The Facts About Obama's Economic Record

[edthecynic]

If a repub was in the White House the drilling ban wouldn't have been reimposed and there would be no need to even discuss any recovery.

Right. Because a few hundred jobs in drilling would have made all the difference.

No, because the price of oil would have stayed down where it was before your hack came in and reimposed restrictions, driving the price back up.

The "restrictions," actually just a moratorium, were only in the Gulf only on new wells and were very short lived. The Interior Department issued a months-long moratorium on deepwater drilling. New safety requirements also slowed down the permitting process for shallow-water drilling. But existing offshore wells continued to pump out natural gas and oil.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The articles liberals keep quoting are refuted in the links I've provided, but they just keep posting this stuff. They run to some liberal site, find an article that says what they want to believe, and then uncritically post or repeat the article's claims.

It is a matter of historical fact that Freddie and Fannie secured or financed over $1 trillion in sub-prime and alt-A home loans, which was equal to about 7% of our entire economy (and it turns out that Freddie and Fannie under-reported their exposure in such loans). Any such intervention is going to have a huge impact--a good impact if it's a wise move, and a bad impact if it's an unwise move. It is also a matter of undeniable fact that many of those low-income home loans were bundled into the toxic assets that did so much damage and that caused the financial meltdown and the Great Recession.

Before Freddie and Fannie began their huge intervention in poor-credit home loans and before Clinton changed the enforcement regime for the CRA, such loans (subprime and alt-A) were a small fraction of home loans. But after these two steps, high-risk home loans shot up from being less than 2% in 1993 to some 20% by 2006. Just a big, whopping coincidence, right?

The liberals here also keep ignoring the fact that Bush and other Republicans warned of a coming housing bubble burst if Freddie and Fannie were not reined in, and that it was the Democrats who, playing the race and class-warfare cards, blocked every single GOP attempt to impose tougher lending regulations on Freddie and Fannie. Anyone can go on YouTube and see documentaries that show what the Republians said and what the Democrats said, who warned and tried to reform and who demagogued and denied and blocked all reform efforts. It's there for all to see.

And trying to put a good face on Obama's miserable "recovery" requires one to simply ignore fact, especially when compared to Reagan's record. Kyle Smith in Forbes magazine:

How about overall growth? GDP under Reagan was turbocharged compared to the Obama years. The Reagan years brought annual real GDP growth of 3.5 percent – 4.9 percent after the recession. In inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars, GDP jumped from 6.5 trillion at the end of 1980 to 8.61 trillion at the end of 1988. That’s a 32 percent bump. As Peter Ferrara pointed out on Forbes, it was the equivalent of adding the West German economy to the U.S. one.​

Under Obama, GDP up to June 30, 2014 has grown an anemic 9.6 percent, total. Reagan-era growth was far more than double the Obama rate.​

Ah, but did all of that Reagan bounty trickle down to ordinary Americans, though? Yes. Real (inflation-adjusted) median household income shot up some ten percent in the Reagan years. It has flatlined under Obama.​

How about Reagan’s spending record? Contrary to myth, and despite the opposition of a Democratic House of Representatives for his entire administration, Reagan achieved a reduction in federal spending as a percentage of GDP. That’s including his famed military buildup often credited with ending the Cold War and hence delivering the “peace dividend” that helped dampen federal spending in the 1990s, in which Reagan economic policy largely stayed in place. Spending fell from 22.9 percent of GDP to 22.1 percent in 1989, whereas under Obama it has hit as high as 25 percent and has steadily hovered above 24 percent. Total accumulated debt was at 53 percent of GDP when Reagan left office. Today it is at 102.7 percent of GDP, a level unprecedented since WW II. The debt has exploded by 66 percent in the Obama years. ( Sorry Obama Fans Reagan Did Better on Jobs and Growth - Forbes )​

 

[Faun]

The articles liberals keep quoting are refuted in the links I've provided, but they just keep posting this stuff. They run to some liberal site, find an article that says what they want to believe, and then uncritically post or repeat the article's claims.

It is a matter of historical fact that Freddie and Fannie secured or financed over $1 trillion in sub-prime and alt-A home loans, which was equal to about 7% of our entire economy (and it turns out that Freddie and Fannie under-reported their exposure in such loans). Any such intervention is going to have a huge impact--a good impact if it's a wise move, and a bad impact if it's an unwise move. It is also a matter of undeniable fact that many of those low-income home loans were bundled into the toxic assets that did so much damage and that caused the financial meltdown and the Great Recession.

Before Freddie and Fannie began their huge intervention in poor-credit home loans and before Clinton changed the enforcement regime for the CRA, such loans (subprime and alt-A) were a small fraction of home loans. But after these two steps, high-risk home loans shot up from being less than 2% in 1993 to some 20% by 2006. Just a big, whopping coincidence, right?

