Judging Obama's Handling of the Budget and the Economy Fairly

[kaz]

Google tarp 2, lazy ass

Hey dumbass what part of no TARP II do you not fucking get?

TARP is a LAW. A law requires CONGRESSIONAL VOTE and the only congressional vote on TARP after initial bill was contained in 2010 Dodd Frank. This law did NOT expand TARP, it SHRUNK IT (which of course you will never credit Obama for)

"TARP II" was nothing but media speculation in 2009, when the extent of the damage in financial sector was not a known.

God youre stupid. You just got done blaming w for the 2009 bugget and tarp ... passed by the democrat congress. Youre a shifty lying hypocrite who blames reps for everything and dems for nothing while they have the same policies

Bullshit, I didn't blame Bush for all of the 2009 deficit. My only point was that it COULD NOT POSSIBLY be Obama's fault.

I blamed Bush for the components of that deficit that were a direct result of his policies - tax-cuts, wars, medicaid part D and TARP.

Equally I blame Obama for the components of the deficit that were a result of his policies - Stimulus.

How is that not a fair approach?

Lets start with an obvious one. You blame w for medicare part d but not obama for obamacare. You don't blame obama for all the regs he implemented or for stagnating business investment because he constantly changed the rules on us

1. There was no Obamacare spending in 2009.

2. Obamacare, unlike most Republican spending and tax-cutting is PAID FOR. So no, I don't blame Obama for passing FISCALLY SANE policy.

3. If you could put your wishy-washy "regs" into a quantifiable relationship with the federal budget I certainly would consider it.

I'm not wasting time on an ideologue who says dems are responsible for nothing and reps for everything when they hsve the same policies. You're just making the best lawyer type case you can on every point. You have no intellectual integrity

 

[AntonToo]

Hey dumbass what part of no TARP II do you not fucking get?

TARP is a LAW. A law requires CONGRESSIONAL VOTE and the only congressional vote on TARP after initial bill was contained in 2010 Dodd Frank. This law did NOT expand TARP, it SHRUNK IT (which of course you will never credit Obama for)

"TARP II" was nothing but media speculation in 2009, when the extent of the damage in financial sector was not a known.

God youre stupid. You just got done blaming w for the 2009 bugget and tarp ... passed by the democrat congress. Youre a shifty lying hypocrite who blames reps for everything and dems for nothing while they have the same policies

Bullshit, I didn't blame Bush for all of the 2009 deficit. My only point was that it COULD NOT POSSIBLY be Obama's fault.

I blamed Bush for the components of that deficit that were a direct result of his policies - tax-cuts, wars, medicaid part D and TARP.

Equally I blame Obama for the components of the deficit that were a result of his policies - Stimulus.

How is that not a fair approach?

Lets start with an obvious one. You blame w for medicare part d but not obama for obamacare. You don't blame obama for all the regs he implemented or for stagnating business investment because he constantly changed the rules on us

1. There was no Obamacare spending in 2009.

2. Obamacare, unlike most Republican spending and tax-cutting is PAID FOR. So no, I don't blame Obama for passing FISCALLY SANE policy.

3. If you could put your wishy-washy "regs" into a quantifiable relationship with the federal budget I certainly would consider it.

I'm not wasting time on an ideologue who says dems are responsible for nothing and reps for everything when they hsve the same policies. You're just making the best lawyer type case you can on every point. You have no intellectual integrity

Moron, I specifically laid out what Democrats and Republicans are responsible for, so you now saying what you did is straight laughable.

Let's get real, you get smashed on facts.

 

[kaz]

God youre stupid. You just got done blaming w for the 2009 bugget and tarp ... passed by the democrat congress. Youre a shifty lying hypocrite who blames reps for everything and dems for nothing while they have the same policies

Bullshit, I didn't blame Bush for all of the 2009 deficit. My only point was that it COULD NOT POSSIBLY be Obama's fault.

I blamed Bush for the components of that deficit that were a direct result of his policies - tax-cuts, wars, medicaid part D and TARP.

Equally I blame Obama for the components of the deficit that were a result of his policies - Stimulus.

