that is a good thing!!
The economy is always boosted by tax cut...it the spending cut that must accompany them.

With the 22+ trillion deficit and climbing it won't be long before the interest payments on the debt won't be able the be covered...just don't know that tipping point will be.

The tax rate to cover that will be at a level that the people of this country won't be able to pay the rate necessary to have money left over to SURVIVE...that time is coming...thank God I won't be alive to see this, but the children not even born yet will have to shoulder this burden.
This is complete BULLSHIT about tax cuts...PUT THE GUMMENT ON A STARVATION DIET!!
Like President Reagan said..."The Government is too bloated and spends to much"...The only truly conservative President in my lifetime.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Comparing Trump's first two years to Obama's first two years is an apples to oranges comparison. Trump did not inherit a recession from Obama. Obama did not leave a Trillion dollar deficit for Trump either.

LustyLad's going to have a field day with this one if he so chooses. The recession should have been manna from heaven for President Obama. If the economy had performed like it did in previous recoveries, economic growth would have been a lot higher and the deficits would have decreased more.

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Second is the impact of tax cuts. They immediately reduce revenue for each dollar cut. Proponents of supply-side economics argue that the government will recoup that loss over the long term by boosting economic growth and the tax base. But the National Bureau of Economic Research found that only 17% of the revenue from income tax cuts was regained. It also found that 50% of the revenue from corporate tax cuts was lost....

Going forward, the Trump tax cut will reduce revenue....But the Joint Committee on Taxation said the cuts would stimulate growth by 0.7 percent annually. The increased growth will add revenue, offsetting some of the tax cuts. As a result, the deficit will increase $1 trillion over the next decade.

Hilarious! This is why Republicans can justifiably compare some Democrats to Communists, who believe the chief end of mankind should be to grow the size of government, even if that makes everyone worse off. So 50% of the government's revenue from corporate tax cuts is lost. The government doesn't lose 100% of the amount of the cut, it only loses half of it, because, as you say, of the boost in economic growth. Not only that, the tax cuts stimulate growth by 0.7% annually, which is absolutely huge in an economy growing at 2% rates. Keep up 2.7% growth instead of 2% growth, and at the end of 40 years, the economy is 30% larger than it would be otherwise. That's remarkable, and a strong justification for supply side economics.

Please note that most of the money saved by the corporations through tax cuts will be reinvested in ways that grow the economy and jobs, directly and also through the shareholders investing their dividends. So for every $1.00 in tax cuts, the government gets back $0.50 because of economic growth, and most of the $1.00 is reinvested in the private sector.

So why weren't corporate rates cut a long time ago? Obama was for it. They were ridiculously high compared to other countries. Probably because corporate profits are inviting targets for politicians. You can take money from corporations and, despite what Democrats say about Citizens United, they don't vote, so there's no downside for the politicians.

adav8s28, hope you'll keep posting. You're bringing up some valid points, like the deficit, and when it comes to debating you're in the same league with LustyLad. Although admittedly this is kind of like comparing the Buffalo Bills to the New England Patriots.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Obama lowered the unemployment percentage by 5.3% points while Trump lowered it by 1.1% points.

Don't carry the torch for Obama he wasn't all that great. He actually caused more problems than he solved. He did boost gun sales I'll give him that.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Don't carry the torch for Obama he wasn't all that great.

1. In 2009 Team Obama and the FED took the right steps to SAVE the economy of the USA. Go read the link from the Washington Post that was already posted.

2. Obama hit a GDP growth rate percentage of 2.9 in 2015. This is the same percentage that Trump hit 2018 with help from lowering the corporate tax rate from 36% to 21%.

3. When Obama left office the one year Federal Budget Deficit was 584 billion dollars. The lowest it had been in twelve years. In a prior post Lustylad did not tell the whole story. Here is the link with all the federal budget deficits. Can you read a chart?

https://www.thebalance.com/current-u...eficit-3305783

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Tiny

LustyLad's going to have a field day with this one if he so chooses. The recession should have been manna from heaven for President Obama. If the economy had performed like it did in previous recoveries, economic growth would have been a lot higher and the deficits would have decreased more.

There is only one recovery that the recession of 2008 & 2009 should be compared to. The recession of 2008 & 2009 should only be compared to the Great Depression of 1929. It took FDR 12 years to recover from that. Investment banks Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns went bankrupt. CityGroup, Merril Lynch, AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, General Motors and Chysler were all troubled assets that were saved by a TARP loan. Obama and the FED bailed out hundreds of troubled assets. You can't compare this recovery to other cyclical recessions.

https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Tiny

adav8s28, hope you'll keep posting. You're bringing up some valid points, like the deficit, and when it comes to debating you're in the same league with LustyLad.

I am just trying to keep the republicans honest.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

1. In 2009 Team Obama and the FED took the right steps to SAVE the economy of the USA. Go read the link from the Washington Post that was already posted.

2. Obama hit a GDP growth rate percentage of 2.9 in 2015. This is the same percentage that Trump hit 2018 with help from lowering the corporate tax rate from 36% to 21%.

3. When Obama left office the one year Federal Budget Deficit was 584 billion dollars. The lowest it had been in twelve years. In a prior post Lustylad did not tell the whole story. Here is the link with all the federal budget deficits. Can you read a chart?

https://www.thebalance.com/current-u...eficit-3305783

Bullshit.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

There is only one recovery that the recession of 2008 & 2009 should be compared to. The recession of 2008 & 2009 should only be compared to the Great Depression of 1929. It took FDR 12 years to recover from that. Investment banks Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns went bankrupt. CityGroup, Merril Lynch, AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, General Motors and Chysler were all troubled assets that were saved by a TARP loan. Obama and the FED bailed out hundreds of troubled assets. You can't compare this recovery to other cyclical recessions.

you can't still be pushing this false bullshit? really? how many times do you have to be proven wrong?

first FDR prolonged the great depression by 5 to 7 years by his "New Deal" crap. Now about the cause of the 2008 financial crisis and the Democrat's role in it?

you might find this interesting.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe.../#3d1b60985e2b


Contributor

Peter Ferrara

I cover public policy, particularly concerning economics

173,422 views Feb 7, 2013, 10:02pm

The Worst Five Years Since the Great Depression

In February, 2009, I wrote for the Wall Street Journal an article entitled Reaganomics versus Obamanomics. The article explained that the emerging Obamanomics was pursuing exactly the opposite of every policy of the enormously successful Reaganomics, and predicted that it would produce exactly the opposite results.

Well, the results are in, and under President Obama the American people have now suffered the worst 5 years since the Great Depression, as first explained by Steve McCann of the American Thinker on January 25. McCann writes,

“From 2009 through 2012, the Obama cabal, and their allegiance to statist policies, has been in charge for four years. The global financial crisis took place in the previous year, 2008 [remember the Democrat majority Congress was elected in 2006], and based on the historical pattern of American economic recovery since the depression years, the United States should have been experiencing broad and significant economic and job growth by year three at the latest.”

Instead what America got by year five was fewer jobs than before. Even though the employment age population has increased by nearly 12 million since January, 2008, there are now 3 million fewer Americans working, with employment declining from 146.3 million in January, 2008 to 143.3 million in December, 2012. If America enjoyed the same labor force participation rate as in 2008, the unemployment rate in December, 2012 would have been 11.4%, compared to 4.9% in December, 2007, under President George Bush and his “failed” economic policies of the past. We won’t see 4.9% unemployment in America again until the statest takeover of America is purged.

As I have previously recounted here, before this latest spooky downturn, since the Great Depression recessions in America have lasted an average of 10 months, with the longest previously at 16 months. The latest recession began in December, 2007. Yet here we are 62 months after the recession began, and there is hardly any recovery at all.

I have explained in previous columns that the financial crisis was caused by government, not Wall Street, which was just another victim of bad government policies. Those policies began in 1995 with President Clinton and his Executive Branch, regulatory, National Home Ownership Strategy, which was to sold as a program to expand home ownership without costing the taxpayers a dime. The regulations imposed under that strategy effectively looted the banks by trashing traditional lending standards, in the name of “fairness” of course (can’t exclude those not creditworthy from home ownership). That is how the subprime mortgage market exploded from 5% of all mortgages in 1994 to half of all mortgages by 2007.

President Bush exacerbated the problem, further pumping up the housing bubble with his cheap dollar monetary policy, under the illogical, outdated, Keynesian thinking that a cheap dollar expands the economy by promoting exports. These real causes of the financial crisis have now been well documented, in such books as The Great American Bank Robbery, by Paul Sperry, Reckless Endangerment, by New York Times reporter Gretchen Morgenson, Getting Off Track, by Stanford Economics Professor John Taylor, The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure: Why Pure Capitalism is the World Economy’s Only Hope, by Cato Institute President John Allison, and Bad History, Worse Policy: How A False Narrative About the Financial Crisis Led to the Dodd-Frank Act, by Peter Wallison, Senior Fellow for Financial Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

The National Bureau of Economic Research officially scored the recession as ending in June, 2009, still the longest recession since the Great Depression at 18 months. President Obama’s responsibility was to adopt the pro-growth policies that would generate a timely, robust recovery. But he has consistently followed the opposite, anti-growth policies, producing the worst recovery since the Great Depression, as economist John Lott originally noted.

No, Obama apologists can’t say the recovery has been so bad because the recession was so bad, as the American historical experience is the worse the recession the stronger the recovery. Obama was poised to be a national hero given his perfect timing, with the typical post recession boom starting in his first year. Obama and his people were expecting to ride that glory, with their statements regarding a supposed recovery summer in 2010, and Obama himself saying on national TV in 2009 that if he didn’t get the recovery going within 3 years, he would be a one term President. They knew the history.

And, no, you can’t say this time was different because it was a “financial crisis.” Every recession involves a financial crisis, and still the worse the recession the stronger the recovery. That financial crisis excuse is just boob bait propaganda for the gullible. Every other recession and recovery in America since the Great Depression has followed the above described patterns. But not this time, because Obama was busy transforming America from the most prosperous nation in the history of the world, into another banana republic.

That is why last month, 61 months after the recession began, unemployment was still rising, even while record numbers continued to drop out of the work force. The unemployment rate for blacks was still well into double digits at 13.8%, for Hispanics still nearly double digits at 9.7%, for teenagers, continued depression at 23.4%, for black teenagers, a genocidal 37.8%. The official U6 unemployment rate, counting those who were working part time because they couldn’t find full time work, and those marginally attached to the work force who wanted and were available for work for up to a year, was 14.4%.

Obama constantly proclaims himself the champion of the middle class. But that is just more Saul Alinsky strategy, enact socialism while proclaiming you are doing it for the middle class (which is actually getting taken). During the last 5 years, real median household income has declined nearly 9%, from $54,489 at the end of 2007, to $50,020 at the beginning of 2012. That was the most precipitous plunge on record, with a greater fall after the recession ended than before, which is unprecedented in American history. McCann adds, “While American incomes were rapidly eroding, the cost of living continued to rise as the commodity price index (basket of food, fuel and other essential commodities) rose 20% from December 2007 until September, 2012.”

We know Obama loves the poor, because he has created so many of them. Poverty has soared under Obama, with the number of Americans in poverty increasing to the highest level in the more than 50 years that the Census Bureau has been tracking poverty. Over the last 5 years, the number in poverty has increased by nearly 31%, to 49.7 million, with the poverty rate climbing by over 30% to 16.1%. Obama has also been the food stamp President, with the number on food stamps increasing during his Administration to an all time record high of 47.7 million, up 80% over the past 5 years.

This is all because there has been no real economic growth under President Obama, even though America was coming out of the recession in his first year, and so economic growth should have been higher than normal. Economic growth is the foundation for job creation, and is far more beneficial than redistribution for the middle class and the poor, who will never gain when there is a shrinking pie. Over the last 5 years, the economy has grown at an average annual rate of 0.6%, less than one fifth the long term American growth rate.