The liberals here also keep ignoring the fact that Bush and other Republicans warned of a coming housing bubble burst if Freddie and Fannie were not reined in, and that it was the Democrats who, playing the race and class-warfare cards, blocked every single GOP attempt to impose tougher lending regulations on Freddie and Fannie. Anyone can go on YouTube and see documentaries that show what the Republians said and what the Democrats said, who warned and tried to reform and who demagogued and denied and blocked all reform efforts. It's there for all to see.

And trying to put a good face on Obama's miserable "recovery" requires one to simply ignore fact, especially when compared to Reagan's record. Kyle Smith in Forbes magazine:

How about overall growth? GDP under Reagan was turbocharged compared to the Obama years. The Reagan years brought annual real GDP growth of 3.5 percent – 4.9 percent after the recession. In inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars, GDP jumped from 6.5 trillion at the end of 1980 to 8.61 trillion at the end of 1988. That’s a 32 percent bump. As Peter Ferrara pointed out on Forbes, it was the equivalent of adding the West German economy to the U.S. one.​

Under Obama, GDP up to June 30, 2014 has grown an anemic 9.6 percent, total. Reagan-era growth was far more than double the Obama rate.​

Ah, but did all of that Reagan bounty trickle down to ordinary Americans, though? Yes. Real (inflation-adjusted) median household income shot up some ten percent in the Reagan years. It has flatlined under Obama.​

How about Reagan’s spending record? Contrary to myth, and despite the opposition of a Democratic House of Representatives for his entire administration, Reagan achieved a reduction in federal spending as a percentage of GDP. That’s including his famed military buildup often credited with ending the Cold War and hence delivering the “peace dividend” that helped dampen federal spending in the 1990s, in which Reagan economic policy largely stayed in place. Spending fell from 22.9 percent of GDP to 22.1 percent in 1989, whereas under Obama it has hit as high as 25 percent and has steadily hovered above 24 percent. Total accumulated debt was at 53 percent of GDP when Reagan left office. Today it is at 102.7 percent of GDP, a level unprecedented since WW II. The debt has exploded by 66 percent in the Obama years. ( Sorry Obama Fans Reagan Did Better on Jobs and Growth - Forbes )​

Your nonsense remains the nonsense it was when it was last refuted. Repeating it didn't magically make it come true.

As far as the article you posted about Reagan doing better than Obama on jobs.... Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing

 

[mikegriffith1]

Oddly, liberals keep talking about the labor participation rate (LFR), when in fact LFR has been at historic lows under Obama (which is one reason the U-6 has been so high under Obama). For nearly all of the Bush years, LFR was at 66% or higher, but LFR has been under 65% for the last 5 years, and as of last month it was below 63% (62.9%):

United States Labor Force Participation Rate 1950-2015 Data Chart (set the date range from 1981 to 2015 if you wanna see just how bad LFR has been under Obama compared to previous presidents since 1981)

 

[edthecynic]

Before Freddie and Fannie began their huge intervention in poor-credit home loans and before Clinton changed the enforcement regime for the CRA, such loans (subprime and alt-A) were a small fraction of home loans. But after these two steps, high-risk home loans shot up from being less than 2% in 1993 to some 20% by 2006. Just a big, whopping coincidence, right?

Actually the "whopping coincidence" started 2004 not 1993, but you knew that already.

And what happened that kicked off the 2004 "whopping coincidence?"
It was Bush's Dec 2003 American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) that changed the rules to allow no downpayment loans for more than the house was worth to people with bad credit who could not keep up with the payments and who were at least 20% below the standard of living for the neighborhood they were buying into.

Even your MessiahRushie admits 2004 was the turning point for the Bush Housing Crash.

July 7,2010

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: To illustrate my point even further: "Subprime mortgages accounted for 9 percent of all mortgage originations from 1996 through 2004." But that 9% became 21% from 2004 to 2006, 21% of all mortgages were subprime. Twenty-one percent of all mortgages were essentially money given away to people because they were loans made to people that everybody knew going in would never pay them back. And that 21% of the mortgage market being subprime equaled about $600,000 billion in 2006, which was at the time one-fifth of the US home loan market.

 

[edthecynic]

when in fact LFR has been at historic lows under Obama

Whenever the Right says something is a "fact" you know it is a lie.

The LPR/LFR, in FACT, has been historically lower.

 

[edthecynic]

For nearly all of the Bush years, LFR was at 66% or higher

The LPR/LFR declined throughout the Bush Regime except for the flat period during his 2 wars.

 

[Faun]

Oddly, liberals keep talking about the labor participation rate (LFR), when in fact LFR has been at historic lows under Obama (which is one reason the U-6 has been so high under Obama). For nearly all of the Bush years, LFR was at 66% or higher, but LFR has been under 65% for the last 5 years, and as of last month it was below 63% (62.9%):

United States Labor Force Participation Rate 1950-2015 Data Chart (set the date range from 1981 to 2015 if you wanna see just how bad LFR has been under Obama compared to previous presidents since 1981)

You think Liberals are the ones who keep talking about the LFPR???