How is that not a fair approach?

Lets start with an obvious one. You blame w for medicare part d but not obama for obamacare. You don't blame obama for all the regs he implemented or for stagnating business investment because he constantly changed the rules on us

1. There was no Obamacare spending in 2009.

2. Obamacare, unlike most Republican spending and tax-cutting is PAID FOR. So no, I don't blame Obama for passing FISCALLY SANE policy.

3. If you could put your wishy-washy "regs" into a quantifiable relationship with the federal budget I certainly would consider it.

I'm not wasting time on an ideologue who says dems are responsible for nothing and reps for everything when they hsve the same policies. You're just making the best lawyer type case you can on every point. You have no intellectual integrity

Moron, I specifically laid out what Democrats and Republicans are responsible for, so you now saying what you did is straight laughable.

Let's get real, you get smashed on facts.

Over the last 20 years you blamed the domocrats for "stimulous." Clinton wasnt responsible for 2001. Obama not for obamacare or 2017, the dem congress who passes tarp. Yeah ...

 

[AntonToo]

Bullshit, I didn't blame Bush for all of the 2009 deficit. My only point was that it COULD NOT POSSIBLY be Obama's fault.

I blamed Bush for the components of that deficit that were a direct result of his policies - tax-cuts, wars, medicaid part D and TARP.

Equally I blame Obama for the components of the deficit that were a result of his policies - Stimulus.

How is that not a fair approach?

Lets start with an obvious one. You blame w for medicare part d but not obama for obamacare. You don't blame obama for all the regs he implemented or for stagnating business investment because he constantly changed the rules on us

1. There was no Obamacare spending in 2009.

2. Obamacare, unlike most Republican spending and tax-cutting is PAID FOR. So no, I don't blame Obama for passing FISCALLY SANE policy.

3. If you could put your wishy-washy "regs" into a quantifiable relationship with the federal budget I certainly would consider it.

I'm not wasting time on an ideologue who says dems are responsible for nothing and reps for everything when they hsve the same policies. You're just making the best lawyer type case you can on every point. You have no intellectual integrity

Moron, I specifically laid out what Democrats and Republicans are responsible for, so you now saying what you did is straight laughable.

Let's get real, you get smashed on facts.

Over the last 20 years you blamed the domocrats for "stimulous." Clinton wasnt responsible for 2001. Obama not for obamacare or 2017, the dem congress who passes tarp. Yeah ...

Look dummy, you are clearly poorly equipped to have this conversation.

Clinton did many things, causing Corporate scandals and .COM bust was not one of them. But in your silly head establishing causality is as simple as "well he was in office a year before X happened"

 

[blastoff]

If one is to credit any politician, one must point to actions taken to achieve such results. I didn't see that under DumBama.

For most of it, he happened to be at the right place at the right time. Spending? That's a congressional issue more than a presidential one. Economy? That had to do with the fed reserve pumping fake money into the market. I don't know if I can credit Obama with that one. And if the economy was doing so great, why did the interest rate remain 0% or near 0% throughout most of his two terms? That didn't start going up until after the lowering price of fuel which again, DumBama had nothing to do with. Lower cost fuel was the result of our success in Fracking which Obama and the Democrats have always hated. Everybody in America got a raise because of it. More money in our pockets means more spending.

Yes, I am a bias blogger, but I'll give anybody credit when credit is deserved. Somebody show me direct actions that caused direct results under DumBama. For instance now the left is claiming our economical success is because of Obama. What? It's a year and a half later. I can point to actions taken by Trump and the Republicans to give them credit today. Lowering taxes, rescinding regulations on businesses, getting rid of Commie Care are just a few things that encouraged growth in corporations and industry.

Nothing makes me laugh as much as lefties claiming Obama set the stage for what’s going on today. Staggering economy bringing about lousy GDP, high unemployment, etc., etc. And what did we get from team Obama? Reminders of all the good things they’re doing that are shortly gonna pay dividends and help make America great again? Hell no because they had nothing. Instead we were advised to get used to the new norm. The world’s changing and nothing the U S can do to change a thing.

