Updated with New Data: Judging Obama's Handling of the Budget and the Economy Fairly

[mikegriffith1]

My previous thread on this topic relied partly on numbers from The Balance website. It turns out that The Balance was not very reliable in this case. They gave erroneous figures for the number of jobs created and for the percentages by which the debt was increased. So this time I am using only data from BLS and TreasuryDirect.

Number of Jobs Created: Data Adjusted for Population Controls

Obama: 9.924,000 (from 142,152,000 employed persons in January 2009 to 152,076,000 employed persons in January 2017)
Bush: 4,374,000 (from 137,778,000 employed persons in January 2001 to 142,152,000 employed persons in January 2009)

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Data (you must change the date range to start in 2001 and end in 2018)

Number of Jobs Created: Seasonally Adjusted

Obama: 9,982,000 (from total employment of 142,099,000 in January 2009 to total employment of 152,081,000 in January 2017)
Bush: 6,100,000 (from total employment of 135,999,000 in January 2001 to total employment of 142,099,000 in January 2009)

Sources: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_02022001.txt; https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf; https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02032017.pdf

Increase in the National Debt: Dollar Amount

Obama: $9.322 trillion (from $10.625 trillion on 1/21/2009 to $19.947 trillion on 1/20/2017)
Bush: $4.897 trillion (from $5.728 trillion on 1/22/2001 to $10.625 trillion on 1/21/2009)

Source: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application) (you have to enter the dates)

Increase in the National Debt: Percentage

Obama: 87.7% (from $10.625 trillion on 1/21/2009 to $19.947 trillion on 1/20/2017)
Bush: 85.3% (from $5.728 trillion on 1/22/2001 to $10.625 trillion on 1/21/2009)

Source: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application) (you have to enter the dates; then, just use an online calculator to calculate the percentage of increase)

Overall, Obama did a pretty good job on the economy, by any fair measurement. This is all the more impressive because the worst part of the Great Recession began just as he took office. Obama clearly did a better job on the economy than Bush did. We should remember that Obama signed a slew of new (albeit mostly temporary) tax cuts, and he made most of the Bush tax cuts permanent, against the advice of nearly all liberal economists. Furthermore, Obama also signed the 2015 budget deal, which protected $686 billion in tax cuts/tax breaks and ended the ban on oil exports. These moves undoubtedly helped the economy.

Obama and Bush increased the national debt by just about the same percentage, with Obama edging out Bush by 2.4 percentage points.

For a modestly alternative analysis on Obama's jobs and debt numbers, see FactCheck's article on Obama's record:

Obama's Final Numbers - FactCheck.org

They give him more jobs than I do, but they also give him a much higher percentage of debt increase than I do.

Here are other alternative analyses:

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/econ...arack-obamas-real-economic-record-isnt-pretty
THE VERDICT: A comprehensive look back at Obama's jobs record
Economic Record: President Obama
Obama's Economic Record: Disappointing, But Not a Disaster | RealClearMarkets
Obama's Final Economic Record Not Great

 

[shockedcanadian]

Would be interesting to see the size of government at all levels under each president. That is often he kind of growth that is difficult to curb.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Would be interesting if a "fair" assessment would consider that the worst attack on American soil happened under Bush. Obama had it gravy for 8 years.

But this does beg the question, if things were so great under Obama why didn't Hillary, who made it abundantly clear that she wanted to continue Obama's legacy, get reelected in a landslide? She only got 227 electoral votes, she got her ASS handed to her.

And then democrats lost both the house and senate. If things were so great under a democratic congress, why have they lost more power than any other house or senate since Eisenhower?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Would be interesting if a "fair" assessment would consider that the worst attack on American soil happened under Bush. Obama had it gravy for 8 years.

But this does beg the question, if things were so great under Obama why didn't Hillary, who made it abundantly clear that she wanted to continue Obama's legacy, get reelected in a landslide? She only got 227 electoral votes, she got her ASS handed to her.

And then democrats lost both the house and senate. If things were so great under a democratic congress, why have they lost more power than any other house or senate since Eisenhower?