At any rate, explain how the LFPR is an indicator of the health of the job market...

 

[Faun]

For nearly all of the Bush years, LFR was at 66% or higher

The LPR/LFR declined throughout the Bush Regime except for the flat period during his 2 wars.

The LFPR began dropping when the baby boomer generation began hitting the earliest retirement age of 55. It accelerated when they began turning 62, the next designated age of retirement; which also occurred just before the economy collapsed, which accelerated it even faster. The period under Bush when it leveled off was mostly due to the real estate bubble, which was in full bloom by 2004 and until it crashed. The bubble created many jobs and inspired many people to enter the job market.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

At any rate, explain how the LFPR is an indicator of the health of the job market...

62.8%: Labor Force Participation Has Hovered Near 37-Year-Low for 11 Months

it's good sign that there are fewer jobs so fewer participate.
Also, U6 is at 11% which is higher than it has been since 1994.

So, unemployment is high, income is down, the liberal socialist Solyndra green job revolution never happenend.

Once again liberal interference in the free market has not worked. A liberal simple lacks the IQ to understand capitalism.

 

[edthecynic]

Also, U6 is at 11% which is higher than it has been since 1994.

LIAR!
U-6 was 14.2% the day the POS Bush left office in Jan 2009.

 

[Faun]

At any rate, explain how the LFPR is an indicator of the health of the job market...

62.8%: Labor Force Participation Has Hovered Near 37-Year-Low for 11 Months

it's good sign that there are fewer jobs so fewer participate.
Also, U6 is at 11% which is higher than it has been since 1994.

So, unemployment is high, income is down, the liberal socialist Solyndra green job revolution never happenend.

Once again liberal interference in the free market has not worked. A liberal simple lacks the IQ to understand capitalism.

If that were true, that would mean the economy today is better than it was in the 50's and 60's since the LFPR was lower than. That makes sense to you, does it?

And it's a lie for you to claim the U-6 rate is higher now than it's been since 1994. It was over 17% in 2010.

And finally, unemployment is not high. At 5.5% it's almost a full point lower than it was at this same point in Reagan's presidency and within range of full employment. Apparently, "Liberal interference in the free market" has worked.

 

[Faun]

Also, U6 is at 11% which is higher than it has been since 1994.

LIAR!
U-6 was 14.2% the day the POS Bush left office in Jan 2009.

Ed is senile. Forgive him.

 

[rdean]

We continue to see liberals here ignoring the facts about Obama's economic record, to the point of claiming that the economy is "roaring" (actually, GDP growth has slowed to a crawl again), that Obama "rescued" America from the economic mess "that Bush left behind," that Obama has been more fiscally conservative than Bush, and other rather surprising myths. Here are some facts to set the record straight--and plenty of links will be provided at the end of the post [I just added an addendum with more links]:

-- Obama has shattered Bush's record of debt accumulation, and he has done so in less than 6.5 years. In 8 years, Bush added $4.9 trillion to the national debt (from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.6 trillion in January 2009). In only 6 years and 5 months, Obama has added $7.5 trillion to the national debt (from $10.6 trillion in January 2009 to $18.1 trillion as of last month). And it's worth noting that we would be even deeper in debt if Obama and the Democrats had gotten their way on spending.

-- Obama's "recovery" has been the slowest and weakest in modern history. For example, by this same point in Reagan's recovery, the labor force participation rate was substantially higher, median income was higher, disposable income was higher, and the gain in jobs was more than twice as high. And it should be noted that the recession that Reagan had to overcome was arguably just as bad as, and in some ways worse than, the one that Obama faced (e.g., the unemployment rate went higher, interest rates were in double digits, and inflation was in double digits in the recession that Reagan faced).

-- Under Obama, there has been a net increase in the number of Americans out of the workforce. In February 2009, there were 80.7 million Americans out of the workforce. As of last month, there were 92.9 million Americans out of the workforce, a whopping increase of 12.2 million in less than 6.5 years.

Some liberals have argued that workforce participation has dropped because the number of retirees has substantially increased. Sorry, that argument won't work. Kyle Smith, an economic and financial analyst with Forbes magazine, explains:

It’s misleading to compare employment rates during the two presidencies. Imagine 90 out of 100 people are employed, and because the economy looks like it’s picking up more steam 10 more people enter the workforce. If nine out of ten of them find jobs, the unemployment rate doesn’t go down at all, yet ten percent more people are employed.​

Reagan’s economy was so strong that, for the last three-quarters of his administration, Americans were flooding into the workforce. Under Obama, the opposite has happened, and those who have given up on working aren’t counted as unemployed. Even today, more than five years into the tepid recovery, labor-force participation remains at its lowest level since 1978.