 

[AntonToo]

If one is to credit any politician, one must point to actions taken to achieve such results. I didn't see that under DumBama.

For most of it, he happened to be at the right place at the right time. Spending? That's a congressional issue more than a presidential one. Economy? That had to do with the fed reserve pumping fake money into the market. I don't know if I can credit Obama with that one. And if the economy was doing so great, why did the interest rate remain 0% or near 0% throughout most of his two terms? That didn't start going up until after the lowering price of fuel which again, DumBama had nothing to do with. Lower cost fuel was the result of our success in Fracking which Obama and the Democrats have always hated. Everybody in America got a raise because of it. More money in our pockets means more spending.

Yes, I am a bias blogger, but I'll give anybody credit when credit is deserved. Somebody show me direct actions that caused direct results under DumBama. For instance now the left is claiming our economical success is because of Obama. What? It's a year and a half later. I can point to actions taken by Trump and the Republicans to give them credit today. Lowering taxes, rescinding regulations on businesses, getting rid of Commie Care are just a few things that encouraged growth in corporations and industry.

Nothing makes me laugh as much as lefties claiming Obama set the stage for what’s going on today. Staggering economy bringing about lousy GDP, high unemployment, etc., etc.

Keep laughing retard, while you blame Obama for Great Recession unemployment and think 2.3% GDP growth in 2017 is not lousy just because someone else is in office.

 

[blastoff]

If one is to credit any politician, one must point to actions taken to achieve such results. I didn't see that under DumBama.

For most of it, he happened to be at the right place at the right time. Spending? That's a congressional issue more than a presidential one. Economy? That had to do with the fed reserve pumping fake money into the market. I don't know if I can credit Obama with that one. And if the economy was doing so great, why did the interest rate remain 0% or near 0% throughout most of his two terms? That didn't start going up until after the lowering price of fuel which again, DumBama had nothing to do with. Lower cost fuel was the result of our success in Fracking which Obama and the Democrats have always hated. Everybody in America got a raise because of it. More money in our pockets means more spending.

Yes, I am a bias blogger, but I'll give anybody credit when credit is deserved. Somebody show me direct actions that caused direct results under DumBama. For instance now the left is claiming our economical success is because of Obama. What? It's a year and a half later. I can point to actions taken by Trump and the Republicans to give them credit today. Lowering taxes, rescinding regulations on businesses, getting rid of Commie Care are just a few things that encouraged growth in corporations and industry.

Nothing makes me laugh as much as lefties claiming Obama set the stage for what’s going on today. Staggering economy bringing about lousy GDP, high unemployment, etc., etc.

Keep laughing retard, while you blame Obama for Great Recession unemployment and think 2.3% GDP growth in 2017 is not lousy just because someone else is in office.

Well one retard to another read my post over again, slowly I’d suggest. I didn’t blame Barry for any recession. I simply reminded the class Barry’s attitude was the status quo is the new normal so get use to it.

What a great leader! And from behind yet!

 

[AntonToo]

If one is to credit any politician, one must point to actions taken to achieve such results. I didn't see that under DumBama.

For most of it, he happened to be at the right place at the right time. Spending? That's a congressional issue more than a presidential one. Economy? That had to do with the fed reserve pumping fake money into the market. I don't know if I can credit Obama with that one. And if the economy was doing so great, why did the interest rate remain 0% or near 0% throughout most of his two terms? That didn't start going up until after the lowering price of fuel which again, DumBama had nothing to do with. Lower cost fuel was the result of our success in Fracking which Obama and the Democrats have always hated. Everybody in America got a raise because of it. More money in our pockets means more spending.

Yes, I am a bias blogger, but I'll give anybody credit when credit is deserved. Somebody show me direct actions that caused direct results under DumBama. For instance now the left is claiming our economical success is because of Obama. What? It's a year and a half later. I can point to actions taken by Trump and the Republicans to give them credit today. Lowering taxes, rescinding regulations on businesses, getting rid of Commie Care are just a few things that encouraged growth in corporations and industry.

Nothing makes me laugh as much as lefties claiming Obama set the stage for what’s going on today. Staggering economy bringing about lousy GDP, high unemployment, etc., etc.

Keep laughing retard, while you blame Obama for Great Recession unemployment and think 2.3% GDP growth in 2017 is not lousy just because someone else is in office.

Well one retard to another read my post over again, slowly I’d suggest. I didn’t blame Barry for any recession. I simply reminded the class Barry’s attitude was the status quo is the new normal so get use to it.

What a great leader! And from behind yet!

You are full of shit, doesn't matter who you blame.

If you look at the economy where we are today it is a smooth transition over 7 years from where we were. There was no sudden turn around your posting insinuates, but a gradual, consistent growth. So ABSOLUTELY during Obama's years we've set the stage for where we are today.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Look, liberal fellas, the demonstrable fact of the matter is (1) that OBAMA signed 9 of the 12 FY 2009 spending measures (because the Dem-controlled Congress held them until Obama could sign them, because Bush had threatened to veto them), and (2) that OBAMA voted for all of them. Obama was a U.S. Senator in 2008, remember? He voted for all of the huge spending hikes that Bush opposed, and then he signed 9 of the 12 spending measures soon after he became President. So the claim that FY 2009 spending was Bush's fault just won't hunt.

 

[edthecynic]

Look, liberal fellas, the demonstrable fact of the matter is (1) that OBAMA signed 9 of the 12 FY 2009 spending measures (because the Dem-controlled Congress held them until Obama could sign them, because Bush had threatened to veto them), and (2) that OBAMA voted for all of them. Obama was a U.S. Senator in 2008, remember? He voted for all of the huge spending hikes that Bush opposed, and then he signed 9 of the 12 spending measures soon after he became President. So the claim that FY 2009 spending was Bush's fault just won't hunt.

Please list all 12 bills so I can personally check.

 

[AntonToo]

OBAMA voted for all of them. Obama was a U.S. Senator in 2008, remember? He voted for all of the huge spending hikes that Bush opposed

List them liar.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

The Voter's Self Defense System

link to most of Obama's votes as Senator

 

[Faun]

It could be said that the economy had nowhere to go but up after the debacle of 2008 when democrat Barney Frank who had oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae let it collapse on his watch. Obama's micro managing of the economy and silly programs like "cash for clunkers" elicited little confidence from the public sector and when Obama came out and claimed that "corporations were the enemy" it was met with stagnation. The GDP never even came close to 3% during Hussein's 8 years while the administration bragged about how many people applied for food stamps and Black employment sank to dismal levels. Meanwhile the administration seemed to encourage Black violence against the government and the Police as a relief for unemployment. If you wanted to play poker with a high roller, Obama would be the perfect patsy. So many foreign governments conned him out of resources that the Iran deal has become the symbol of corruption.

Barney Frank was not in charge of any committees until 2007. Until then, it was Republicans who ran every committee and wouldn't pass GSE oversight.

 

[Faun]

It could be said that the economy had nowhere to go but up after the debacle of 2008 when democrat Barney Frank who had oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae let it collapse on his watch. Obama's micro managing of the economy and silly programs like "cash for clunkers" elicited little confidence from the public sector and when Obama came out and claimed that "corporations were the enemy" it was met with stagnation. The GDP never even came close to 3% during Hussein's 8 years while the administration bragged about how many people applied for food stamps and Black employment sank to dismal levels. Meanwhile the administration seemed to encourage Black violence against the government and the Police as a relief for unemployment. If you wanted to play poker with a high roller, Obama would be the perfect patsy. So many foreign governments conned him out of resources that the Iran deal has become the symbol of corruption.

I agree with most of what you say. However, I would note that Obama quietly allowed the suicidal Sarbanes-Oxley mark-to-market regulation, which played a major role in causing the 2008 recession, to be gutted.

The modest GDP growth was a symptom of the over-regulation that characterized Obama's presidency.

The Sarbanes-Oxley of 2002? Obama wasn't even a member of the U.S. Senate.