I think that Dems lost Congress and many state houses, plus the 2016 presidential election, partly because of Obama's other policies: Obamacare, over-regulation, the apology tour, hostility to religious freedom, lukewarm support of Israel, perceived racism, nixing the Keystone XL pipeline, the war on coal, gay marriage, the Iran nuke deal, etc., etc. But the main reason Hillary lost was that she was so obviously corrupt and phony.

 

[edthecynic]

Obama: $9.322 trillion (from $10.625 trillion on 1/21/2009 to $19.947 trillion on 1/20/2017)
Bush: $4.897 trillion (from $5.728 trillion on 1/22/2001 to $10.625 trillion on 1/21/2009)

Source: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application) (you have to enter the dates)

Pure BULLSHIT!
Debt, as you well know, is measured in FISCAL years, NOT calendar years.
Bush: $6.1 trillion 09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75

Obama: $8.3 trillion
09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2017 $20,244,900,016,053.51

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2017

 

[edthecynic]

Would be interesting if a "fair" assessment would consider that the worst attack on American soil happened under Bush. Obama had it gravy for 8 years.

But this does beg the question, if things were so great under Obama why didn't Hillary, who made it abundantly clear that she wanted to continue Obama's legacy, get reelected in a landslide? She only got 227 electoral votes, she got her ASS handed to her.

And then democrats lost both the house and senate. If things were so great under a democratic congress, why have they lost more power than any other house or senate since Eisenhower?

I think that Dems lost Congress and many state houses, plus the 2016 presidential election, partly because of Obama's other policies: Obamacare, over-regulation, the apology tour, hostility to religious freedom, lukewarm support of Israel, perceived racism, nixing the Keystone XL pipeline, the war on coal, gay marriage, the Iran nuke deal, etc., etc. But the main reason Hillary lost was that she was so obviously corrupt and phony.

Obviously she was not phony and corrupt enough as the phoniest and most corrupt lying POS in the universe beat her!

 

[Aldo Raine]

My previous thread on this topic relied partly on numbers from The Balance website. It turns out that The Balance was not very reliable in this case. They gave erroneous figures for the number of jobs created and for the percentages by which the debt was increased. So this time I am using only data from BLS and TreasuryDirect.

Number of Jobs Created: Data Adjusted for Population Controls

Obama: 9.924,000 (from 142,152,000 employed persons in January 2009 to 152,076,000 employed persons in January 2017)
Bush: 4,374,000 (from 137,778,000 employed persons in January 2001 to 142,152,000 employed persons in January 2009)

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Data (you must change the date range to start in 2001 and end in 2018)

Number of Jobs Created: Seasonally Adjusted

Obama: 9,982,000 (from total employment of 142,099,000 in January 2009 to total employment of 152,081,000 in January 2017)
Bush: 6,100,000 (from total employment of 135,999,000 in January 2001 to total employment of 142,099,000 in January 2009)

Sources: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_02022001.txt; https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf; https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02032017.pdf

Increase in the National Debt: Dollar Amount

Obama: $9.322 trillion (from $10.625 trillion on 1/21/2009 to $19.947 trillion on 1/20/2017)
Bush: $4.897 trillion (from $5.728 trillion on 1/22/2001 to $10.625 trillion on 1/21/2009)

Source: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application) (you have to enter the dates)

Increase in the National Debt: Percentage

Obama: 87.7% (from $10.625 trillion on 1/21/2009 to $19.947 trillion on 1/20/2017)
Bush: 85.3% (from $5.728 trillion on 1/22/2001 to $10.625 trillion on 1/21/2009)

Source: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application) (you have to enter the dates; then, just use an online calculator to calculate the percentage of increase)

Overall, Obama did a pretty good job on the economy, by any fair measurement. This is all the more impressive because the worst part of the Great Recession began just as he took office. Obama clearly did a better job on the economy than Bush did. We should remember that Obama signed a slew of new (albeit mostly temporary) tax cuts, and he made most of the Bush tax cuts permanent, against the advice of nearly all liberal economists. Furthermore, Obama also signed the 2015 budget deal, which protected $686 billion in tax cuts/tax breaks and ended the ban on oil exports. These moves undoubtedly helped the economy.

Obama and Bush increased the national debt by just about the same percentage, with Obama edging out Bush by 2.4 percentage points.