Sure there was a recession in 2008-2009. But the economy is supposed to come booming out of the downturns, averaging back out to the long-term American growth rate. But that hasn’t happened under Obamanomics. That is the core failure of President Obama.

Instead, in the fourth quarter of 2012, 5 years after the recession started, the economy was contracting again, with negative growth. One more quarter of that, and we will be back in recession, with the Fed already laying the groundwork for worse after that. The supposedly progressive Obama is leading us back into an historical reenactment of the 1930s.

Yet, while the economy has not been growing, government spending has been booming. Federal spending has increased by 41% over the last 5 years, with total government spending at all levels increasing by nearly 27%, to an all-time high of $6.2 trillion. The Democrat party controlled press told us the economy contracted in the fourth quarter because of government spending cuts. But there have been no government spending cuts. The government in the fourth quarter was spending more than ever before in world history.

Finally, despite all of President Obama’s prattle about inequality, inequality is actually worsening under his Administration. Obama said in his second inaugural address, “our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it.”

As Investors Business Daily (IBD) responded on January 23, “But that’s precisely what’s happened over the past four years, as Obama’s economic policies left the majority of Americans falling behind while the wealthy few got further ahead.”

The Census Bureau publishes the Gini Index, which is the official measure of income inequality. That index has climbed every year President Obama has been in office. It was flat during the 8 years under President Bush (which means inequality did not increase).

Inequality is increasing under Obama because the incomes of the top 20% of income earners are increasing, while the incomes for everyone else have been declining. That is right, Progressives, what all your huffing and puffing has achieved is the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. That didn’t happen under Reagan, where the rich got richer, and the poor got richer. After 1983, the poverty rate declined every year under Reagan, and incomes grew for every income quintile.

Quite to the contrary, Census reports that in 2011 the average incomes of the top 20% of income earners rose, while incomes for the bottom 80%, declined. Under President Obama, as IBD reported on January 23, “average incomes among the poorest households fell nearly 8%, back to levels not seen since the 1980s.” Real median household income, reflecting the incomes of the middle class, has declined throughout Obama’s Presidency, totaling a loss by now of one month’s income a year. You see what I mean when I say that economic growth is far more beneficial for the middle class and the poor than redistrubution?

IBD adds, “[T]he only ones doing well in Obama’s economy have been the ‘shrinking few’ Obama complains about. Wall Street investors have benefitted from a rising stock market – with the Dow now at 5 year highs – and corporate chiefs have seen profits climb 58% since June, 2009.”

McCann concludes,

“Barack Obama and the Democrats have signaled they intend to do nothing to alter the course the nation is on; in fact they intend to accelerate it. Without any firm and viable political opposition, wealth and job creation will further deteriorate with the second term implementation of Obamacare, higher taxes, ever increasing government expenditures, and the mushrooming debt, continued erosion of the value of the dollar and its potential demise as the world’s reserve currency, as well as a Niagara Falls of new regulations. The American people…will be worse off in four years than they were at the end of 2012…and a majority of the citizenry will increasingly experience the malaise and suffering of those who lived through the 1930s….”

Congratulations, Progressives. You have proven the truth of Winston Churchill’s observations, “The great vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The great virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery,” and, “If you are not a socialist at 20, you have no heart. And if you are not a capitalist at 40, you have no brains.”

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Bullshit.

You can't deal with facts. You only deal in bullshit.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

There is only one recovery that the recession of 2008 & 2009 should be compared to. The recession of 2008 & 2009 should only be compared to the Great Depression of 1929. It took FDR 12 years to recover from that. Investment banks Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns went bankrupt. CityGroup, Merril Lynch, AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, General Motors and Chysler were all troubled assets that were saved by a TARP loan. Obama and the FED bailed out hundreds of troubled assets. You can't compare this recovery to other cyclical recessions.

https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list

I'd argue the reverse. While the 2008/2009 recession was arguably the worst since before World War II, that means the recovery should have exhibited very good GDP growth. Actually 2008/2009 is a lot more comparable to 1982 than to the 1929 Great Depression. But, looking at your thesis, here are GDP growth rates during each year of the two events, and for 7 years afterwards. I picked 7 years because that would coincide with the end of Obama's second term, 7 years after 2009.

