During his state of the union (SOTU) address a few days ago, President Obama, as usual, painted a misleading, incomplete picture of the economy and his economic record. Of course, this is nothing new. Obama and his apologists have been doing this for years. Anyway, here are some facts that Obama didn't get around to sharing in his SOTU mythology:
* Although the standard (U-3) unemployment rate is at 5.0 percent, the U-6 unemployment rate, which gives a much more complete employment picture, is at 9.9 percent, and has gone up .3 percentage points since November (from 9.6 to 9.9). The U-3 does not count the long-term unemployed/those who have given up on finding work and those who are under-employed because they can't find full-time work, whereas the U-6 includes these people.
* The average U-6 rate under Bush was a good 2 points lower than it has been under Obama. Under Bush, the U-6 never got above 8 percent! Under Obama, the U-6 has averaged right around 11 percent.
U6 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven
Unemployment Rate | President : George Walker Bush
* The labor force participation rate (LFPR) has been trending markedly downward since 2009, even soon after the start of Obama’s “recovery.”
United States Labor Force Participation Rate | 1950-2016 | Data | Chart (use the "max" view option)
Record 94,610,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Lowest in 38 Years
In contrast, during the Reagan and Clinton years, the LFPR trended markedly upward. And you can’t blame Obama's LFPR drop all on retiring Baby Boomers. Indeed, many Baby Boomers have found it necessary to keep working or to re-enter the workforce because of the weak economy and/or declining retirement income caused by the Fed’s unnaturally low interest rates (my own parents saw their retirement income drop by about $700 a month because of the drop in interest rates).
* Given these facts, some might be wondering how Obama could claim, as he did during his SOTU speech, that the economy has added 14 million jobs on his watch. Well, the simple fact is: it hasn’t. Obama cooked up this number by ignoring the worst economic months on his watch and then counting from there! No kidding. Even CNN has admitted that that’s how Obama came up with the figure of 14 million new jobs (see http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/13/news/economy/obama-jobs-state-of-the-union/ ).
Obama’s real job-creation number is 9.3 million. Never mind that many of those jobs have been created in spite of Obama’s policies, not because of them, Obama’s record pales in comparison to Reagan’s and Clinton’s records. Reagan created 12.6 million new jobs, and Clinton created nearly 21 million new jobs.
Both Reagan and Clinton raised a few taxes but slashed other taxes, and both signed several deregulation bills to ease the regulatory burden on American businesses. Overall, Reagan slashed the top two marginal tax rates by nearly 300% and also substantially cut taxes for the middle class. Clinton, although he allowed a modest increase in the top two marginal rates, cut the capital gains tax by a whopping 28 percent, created a new $500 child tax credit, raised the income limit for deductible IRAs, and nearly doubled the estate tax exemption (funny that liberals never mention these things when they praise Clinton’s economic record).
Obama’s job-creation record does top Bush’s: 9.3 million to 5.7 million. However, Bush’s numbers were affected by four events that were beyond his control: the huge economic damage done by 9/11, the enormous economic damage done by six of the 10 costliest hurricanes in American history (four of them are in the top six, including the most expensive of them all: Katrina; in contrast, Obama has had one top-ten hurricane: number 7, Irene), the recession that began soon after he took office (which obviously had nothing to do with anything he had done), and the Great Recession that began in 2008, which was largely caused by federal mortgage lending and securitization policies that Bush had repeatedly tried to stop (see, for example, The Real Culprits In This Meltdown ; How Government Housing Policy Led to the Financial Crisis ).
* Under Obama, real median household income has dropped sharply and is still nowhere near its average during the Reagan, Clinton, and Bush years. During the Bush years, it averaged nearly $56K, whereas under Obama it has averaged below $54K.
Real Median Household Income in the United States (use the "max" view option)
* Under Obama, the national debt has skyrocketed and is now well over $18 trillion. Obama has piled up nearly double the amount of debt that Bush did, and he’s done so in only 7 years compared to Bush’s 8 years. Bush added $4.9 trillion to the national debt during his 8 years in office, from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.6 trillion in January 2009. Obama has added $8.3 trillion to the national debt since taking office, from $10.6 trillion in January 2009 to $18.9 trillion as of December 2015.
And don’t let anyone tell you that some of Obama’s new debt is Bush’s fault because of the gigantic FY 2009 spending increase, as some liberals (such as Rex Nutting) have falsely claimed. In point of fact, the huge FY 2009 spending hike was done by the Democratic-controlled Congress. The Democrats stalled nine of the 12 spending bills until after Obama took office because Bush was going to veto them. Just go look at who signed nine of those 12 spending bills—it was Obama, not Bush (see http://dailysignal.com/2012/05/24/the-truth-about-president-obamas-skyrocketing-spending/ ).
* Blacks have done especially poorly in Obama’s economy. From median household income to poverty to employment, blacks are markedly worse off now than they were when Obama took office.