Don’t blame waves of retirement for that fact: the Census Bureau reported that, from 2005 to 2010, older Americans actually became more likely to be employed. The percentage of 65-69 year-olds remaining in the workforce jumped from 26 percent to 32 percent over a ten-year-period ending in 2012. Among those 70-74 the jump was even more startling: from 14 percent to 19.5 percent. Meanwhile workers in the prime of their lives have simply left the playing field. (Sorry Obama Fans Reagan Did Better on Jobs and Growth - Forbes​

-- Believe it or not, under Obama, income equality has gotten worse and has done so at a faster rate than under any other president since Jimmy Carter.

-- During Obama's 6 years and 5 months in office, median income has dropped substantially from the average median income under Bush (adjusted for inflation). Under Bush, median income averaged at least $56K. Under Obama, median income has averaged around $53K. Last month (May), median income finally reached $54.5K (under Bush, it stayed above $55K for at least 92 of Bush's 96 months in office).

-- Under Obama, wage growth has been worse than it was under Reagan and Clinton.

-- Under Obama, America's debt-to-GDP ratio has gotten much worse. In 2009, our debt was 76% of GDP. Our debt is now 102% of GDP. Our GDP is $17.6 trillion, but our debt is $18.1 trillion. So in just 6 years and 5 months, Obama has increased our debt-to-GDP ratio by a staggering 26 percentage points. (And, yes, we are approaching Greek levels of debt-to-GDP ratio.)

-- Obama's weak and slow recovery has broken the pattern of previous recoveries. In previous recessions in the modern era, the worse the recession was, the stronger the recovery was. Not so under Obama. James Pethokoukis explains:

Typically, after the economy suffers an unusually severe recession, it bounces back in an unusually rapid recovery -- what some economists and others refer to as the "rubber-band effect." But not now. Despite the huge worldwide recession in 2008-09, the economy has experienced only a weak recovery, with fewer people employed in America today than when President Obama took office. "At this point in the typical post-World War II recovery, the economy was growing at an average pace of nearly 5 percent. The Obama recovery has managed just over 2 percent." As James Pethokoukis notes in the New York Post,

A Federal Reserve study from late last year looked at the behavior of recoveries from recessions across 59 advanced and emerging market economies during the last 40 years. The Fed found, to no great surprise, that recoveries “tend to be faster” after severe recessions, such as the one we just had. . .The deeper the downturn, the more robust the rebound — unlessgovernment messes things up.​

For example, during the 1981-82 recession, output fell by 2.7 percent and then rose by 15.9 percent over the next 10 quarters (at an average pace of 6.0 percent). During the Great Recession, output fell even more, by 5.1 percent. But during the 10 quarters since, total economic output is up only a paltry 6.2 percent. Score one for Reaganomics.​

But what about the depressing effect of Wall Street’s near-death experience back in 2008 and 2009? Well, that same Fed study found that bank or other financial crises “do not affect the strength” of subsequent recoveries. . .[What] might explain half of the Obama recovery’s underperformance versus the Reagan recovery. . .? Maybe we can attribute that to policy differences.​

While one president cut long-term marginal tax rates, the other tried a massive burst of federal spending. One empowered private enterprise; the other empowered government. (Economic Recovery Is Slow and Weak Due to Obama Administration Policies Competitive Enterprise Institute​

Reagan vs. Obama These 5 Charts Prove Who Was the Better President

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_03062009.pdf

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

The Median Household Income Rose in April - dshort - Advisor Perspectives

Reagan s Median Income was double Obama s

Study Income Growth Under Obama Trails That Under Reagan Clinton

Sorry Obama Fans Reagan Did Better on Jobs and Growth

Wage growth still lagging behind Clinton Reagan years

United States Government Debt to GDP 1940-2015 Data Chart Calendar

America s economy cools in first quarter - Apr. 29 2015

U.S. economic growth slows to 0.2 percent grinding nearly to a halt - The Washington Post

News Release Gross Domestic Product

Economic Recovery Is Slow and Weak Due to Obama Administration Policies Competitive Enterprise Institute

Obama s Latest Non-Recovery Chokes Out - Breitbart

ADDENDUM

Our dismal GDP numbers Under Obama US stuck in slow growth rut

Articles The Obama Economic Record is Even Worse than You Realize

DONALD LAMBRO Obama cherry-picks number to boost economic record - Washington Times

By the Numbers Obama s Economic Jobs and Deficit Performance Is the Worst On Record

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics Facts And Figures - Forbes

Barack Obama-san - WSJ

Obama s Stimulus Five Years Later - WSJ

The Five Biggest Failures From President Obama s Stimulus Law - US News

Many Americans still struggling in dismal Obama economy Human Events

Here s How GOP Can Destroy Myth of Obama Economy - Wayne Allyn Root - Page full

Republicans on the USMB endlessly post this bullshit. But if you post the truth, like this:
Republicans cut taxes on the wealthy while declaring war? Has this ever happened in the history of this country? And that happened during Bush's first term. Obama wasn't sworn in until 2009. Bush tax cuts cost over three trillion when the country needed it to send troops and weapons overseas. GOP not Obama.
Trillions were spent on Iraq. GOP not Obama.
Tens of thousands of Americans maimed costing trillions into the future. GOP not Obama.
Revenue lost from over 42,000 factories closed from 2001 to 2008. 34% employing over 1,000 Americans. GOP not Obama.

You will be accused of posting spam. Republicans used reconciliation three times. Where do they mention it or any of the facts listed above?

 

[mikegriffith1]

For nearly all of the Bush years, LFR was at 66% or higher

The LPR/LFR declined throughout the Bush Regime except for the flat period during his 2 wars.

The LFPR began dropping when the baby boomer generation began hitting the earliest retirement age of 55. It accelerated when they began turning 62, the next designated age of retirement; which also occurred just before the economy collapsed, which accelerated it even faster. The period under Bush when it leveled off was mostly due to the real estate bubble, which was in full bloom by 2004 and until it crashed. The bubble created many jobs and inspired many people to enter the job market.

Sorry, but that excuse has already been debunked. Go back and read the OP. That excuse is specifically addressed therein.

In fact, seniors have been coming back into the workforce in sizable numbers. Gee, why is that? Could it be the Fed's ridiculous suppression of interest rates, which has taken a huge chunk out of seniors' retirement income (my own parents can verify this fact)? The LFR is now about as low as it was in the 1970s (and there was no sudden increase in retirees on which to falsely blame that increase).

Rather than duck and dodge and deny, why don't you guys ask yourselves the obvious question, "Why has the economy performed so poorly under Obama?" Here's the answer: Because Obama has sucked hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy with new/higher taxes and ridiculous new regulations and has exploded federal spending. That's why.

JFK cut taxes. Reagan cut taxes. Clinton raised some taxes but cut others, and he held spending to its lowest rate of increase since JFK. Bush Jr. cut taxes and tried to halt Freddie and Fannie's disastrous massive intervention in the housing market, which intervention led to the Great Recession. And Bush had the budget deficit down to $184 billion (adjusted for inflation) by 2007 (but the Dems took control of Congress in January 2007 and proceeded to skyrocket spending, and most of the FY2008 spending bills were signed by Obama because the Dems stalled them to avoid a Bush veto threat).

In contrast, Obama, aside from his temporary gimmick of cutting the payroll deduction, has massively increased taxes, has imposed a waft of new onerous regulations, and has exploded federal spending. That's why his "recovery" has been the slowest and weakest in modern history. That's why the U-6 has been above 10% for his entire presidency. That's why the LFR is at historic lows. That's why median income has gone down. That's why our debt-to-GDP ratio is now above 100%, ala Greece. That's why we're now $18 in trillion in debt. That's why we're still running deficits in the hundreds of billions. Etc., etc., etc.

 

[rdean]

For nearly all of the Bush years, LFR was at 66% or higher

The LPR/LFR declined throughout the Bush Regime except for the flat period during his 2 wars.

The LFPR began dropping when the baby boomer generation began hitting the earliest retirement age of 55. It accelerated when they began turning 62, the next designated age of retirement; which also occurred just before the economy collapsed, which accelerated it even faster. The period under Bush when it leveled off was mostly due to the real estate bubble, which was in full bloom by 2004 and until it crashed. The bubble created many jobs and inspired many people to enter the job market.

Sorry, but that excuse has already been debunked. Go back and read the OP. That excuse is specifically addressed therein.

In fact, seniors have been coming back into the workforce in sizable numbers. Gee, why is that? Could it be the Fed's ridiculous suppression of interest rates, which has taken a huge chunk out of seniors' retirement income (my own parents can verify this fact)? The LFR is now about as low as it was in the 1970s (and there was no sudden increase in retirees on which to falsely blame that increase).

Rather than duck and dodge and deny, why don't you guys ask yourselves the obvious question, "Why has the economy performed so poorly under Obama?" Here's the answer: Because Obama has sucked hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy with new/higher taxes and ridiculous new regulations and has exploded federal spending. That's why.

JFK cut taxes. Reagan cut taxes. Clinton raised some taxes but cut others, and he held spending to its lowest rate of increase since JFK. Bush Jr. cut taxes and tried to halt Freddie and Fannie's disastrous massive intervention in the housing market, which intervention led to the Great Recession. And Bush had the budget deficit down to $184 billion (adjusted for inflation) by 2007 (but the Dems took control of Congress in January 2007 and proceeded to skyrocket spending, and most of the FY2008 spending bills were signed by Obama because the Dems stalled them to avoid a Bush veto threat).

In contrast, Obama, aside from his temporary gimmick of cutting the payroll deduction, has massively increased taxes, has imposed a waft of new onerous regulations, and has exploded federal spending. That's why his "recovery" has been the slowest and weakest in modern history. That's why the U-6 has been above 10% for his entire presidency. That's why the LFR is at historic lows. That's why median income has gone down. That's why our debt-to-GDP ratio is now above 100%, ala Greece. That's why we're now $18 in trillion in debt. That's why we're still running deficits in the hundreds of billions. Etc., etc., etc.

I don't understand why your kind are determined to remain as stupid as possible. Perhaps you could explain the intense need to repeat bullshit and pretend it's facts? You sit in front of the Internet. It took me less than a minute to prove your bullshit lies. Once your idiocy is debunked, don't you feel any shame at all?

Taxes What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8 2010

As a result of the 1981 and 1986 bills, the top income tax rate was slashed from 70% to 28%.

"Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together"constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.

Thanks in part to the increases in defense spending during his administration, Reagan also didn't really reduce the size of government. Annual spending averaged 22.4% of GDP on his watch, which is above today's 40-year average of 20.7%, and above the 20.8% average under Carter.

----------------------------------------

Cut taxes for the wealthy, create huge deficits, and it does nothing for the economy. They say the definition of insanity is to do the same stupid shit over and over again. That makes the GOP the very definition of insanity. They are insane.

 

[Dragonlady]

Yes record numbers of seniors are staying in the workforce so that the percentage of seniors working had gone up a whole 2% but that's still means that 2 million of us are leaving the work force every single month and not returning.

No matter how you slice it, the retirement of baby boomers is driving down the labour participation rate.

As for Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, your right wing article claimed that the reason why their "blame" wasn't properly recorded was that they lied to Congress about the numbers. When your "proof" hinges on a conspiracy theory, it's not really proof at all.

Conservatives are desperate to discredit Obamas record. The trouble is their proofs are all tied to lies or conspiracy theories which the right wing media keeps touting as fact. None of them stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Faun]

For nearly all of the Bush years, LFR was at 66% or higher

The LPR/LFR declined throughout the Bush Regime except for the flat period during his 2 wars.

The LFPR began dropping when the baby boomer generation began hitting the earliest retirement age of 55. It accelerated when they began turning 62, the next designated age of retirement; which also occurred just before the economy collapsed, which accelerated it even faster. The period under Bush when it leveled off was mostly due to the real estate bubble, which was in full bloom by 2004 and until it crashed. The bubble created many jobs and inspired many people to enter the job market.

Sorry, but that excuse has already been debunked. Go back and read the OP. That excuse is specifically addressed therein.

In fact, seniors have been coming back into the workforce in sizable numbers. Gee, why is that? Could it be the Fed's ridiculous suppression of interest rates, which has taken a huge chunk out of seniors' retirement income (my own parents can verify this fact)? The LFR is now about as low as it was in the 1970s (and there was no sudden increase in retirees on which to falsely blame that increase).

Rather than duck and dodge and deny, why don't you guys ask yourselves the obvious question, "Why has the economy performed so poorly under Obama?" Here's the answer: Because Obama has sucked hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy with new/higher taxes and ridiculous new regulations and has exploded federal spending. That's why.

JFK cut taxes. Reagan cut taxes. Clinton raised some taxes but cut others, and he held spending to its lowest rate of increase since JFK. Bush Jr. cut taxes and tried to halt Freddie and Fannie's disastrous massive intervention in the housing market, which intervention led to the Great Recession. And Bush had the budget deficit down to $184 billion (adjusted for inflation) by 2007 (but the Dems took control of Congress in January 2007 and proceeded to skyrocket spending, and most of the FY2008 spending bills were signed by Obama because the Dems stalled them to avoid a Bush veto threat).

In contrast, Obama, aside from his temporary gimmick of cutting the payroll deduction, has massively increased taxes, has imposed a waft of new onerous regulations, and has exploded federal spending. That's why his "recovery" has been the slowest and weakest in modern history. That's why the U-6 has been above 10% for his entire presidency. That's why the LFR is at historic lows. That's why median income has gone down. That's why our debt-to-GDP ratio is now above 100%, ala Greece. That's why we're now $18 in trillion in debt. That's why we're still running deficits in the hundreds of billions. Etc., etc., etc.

Seniors are not coming back into the workforce in sizable numbers. Don't be ridiculous. The higher age groups are growing in numbers because there's a record number of workers turning 65. An estimated 10,000 people turn 65 every single day in the U.S., many of whom are employed. That's leading to more people working in that group and it's leading to more people retiring every year.