For a modestly alternative analysis on Obama's jobs and debt numbers, see FactCheck's article on Obama's record:

Obama's Final Numbers - FactCheck.org

They give him more jobs than I do, but they also give him a much higher percentage of debt increase than I do.

Here are other alternative analyses:

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/econ...arack-obamas-real-economic-record-isnt-pretty
THE VERDICT: A comprehensive look back at Obama's jobs record
Economic Record: President Obama
Obama's Economic Record: Disappointing, But Not a Disaster | RealClearMarkets
Obama's Final Economic Record Not Great

My previous thread on this topic relied partly on numbers from The Balance website. It turns out that The Balance was not very reliable in this case. They gave erroneous figures for the number of jobs created and for the percentages by which the debt was increased. So this time I am using only data from BLS and TreasuryDirect.

Number of Jobs Created: Data Adjusted for Population Controls

Obama: 9.924,000 (from 142,152,000 employed persons in January 2009 to 152,076,000 employed persons in January 2017)
Bush: 4,374,000 (from 137,778,000 employed persons in January 2001 to 142,152,000 employed persons in January 2009)

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Data (you must change the date range to start in 2001 and end in 2018)

Number of Jobs Created: Seasonally Adjusted

Obama: 9,982,000 (from total employment of 142,099,000 in January 2009 to total employment of 152,081,000 in January 2017)
Bush: 6,100,000 (from total employment of 135,999,000 in January 2001 to total employment of 142,099,000 in January 2009)

Sources: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_02022001.txt; https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf; https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02032017.pdf

Increase in the National Debt: Dollar Amount

Obama: $9.322 trillion (from $10.625 trillion on 1/21/2009 to $19.947 trillion on 1/20/2017)
Bush: $4.897 trillion (from $5.728 trillion on 1/22/2001 to $10.625 trillion on 1/21/2009)

Source: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application) (you have to enter the dates)

Increase in the National Debt: Percentage

Obama: 87.7% (from $10.625 trillion on 1/21/2009 to $19.947 trillion on 1/20/2017)
Bush: 85.3% (from $5.728 trillion on 1/22/2001 to $10.625 trillion on 1/21/2009)

Source: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application) (you have to enter the dates; then, just use an online calculator to calculate the percentage of increase)

Overall, Obama did a pretty good job on the economy, by any fair measurement. This is all the more impressive because the worst part of the Great Recession began just as he took office. Obama clearly did a better job on the economy than Bush did. We should remember that Obama signed a slew of new (albeit mostly temporary) tax cuts, and he made most of the Bush tax cuts permanent, against the advice of nearly all liberal economists. Furthermore, Obama also signed the 2015 budget deal, which protected $686 billion in tax cuts/tax breaks and ended the ban on oil exports. These moves undoubtedly helped the economy.

Obama and Bush increased the national debt by just about the same percentage, with Obama edging out Bush by 2.4 percentage points.

For a modestly alternative analysis on Obama's jobs and debt numbers, see FactCheck's article on Obama's record:

Obama's Final Numbers - FactCheck.org

They give him more jobs than I do, but they also give him a much higher percentage of debt increase than I do.

Here are other alternative analyses:

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/econ...arack-obamas-real-economic-record-isnt-pretty
THE VERDICT: A comprehensive look back at Obama's jobs record
Economic Record: President Obama
Obama's Economic Record: Disappointing, But Not a Disaster | RealClearMarkets
Obama's Final Economic Record Not Great

Another fair, thought provoking and informative thread thank you sir.

 

[Faun]

My previous thread on this topic relied partly on numbers from The Balance website. It turns out that The Balance was not very reliable in this case. They gave erroneous figures for the number of jobs created and for the percentages by which the debt was increased. So this time I am using only data from BLS and TreasuryDirect.