 

[Faun]

The bottom line is that Obama did a pretty decent job on the economy and a poor job on the budget. That said, Obama did a better job on the economy and on the budget than Bush did. Obama increased the national debt by 68%, way too much, but Bush jacked up the debt by 101%.

Unfortunately, Obama's recovery included historically long stretches of high U-6 unemployment and weak or tepid GDP growth. Why? Because he over-regulated, because he imposed Obamacare, and because he did virtually nothing to help big business. Helping small businesses is all fine and dandy, and increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit is also a smart move, but big businesses employ tens of millions of Americans and have the capacity to do a great deal of good for the economy when their tax and regulatory burdens are lightened, a fact that Obama did not grasp. But, again, overall, Obama did a pretty decent job on the economy, and he did a better job on the budget than Bush did.

Obama increased the national debt by 68%, way too much, but Bush jacked up the debt by 101%.

You're mistaken.

No, those numbers are accurate.

Which President Increased U.S. Debt the Most?

You can't use just gross dollar amounts, because they are misleading. The key measurement is the percentage by which the debt increased.

No, those numbers are accurate.

Debt to the penny shows Bush and Obama added almost identical percentages.
I could go even deeper and show you how Obama actually added a lot more, but why bother?

I'll be doggoned. I checked The Balance's math, and they are wrong, and you are right. When Bush took office, the debt was $5.7 trillion. When he left office, the debt was $10.6 trillion. Amount of increase: 86%. When Obama took office, the debt was $10.6 trillion. When he left office, the debt was $19.9 trillion. Amount of increase: 87%.

Before I posted the OP, I checked The Balance's math on the jobs numbers but not on the debt percentage numbers. If I use their stuff again, I'll need to check all of their numbers! Thank you for the correction.

LOLOL

Now you're arguing with your own source, which pointed out how much of spending during a president's first year are already set in the budget from the previous president.

 

[Faun]

Psst do you know what debt is? The sum of annual deficits.

2009 budget submitted by Bush in 2008 had 1.3 Trillion dollar deficit...how exactly did Obama cause that???

This myth has been debunked hundreds of times on this board. The Dem-controlled Congress jacked up spending for the final fiscal year. Bush threatened to veto it, so the Dems held most off on most of it until Obama could sign it, which he did almost as soon as he took office. Go look at whose signature is on most of that spending.

Lol you don’t know wtf you are talking about.

Half of 2009 deficit was not due to spending it was due to reciepts that fell through the floor as economy was in recession.

The other half was stiff like unemployment benefits increases from people getting laid off en-mass and TARP, a BUSH administration bill.

The second TARP bill was Obama, not W.

And just to be clear, you blame Clinton, not W for the 2001 recession, that's what you're saying

Stop kazzing, there was only one TARP bill and it was signed into law by Bush.

 

[Oldstyle]

Obama's handling of the budget and the economy was not as bad as most conservatives believe it was, and it is not as good as most liberals claim it was. Some points:

* True, Obama jacked up spending in his first year, but he actually imposed a net cut on spending the following year (2010), before sequestration was even debated, and he held spending to virtually flat-lined levels through 2015 (US Federal Spending Analysis - Charts Tables History). Yes, the spending restraint from 2012 through 2015 was because of the sequester, but Obama agreed to the sequester--he could have vetoed it, but he did not.

* In connection with the above, Obama increased the national debt by a much smaller percentage than Bush did. Bush increased the debt by 101%. Obama increased it by 68%, one-third less than Bush.

* During Obama's 8 years, 17 million new jobs were created, a 12.8% increase, which far surpasses Bush's record on job creation (Which President Created the Most Jobs?).

* Under Obama, we had 74 consecutive months of job growth, from October 2010 to December 2016 (Bureau of Labor Statistics Data).

* The biggest chunk of Obama's much-maligned stimulus packet was devoted to tax cuts. Of the $787 billion, $288 billion was for tax cuts. Another $275 billion was for job creation via federal contracts, grants, and loans.

* Obama signed numerous tax-cut measures, both for individuals and for small businesses. He also made most of the Bush tax cuts permanent, against the advice of many liberal economists. Some of his other tax cuts included the following:

In 2010, President Obama signed an $858 billion tax cut deal. It extended the Bush tax cuts through 2012 and unemployment benefits through 2011. It cut payroll taxes by 2 percent, adding $120 million to workers' spendable income. It extended a college tuition tax credit. It also included $55 billion in industry-specific tax cuts. (https://www.thebalance.com/obama-tax-cuts-3306330; see also https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/taxes;
(https://www.cnbc.com/id/49261153; Obama Proposes Extending Small Business Tax Cuts Permanently | Andersen CPA Firm)​

* A typical family making $50,000 a year received tax cuts totaling $3,600 in President Obama’s first term, more if they were putting a child through college.

* Improvements to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC), enacted in 2009 under Obama and later made permanent provided roughly 16 million working families a year with a tax cut of about $900 on average.

* The 2015 budget deal lifted the sequester's caps but it also contained well over $600 billion in tax cuts/tax breaks and lifted the ban on oil exports.

Of course, there were some black marks. We actually lost manufacturing jobs under Obama, although the loss was relatively small--we went from 12,561,000 manufacturing jobs in January 2009 to 12,369,000 in January 2017. Another problem was that the stock market's growth was somewhat weak. Over-regulation was a drag on many business sectors. A sizable number of the new jobs that were created were modest-income jobs and part-time jobs, but the majority were good jobs. The U-6 rate, aka the "real unemployment rate," stayed unusually high for most of Obama's presidency. Obamacare caused many companies to change full-time positions to part-time positions to avoid having to offer health insurance.

On balance, Obama did a better of dealing with the budget and the economy than most conservatives give him credit for.

Fair analysis, not a huge O fan he was to much of a corporate where for me. But the guy was dropped into a bad situation that was deteriorating quickly and he made moves to make things prolong. Yes he could have done a sight better but imagine if Booooosh had inherited that mess?

With all due respect, Aldo...it was "Boooosh" who set up TARP which pretty much saved many of our financial institutions and did so without costing taxpayer a dime (we actually made money on the Bush TARP loans!)! Barack Obama on the other hand used TARP money to reward his supporters like the UAW and the taxpayers lost a ton of money on the process!

As for what Obama "did" when he was dropped into what you describe as a bad situation? His number one priority was passing what became ObamaCare...something that hurt the economy...and he was working on passing Cap & Trade legislation when Democrats lost the House in the 2010 midterms...which would have REALLY hurt the economy! He could have done a "sight better"? He could have done a whole lot better. He was more concerned with passing parts of a progressive agenda than he was with the welfare of millions of Americans who were out of jobs and burning through their life's savings.

 

[Faun]

Obama's handling of the budget and the economy was not as bad as most conservatives believe it was, and it is not as good as most liberals claim it was. Some points:

* True, Obama jacked up spending in his first year, but he actually imposed a net cut on spending the following year (2010), before sequestration was even debated, and he held spending to virtually flat-lined levels through 2015 (US Federal Spending Analysis - Charts Tables History). Yes, the spending restraint from 2012 through 2015 was because of the sequester, but Obama agreed to the sequester--he could have vetoed it, but he did not.

* In connection with the above, Obama increased the national debt by a much smaller percentage than Bush did. Bush increased the debt by 101%. Obama increased it by 68%, one-third less than Bush.

* During Obama's 8 years, 17 million new jobs were created, a 12.8% increase, which far surpasses Bush's record on job creation (Which President Created the Most Jobs?).

* Under Obama, we had 74 consecutive months of job growth, from October 2010 to December 2016 (Bureau of Labor Statistics Data).

* The biggest chunk of Obama's much-maligned stimulus packet was devoted to tax cuts. Of the $787 billion, $288 billion was for tax cuts. Another $275 billion was for job creation via federal contracts, grants, and loans.

* Obama signed numerous tax-cut measures, both for individuals and for small businesses. He also made most of the Bush tax cuts permanent, against the advice of many liberal economists. Some of his other tax cuts included the following:

In 2010, President Obama signed an $858 billion tax cut deal. It extended the Bush tax cuts through 2012 and unemployment benefits through 2011. It cut payroll taxes by 2 percent, adding $120 million to workers' spendable income. It extended a college tuition tax credit. It also included $55 billion in industry-specific tax cuts. (https://www.thebalance.com/obama-tax-cuts-3306330; see also https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/taxes;
(https://www.cnbc.com/id/49261153; Obama Proposes Extending Small Business Tax Cuts Permanently | Andersen CPA Firm)​

* A typical family making $50,000 a year received tax cuts totaling $3,600 in President Obama’s first term, more if they were putting a child through college.

* Improvements to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC), enacted in 2009 under Obama and later made permanent provided roughly 16 million working families a year with a tax cut of about $900 on average.

* The 2015 budget deal lifted the sequester's caps but it also contained well over $600 billion in tax cuts/tax breaks and lifted the ban on oil exports.

Of course, there were some black marks. We actually lost manufacturing jobs under Obama, although the loss was relatively small--we went from 12,561,000 manufacturing jobs in January 2009 to 12,369,000 in January 2017. Another problem was that the stock market's growth was somewhat weak. Over-regulation was a drag on many business sectors. A sizable number of the new jobs that were created were modest-income jobs and part-time jobs, but the majority were good jobs. The U-6 rate, aka the "real unemployment rate," stayed unusually high for most of Obama's presidency. Obamacare caused many companies to change full-time positions to part-time positions to avoid having to offer health insurance.

On balance, Obama did a better of dealing with the budget and the economy than most conservatives give him credit for.

Fair analysis, not a huge O fan he was to much of a corporate where for me. But the guy was dropped into a bad situation that was deteriorating quickly and he made moves to make things prolong. Yes he could have done a sight better but imagine if Booooosh had inherited that mess?

With all due respect, Aldo...it was "Boooosh" who set up TARP which pretty much saved many of our financial institutions and did so without costing taxpayer a dime (we actually made money on the Bush TARP loans!)! Barack Obama on the other hand used TARP money to reward his supporters like the UAW and the taxpayers lost a ton of money on the process!

As for what Obama "did" when he was dropped into what you describe as a bad situation? His number one priority was passing what became ObamaCare...something that hurt the economy...and he was working on passing Cap & Trade legislation when Democrats lost the House in the 2010 midterms...which would have REALLY hurt the economy! He could have done a "sight better"? He could have done a whole lot better. He was more concerned with passing parts of a progressive agenda than he was with the welfare of millions of Americans who were out of jobs and burning through their life's savings.

Stop lying, ya lyin' con tool. In fact, the economy grew worse after TARP. It only turned around after Obama passed ARRA.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Obama's handling of the budget and the economy was not as bad as most conservatives believe it was, and it is not as good as most liberals claim it was. Some points:

* True, Obama jacked up spending in his first year, but he actually imposed a net cut on spending the following year (2010), before sequestration was even debated, and he held spending to virtually flat-lined levels through 2015 (US Federal Spending Analysis - Charts Tables History). Yes, the spending restraint from 2012 through 2015 was because of the sequester, but Obama agreed to the sequester--he could have vetoed it, but he did not.

* In connection with the above, Obama increased the national debt by a much smaller percentage than Bush did. Bush increased the debt by 101%. Obama increased it by 68%, one-third less than Bush.

* During Obama's 8 years, 17 million new jobs were created, a 12.8% increase, which far surpasses Bush's record on job creation (Which President Created the Most Jobs?).

* Under Obama, we had 74 consecutive months of job growth, from October 2010 to December 2016 (Bureau of Labor Statistics Data).

* The biggest chunk of Obama's much-maligned stimulus packet was devoted to tax cuts. Of the $787 billion, $288 billion was for tax cuts. Another $275 billion was for job creation via federal contracts, grants, and loans.