You debunked nothing of yhe kind in your OP. You can't. Facts are facts and you can only bitch about them, you can't refute them. For example, since Obama's been president, the number of those not in the labor force has swelled by 12.5 million. People who retire are no longer counted in the work force and during that same period, about 7.5 million baby boomers have retired. That's 60% of the not in labor force growth.

 

[francoHFW]

Don't blame Obama, blame Bush's corrupt world depression duh, STILL costs 400 billion a year for assistance of victims (6-7 TRILLION since 2009), with no change in welfare regs, total Pub obstruction since Feb 2010, and Pubs defending to the death voodoo policy that kills the nonrich and the country- see sig. OP proves the RW was born yesterday. Hater dupes!

 

[hangover]

We continue to see liberals here ignoring the facts about Obama's economic record, to the point of claiming that the economy is "roaring" (actually, GDP growth has slowed to a crawl again), that Obama "rescued" America from the economic mess "that Bush left behind," that Obama has been more fiscally conservative than Bush, and other rather surprising myths. Here are some facts to set the record straight--and plenty of links will be provided at the end of the post [I just added an addendum with more links]:

-- Obama has shattered Bush's record of debt accumulation, and he has done so in less than 6.5 years. In 8 years, Bush added $4.9 trillion to the national debt (from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.6 trillion in January 2009). In only 6 years and 5 months, Obama has added $7.5 trillion to the national debt (from $10.6 trillion in January 2009 to $18.1 trillion as of last month). And it's worth noting that we would be even deeper in debt if Obama and the Democrats had gotten their way on spending.

-- Obama's "recovery" has been the slowest and weakest in modern history. For example, by this same point in Reagan's recovery, the labor force participation rate was substantially higher, median income was higher, disposable income was higher, and the gain in jobs was more than twice as high. And it should be noted that the recession that Reagan had to overcome was arguably just as bad as, and in some ways worse than, the one that Obama faced (e.g., the unemployment rate went higher, interest rates were in double digits, and inflation was in double digits in the recession that Reagan faced).

-- Under Obama, there has been a net increase in the number of Americans out of the workforce. In February 2009, there were 80.7 million Americans out of the workforce. As of last month, there were 92.9 million Americans out of the workforce, a whopping increase of 12.2 million in less than 6.5 years.

Some liberals have argued that workforce participation has dropped because the number of retirees has substantially increased. Sorry, that argument won't work. Kyle Smith, an economic and financial analyst with Forbes magazine, explains:

It’s misleading to compare employment rates during the two presidencies. Imagine 90 out of 100 people are employed, and because the economy looks like it’s picking up more steam 10 more people enter the workforce. If nine out of ten of them find jobs, the unemployment rate doesn’t go down at all, yet ten percent more people are employed.​

Reagan’s economy was so strong that, for the last three-quarters of his administration, Americans were flooding into the workforce. Under Obama, the opposite has happened, and those who have given up on working aren’t counted as unemployed. Even today, more than five years into the tepid recovery, labor-force participation remains at its lowest level since 1978.

Don’t blame waves of retirement for that fact: the Census Bureau reported that, from 2005 to 2010, older Americans actually became more likely to be employed. The percentage of 65-69 year-olds remaining in the workforce jumped from 26 percent to 32 percent over a ten-year-period ending in 2012. Among those 70-74 the jump was even more startling: from 14 percent to 19.5 percent. Meanwhile workers in the prime of their lives have simply left the playing field. (Sorry Obama Fans Reagan Did Better on Jobs and Growth - Forbes​

-- Believe it or not, under Obama, income equality has gotten worse and has done so at a faster rate than under any other president since Jimmy Carter.

-- During Obama's 6 years and 5 months in office, median income has dropped substantially from the average median income under Bush (adjusted for inflation). Under Bush, median income averaged at least $56K. Under Obama, median income has averaged around $53K. Last month (May), median income finally reached $54.5K (under Bush, it stayed above $55K for at least 92 of Bush's 96 months in office).

-- Under Obama, wage growth has been worse than it was under Reagan and Clinton.

-- Under Obama, America's debt-to-GDP ratio has gotten much worse. In 2009, our debt was 76% of GDP. Our debt is now 102% of GDP. Our GDP is $17.6 trillion, but our debt is $18.1 trillion. So in just 6 years and 5 months, Obama has increased our debt-to-GDP ratio by a staggering 26 percentage points. (And, yes, we are approaching Greek levels of debt-to-GDP ratio.)