Larry Elder - Under Obama, Blacks Are Worse Off -- Far Worse
Blacks Lose Ground under Obama, by Deroy Murdock, National Review
Tavis Smiley: On Every Leading Economic Issue Black Americans Have Lost Ground Under Obama (VIDEO) - The Gateway Pundit
* Although the standard (U-3) unemployment rate is at 5.0 percent, the U-6 unemployment rate, which gives a much more complete employment picture, is at 9.9 percent, and has gone up .3 percentage points since November (from 9.6 to 9.9). The U-3 does not count the long-term unemployed/those who have given up on finding work and those who are under-employed because they can't find full-time work, whereas the U-6 includes these people.
* The average U-6 rate under Bush was a good 2 points lower than it has been under Obama. Under Bush, the U-6 never got above 8 percent! Under Obama, the U-6 has averaged right around 11 percent.
U6 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven
Unemployment Rate | President : George Walker Bush
* The labor force participation rate (LFPR) has been trending markedly downward since 2009, even soon after the start of Obama’s “recovery.”
United States Labor Force Participation Rate | 1950-2016 | Data | Chart (use the "max" view option)
Record 94,610,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Lowest in 38 Years
In contrast, during the Reagan and Clinton years, the LFPR trended markedly upward. And you can’t blame Obama's LFPR drop all on retiring Baby Boomers. Indeed, many Baby Boomers have found it necessary to keep working or to re-enter the workforce because of the weak economy and/or declining retirement income caused by the Fed’s unnaturally low interest rates (my own parents saw their retirement income drop by about $700 a month because of the drop in interest rates).
* Given these facts, some might be wondering how Obama could claim, as he did during his SOTU speech, that the economy has added 14 million jobs on his watch. Well, the simple fact is: it hasn’t. Obama cooked up this number by ignoring the worst economic months on his watch and then counting from there! No kidding. Even CNN has admitted that that’s how Obama came up with the figure of 14 million new jobs (see http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/13/news/economy/obama-jobs-state-of-the-union/ ).
Obama’s real job-creation number is 9.3 million. Never mind that many of those jobs have been created in spite of Obama’s policies, not because of them, Obama’s record pales in comparison to Reagan’s and Clinton’s records. Reagan created 12.6 million new jobs, and Clinton created nearly 21 million new jobs.
Both Reagan and Clinton raised a few taxes but slashed other taxes, and both signed several deregulation bills to ease the regulatory burden on American businesses. Overall, Reagan slashed the top two marginal tax rates by nearly 300% and also substantially cut taxes for the middle class. Clinton, although he allowed a modest increase in the top two marginal rates, cut the capital gains tax by a whopping 28 percent, created a new $500 child tax credit, raised the income limit for deductible IRAs, and nearly doubled the estate tax exemption (funny that liberals never mention these things when they praise Clinton’s economic record).
Obama’s job-creation record does top Bush’s: 9.3 million to 5.7 million. However, Bush’s numbers were affected by four events that were beyond his control: the huge economic damage done by 9/11, the enormous economic damage done by six of the 10 costliest hurricanes in American history (four of them are in the top six, including the most expensive of them all: Katrina; in contrast, Obama has had one top-ten hurricane: number 7, Irene), the recession that began soon after he took office (which obviously had nothing to do with anything he had done), and the Great Recession that began in 2008, which was largely caused by federal mortgage lending and securitization policies that Bush had repeatedly tried to stop (see, for example, The Real Culprits In This Meltdown ; How Government Housing Policy Led to the Financial Crisis ).
* Under Obama, real median household income has dropped sharply and is still nowhere near its average during the Reagan, Clinton, and Bush years. During the Bush years, it averaged nearly $56K, whereas under Obama it has averaged below $54K.
Real Median Household Income in the United States (use the "max" view option)
* Under Obama, the national debt has skyrocketed and is now well over $18 trillion. Obama has piled up nearly double the amount of debt that Bush did, and he’s done so in only 7 years compared to Bush’s 8 years. Bush added $4.9 trillion to the national debt during his 8 years in office, from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.6 trillion in January 2009. Obama has added $8.3 trillion to the national debt since taking office, from $10.6 trillion in January 2009 to $18.9 trillion as of December 2015.
And don’t let anyone tell you that some of Obama’s new debt is Bush’s fault because of the gigantic FY 2009 spending increase, as some liberals (such as Rex Nutting) have falsely claimed. In point of fact, the huge FY 2009 spending hike was done by the Democratic-controlled Congress. The Democrats stalled nine of the 12 spending bills until after Obama took office because Bush was going to veto them. Just go look at who signed nine of those 12 spending bills—it was Obama, not Bush (see http://dailysignal.com/2012/05/24/the-truth-about-president-obamas-skyrocketing-spending/ ).
* Blacks have done especially poorly in Obama’s economy. From median household income to poverty to employment, blacks are markedly worse off now than they were when Obama took office.
Larry Elder - Under Obama, Blacks Are Worse Off -- Far Worse
Blacks Lose Ground under Obama, by Deroy Murdock, National Review
Tavis Smiley: On Every Leading Economic Issue Black Americans Have Lost Ground Under Obama (VIDEO) - The Gateway Pundit
Last edited:
