Of course, but once it bottoms, the only way is up (it is a truism, as if it goes further down, it hasn't bottomed).
But it's only up until it goes down again. That it continued to rally and improve is key and underscores the point that it wasn't simply a matter of there being no other possible outcome. It could have easily crashed again or the growth could have been far more subdued.
There is no logical basis for your premise.
Unless economies go Venezuelan way, and the US economy is (and was) far from that, recessions happen, economy bottoms, and the next stage is recovery and reaching and surpassing previsos highs. That's why after a recession the only way is up.
They don't have to rebound and a bottom can be a temporary stop. It's not a case of laissez-faire - active fiscal policy from government and monetary policy from central banks is key. Again, your premise that it couldn't have gone further down when Obama took over, or during his terms, makes no sense.
From 1973 to 1974, the US economy experienced a 6.16% (compared to the global average of 4.58%) drop in growth - the following year it picked up by 0.5%. The next year it rebounded 5.41%. The following year it dropped 0.78% and then the next year it rebounded 0.95% before crashing 5.8%. It then rebounded 2.83% and everyone thought it had recovered from having bottomed out. Then it crashed 4.5% back into negative growth again. So, the "bottom" wasn't real. It then rebounded a massive 6.54% following by another 2.63% (1983 and 1984). The alternating years of boom and "bust" continued until '88 which lead to the 3 consecutive years of decline into 1991 (the last time Australia went into recession. Three consecutive years of falling growth - that really puts paid to the idea that from the bottom, the only way is up, regardless of tortured logic that once something goes up it can't be going down.
There are no bottoms at which nothing else can get worse. During Obama's time growth fluctuated within a stable range of 1.36% from highest to lowest) following the recovery from 2009's low. Stable performance with growth sustained over the long term is the target and what his administrations delivered.
P.S. I do not appreciate dismissing my point of view as "nonsense." We might disagree or see things from a different perspective, but I do not recall calling yours "nonsense."
But you're OK calling Hillary names because "it's true"? Your premise was wrong and shown to be. You've stuck to it and I've shown several times why it doesn't make sense. That is the very definition of nonsense. It's not a difference of perspective, Slobo. This is not "alt-logic" or "alt-facts" or "alt-write (the new name for grammar-#$%^'s (I'm not sure Jeremy will allow that term, so alt-write will remain!))". You're wrong, and maintaining your view in the face of clear demonstration to the contrary is nonsensical.
And, for what it's worth, you've frequently referred to views and opinions that I share (and which you would know that I share because you've read me saying so), in far more disparaging terms than calling them nonsense. You are not excused of name-calling or abuse by virtue of casting the net wide. There may be two sides to a coin, but in a game of heads or tails, only one is right.