-- Obama's weak and slow recovery has broken the pattern of previous recoveries. In previous recessions in the modern era, the worse the recession was, the stronger the recovery was. Not so under Obama. James Pethokoukis explains:

Typically, after the economy suffers an unusually severe recession, it bounces back in an unusually rapid recovery -- what some economists and others refer to as the "rubber-band effect." But not now. Despite the huge worldwide recession in 2008-09, the economy has experienced only a weak recovery, with fewer people employed in America today than when President Obama took office. "At this point in the typical post-World War II recovery, the economy was growing at an average pace of nearly 5 percent. The Obama recovery has managed just over 2 percent." As James Pethokoukis notes in the New York Post,

A Federal Reserve study from late last year looked at the behavior of recoveries from recessions across 59 advanced and emerging market economies during the last 40 years. The Fed found, to no great surprise, that recoveries “tend to be faster” after severe recessions, such as the one we just had. . .The deeper the downturn, the more robust the rebound — unlessgovernment messes things up.​

For example, during the 1981-82 recession, output fell by 2.7 percent and then rose by 15.9 percent over the next 10 quarters (at an average pace of 6.0 percent). During the Great Recession, output fell even more, by 5.1 percent. But during the 10 quarters since, total economic output is up only a paltry 6.2 percent. Score one for Reaganomics.​

But what about the depressing effect of Wall Street’s near-death experience back in 2008 and 2009? Well, that same Fed study found that bank or other financial crises “do not affect the strength” of subsequent recoveries. . .[What] might explain half of the Obama recovery’s underperformance versus the Reagan recovery. . .? Maybe we can attribute that to policy differences.​

While one president cut long-term marginal tax rates, the other tried a massive burst of federal spending. One empowered private enterprise; the other empowered government. (Economic Recovery Is Slow and Weak Due to Obama Administration Policies Competitive Enterprise Institute​

Reagan vs. Obama These 5 Charts Prove Who Was the Better President

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_03062009.pdf

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

The Median Household Income Rose in April - dshort - Advisor Perspectives

Reagan s Median Income was double Obama s

Study Income Growth Under Obama Trails That Under Reagan Clinton

Sorry Obama Fans Reagan Did Better on Jobs and Growth

Wage growth still lagging behind Clinton Reagan years

United States Government Debt to GDP 1940-2015 Data Chart Calendar

America s economy cools in first quarter - Apr. 29 2015

U.S. economic growth slows to 0.2 percent grinding nearly to a halt - The Washington Post

News Release Gross Domestic Product

Economic Recovery Is Slow and Weak Due to Obama Administration Policies Competitive Enterprise Institute

Obama s Latest Non-Recovery Chokes Out - Breitbart

ADDENDUM

Our dismal GDP numbers Under Obama US stuck in slow growth rut

Articles The Obama Economic Record is Even Worse than You Realize

DONALD LAMBRO Obama cherry-picks number to boost economic record - Washington Times

By the Numbers Obama s Economic Jobs and Deficit Performance Is the Worst On Record

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics Facts And Figures - Forbes

Barack Obama-san - WSJ

Obama s Stimulus Five Years Later - WSJ

The Five Biggest Failures From President Obama s Stimulus Law - US News

Many Americans still struggling in dismal Obama economy Human Events

Here s How GOP Can Destroy Myth of Obama Economy - Wayne Allyn Root - Page full

Shrub left Obama with a $1.2 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2009, and a totally destroyed U.S. and global economy. Shrub added $3 trillion to the debt with welfare for millionaires, and destroyed the balanced budget. He also added $6 trillion to the debt with his invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Shrub also bailed out Wall Street with a trillion dollars. That's $10 trillion on Shrub.
Obama has cut the deficit in half, ended the wars, cut unemployment in half, and his economy has tripled Wall Street profits. As usual, cons fuzzy math continues. Con propaganda of Obama being a communist didn't work. Obama being foreign born didn't work. Obama being a Muslim didn't work. And con fuzzy math won't work either.

Pretty much presidents have little impact on the US economy and virtually none on international economics with a very few minor exceptions, Both Bush and Obama temporarily pumped trillions into the economy which in actuality helped slow the damage the housing bubble caused (no, it wasn't any politician or group of politicians that caused the housing bubble). The Fed, who generally is the one who controls the economy, was floundering, the one and only thing Obama has done since for the economy is to protect the Fed from the Hard Money Republicans who would force the Fed into potentially serious economy destroying policies.

Maybe we'd be better off thinking about economics less like Washington's little private laboratory and more like the weather—a massive force we cannot hope to control, even as we debate how to respond to its worst excesses.

It was republican deregulation policies that created the GREAT DEPRESSION of 1929. It was FDR's policies that brought the economy back. It was Raygun's policies that tripled the national debt. It was Shrub daddy's policies the doubled it again in only four years. It was Clinton's policies that balanced the budget and gave us the greatest economy since the sixties. It was Shrub Jr.'s policies of welfare to millionaires that destroyed the balanced budget in his first six months, and his policies of war and deregulation that destroyed the economy again. And it was Obama that kept us from another GREAT DEPRESSION.
The policies of the left have always given us prosperity, the policies of the right have always fucked up the economy, all the way back to Lincoln's Civil War.
It's the right wing ideology of give everything to the rich vs. the left ideology of share the wealth.