* Obama signed numerous tax-cut measures, both for individuals and for small businesses. He also made most of the Bush tax cuts permanent, against the advice of many liberal economists. Some of his other tax cuts included the following:

In 2010, President Obama signed an $858 billion tax cut deal. It extended the Bush tax cuts through 2012 and unemployment benefits through 2011. It cut payroll taxes by 2 percent, adding $120 million to workers' spendable income. It extended a college tuition tax credit. It also included $55 billion in industry-specific tax cuts. (https://www.thebalance.com/obama-tax-cuts-3306330; see also https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/taxes;
(https://www.cnbc.com/id/49261153; Obama Proposes Extending Small Business Tax Cuts Permanently | Andersen CPA Firm)​

* A typical family making $50,000 a year received tax cuts totaling $3,600 in President Obama’s first term, more if they were putting a child through college.

* Improvements to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC), enacted in 2009 under Obama and later made permanent provided roughly 16 million working families a year with a tax cut of about $900 on average.

* The 2015 budget deal lifted the sequester's caps but it also contained well over $600 billion in tax cuts/tax breaks and lifted the ban on oil exports.

Of course, there were some black marks. We actually lost manufacturing jobs under Obama, although the loss was relatively small--we went from 12,561,000 manufacturing jobs in January 2009 to 12,369,000 in January 2017. Another problem was that the stock market's growth was somewhat weak. Over-regulation was a drag on many business sectors. A sizable number of the new jobs that were created were modest-income jobs and part-time jobs, but the majority were good jobs. The U-6 rate, aka the "real unemployment rate," stayed unusually high for most of Obama's presidency. Obamacare caused many companies to change full-time positions to part-time positions to avoid having to offer health insurance.

On balance, Obama did a better of dealing with the budget and the economy than most conservatives give him credit for.

Fair analysis, not a huge O fan he was to much of a corporate where for me. But the guy was dropped into a bad situation that was deteriorating quickly and he made moves to make things prolong. Yes he could have done a sight better but imagine if Booooosh had inherited that mess?

With all due respect, Aldo...it was "Boooosh" who set up TARP which pretty much saved many of our financial institutions and did so without costing taxpayer a dime (we actually made money on the Bush TARP loans!)! Barack Obama on the other hand used TARP money to reward his supporters like the UAW and the taxpayers lost a ton of money on the process!

As for what Obama "did" when he was dropped into what you describe as a bad situation? His number one priority was passing what became ObamaCare...something that hurt the economy...and he was working on passing Cap & Trade legislation when Democrats lost the House in the 2010 midterms...which would have REALLY hurt the economy! He could have done a "sight better"? He could have done a whole lot better. He was more concerned with passing parts of a progressive agenda than he was with the welfare of millions of Americans who were out of jobs and burning through their life's savings.

Not so the TARP money Booooosh threw out there his pals partied on. The economy did not begin to turnaround until after Obama injected his plan into the mix, AARA I believe. I may be wrong on the acronym but you get the idea!

 

[Slade3200]

Psst do you know what debt is? The sum of annual deficits.

2009 budget submitted by Bush in 2008 had 1.3 Trillion dollar deficit...how exactly did Obama cause that???

He didn't. But you idiots keep saying W was responsible for 2001 which was Clinton's budget, W was responsible for the entire eight year Obama term and then Trump became responsible the day he took office so Obama wasn't ever responsible for anything

Bullshit.

Bush blew up the budget with tax-cuts, unpaid-for wars and Medicaid part B.

That’s without blaming him for Great Recession.

So medicare part D that was signed in 2003 and tax cuts in June, 2001 caused a recession that started in March, 2001. Got it.

Well, you're clear what you are

wtf are you smoking? Where did I blame Bush for 2001 recession?

Niether Bush nor Clinton caused Corporate scandals and .COM bust. DUH

See, that's why leftists are so disappointing. You suddenly get that W was responsible for 2009. He was. You're right.

But then Clinton is responsible for nothing in 2001, Obama is responsible for nothing in 2017. You're just pathetic hypocrites. Democrats are responsible for nothing ever. You're mindless partisan shills.

And to be clear, I am not. YES, W was responsible for 2009. He was. It was his budget

In that case are you also giving Obama credit for 2017?