Great Depression of 1929:

1930 -8.5%
1931 -6.4%
1932 -12.9%
1933 -1.2%
1934 10.8%
1935 8.9%
1936 12.9%
1937 5.1%
1938 -3.3%
1939 8%
1940 8.8%
Average GDP growth for 7 years after end of Great Depression: 7.3%

2008/2009 Recession:

2008 -0.1%
2009 -2.5%
2010 2.6%
2011 1.6%
2012 2.2%
2013 1.8%
2014 2.5%
2015 2.9%
2016 (end of Obama's term) 1.6%
Average GDP growth for 7 years after end of 2008/2009 Recession: 2.3%

Here are some more 7 year averages, after recessions:

1991 recession: 3.7%
1982 recession: 4.4%
1974 recession: 3.0%
1958 recession: 5.0%

The recovery from the 2008/2009 recession was downright anemic.

I did give Obama credit for continuing with the Bush/Paulson bailouts earlier in this thread btw. At the time, they pissed me off, bailing out the big financial institutions. But in hindsight, they were necessary, and in the end the taxpayers got most of their money back.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

You can't deal with facts. You only deal in bullshit.

I can deal with facts. But you never present any.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

There is only one recovery that the recession of 2008 & 2009 should be compared to. The recession of 2008 & 2009 should only be compared to the Great Depression of 1929....

Originally Posted by Tiny

Great Depression of 1929:

1930 -8.5%
1931 -6.4%
1932 -12.9%
1933 -1.2%
1934 10.8%
1935 8.9%
1936 12.9%
1937 5.1%
1938 -3.3%
1939 8%
1940 8.8%
Average GDP growth for 7 years after end of Great Depression: 7.3%

2008/2009 Recession:

2008 -0.1%
2009 -2.5%
2010 2.6%
2011 1.6%
2012 2.2%
2013 1.8%
2014 2.5%
2015 2.9%
2016 (end of Obama's term) 1.6%
Average GDP growth for 7 years after end of 2008/2009 Recession: 2.3%

Hmmm... pretty weak argument, adav. First, you don't really explain WHY you think the only valid comparison is with the Great Depression (and not with more recent economic downturns). And second, you didn't even bother to look up the actual GDP numbers. Had you done so, you would have noticed you picked the worst possible example to defend Obama. His economic recovery was less than 1/3 as vigorous as FDR's, measured in GDP terms.

Maybe you would like to tell us WHY there was such a huge discrepancy between the two recoveries, since you believe they are directly comparable.

When FDR took office, he didn't have the benefit of a TARP program to bailout the banks and the auto industry quickly and put them back on their feet. He had to start from scratch and pass brand new legislation creating the FDIC, SEC, and a host of other federal agencies. Logically then, one would expect Obama's economic recovery track record to have been faster and more robust than FDR's. Yet the data shows exactly the opposite was the case. WHY?

At least FDR wasn't as inept as Obama at funneling dollars into "shovel-ready" projects. Seems to me we got a lot more bang for our buck under FDR's Works Progress Administration (WPA) than we did under Obama's misspent stimulus bill (ARRA). The Hoover Dam is still functioning. So is the Golden Gate Bridge. Can't say the same about Solyndra.

P.S. For the record, the TARP bill was signed into law by Bush, not Obama. Bailouts under the program (loans and preferred stock injections) were largely repaid. The program as a whole earned a profit for taxpayers and thus didn't add a dime to the national debt. On the other hand, the stimulus bill (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA) was crafted entirely by democrats and signed by Obama during his first month in office (Feb. 2009). None of it was repaid. It added over $800 billion to the federal deficit and the national debt.

Ten years out, we need to stop conflating the two bills, TARP and ARRA.