Number of Jobs Created: Data Adjusted for Population Controls

Obama: 9.924,000 (from 142,152,000 employed persons in January 2009 to 152,076,000 employed persons in January 2017)
Bush: 4,374,000 (from 137,778,000 employed persons in January 2001 to 142,152,000 employed persons in January 2009)

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Data (you must change the date range to start in 2001 and end in 2018)

Number of Jobs Created: Seasonally Adjusted

Obama: 9,982,000 (from total employment of 142,099,000 in January 2009 to total employment of 152,081,000 in January 2017)
Bush: 6,100,000 (from total employment of 135,999,000 in January 2001 to total employment of 142,099,000 in January 2009)

Sources: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_02022001.txt; https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf; https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02032017.pdf

Increase in the National Debt: Dollar Amount

Obama: $9.322 trillion (from $10.625 trillion on 1/21/2009 to $19.947 trillion on 1/20/2017)
Bush: $4.897 trillion (from $5.728 trillion on 1/22/2001 to $10.625 trillion on 1/21/2009)

Source: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application) (you have to enter the dates)

Increase in the National Debt: Percentage

Obama: 87.7% (from $10.625 trillion on 1/21/2009 to $19.947 trillion on 1/20/2017)
Bush: 85.3% (from $5.728 trillion on 1/22/2001 to $10.625 trillion on 1/21/2009)

Source: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application) (you have to enter the dates; then, just use an online calculator to calculate the percentage of increase)

Overall, Obama did a pretty good job on the economy, by any fair measurement. This is all the more impressive because the worst part of the Great Recession began just as he took office. Obama clearly did a better job on the economy than Bush did. We should remember that Obama signed a slew of new (albeit mostly temporary) tax cuts, and he made most of the Bush tax cuts permanent, against the advice of nearly all liberal economists. Furthermore, Obama also signed the 2015 budget deal, which protected $686 billion in tax cuts/tax breaks and ended the ban on oil exports. These moves undoubtedly helped the economy.

Obama and Bush increased the national debt by just about the same percentage, with Obama edging out Bush by 2.4 percentage points.

For a modestly alternative analysis on Obama's jobs and debt numbers, see FactCheck's article on Obama's record:

Obama's Final Numbers - FactCheck.org

They give him more jobs than I do, but they also give him a much higher percentage of debt increase than I do.

Here are other alternative analyses:

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/econ...arack-obamas-real-economic-record-isnt-pretty
THE VERDICT: A comprehensive look back at Obama's jobs record
Economic Record: President Obama
Obama's Economic Record: Disappointing, But Not a Disaster | RealClearMarkets
Obama's Final Economic Record Not Great

That’s pretty retarded since jobs were being lost by the millions early in Obama’s first term due to Bush’s Great Recession. All you’re doing is ridiculously blaming Obama for the horrid economy he took over.

That’s what rightwingnuts do.

Same with debt. Obama was handed a trillion dollar deficit with an economy in free fall. Debt was skyrocketing when Obama took over in large part to fallen revenue due to the millions of jobs lost. That dominoed into a record number of people being paid unemployment, welfare, food stamps, and disability. Furthermore, the beginning of Obama’s first term was still operating under Bush’s budget. That’s why counting the debt from day one is dishonest, again seeks to blame Obama for the horrid economy he took over, and is what rightwingnuts do.

 

[Faun]

Would be interesting if a "fair" assessment would consider that the worst attack on American soil happened under Bush. Obama had it gravy for 8 years.

But this does beg the question, if things were so great under Obama why didn't Hillary, who made it abundantly clear that she wanted to continue Obama's legacy, get reelected in a landslide? She only got 227 electoral votes, she got her ASS handed to her.

And then democrats lost both the house and senate. If things were so great under a democratic congress, why have they lost more power than any other house or senate since Eisenhower?

LOLOL

You people are truly fucked in the head.

Yeah, Bush’s Great Recession, which was a roughly $30 trillion hit to our economy — was ”gravy.”

 

[Faun]

Would be interesting if a "fair" assessment would consider that the worst attack on American soil happened under Bush. Obama had it gravy for 8 years.

But this does beg the question, if things were so great under Obama why didn't Hillary, who made it abundantly clear that she wanted to continue Obama's legacy, get reelected in a landslide? She only got 227 electoral votes, she got her ASS handed to her.

And then democrats lost both the house and senate. If things were so great under a democratic congress, why have they lost more power than any other house or senate since Eisenhower?

I think that Dems lost Congress and many state houses, plus the 2016 presidential election, partly because of Obama's other policies: Obamacare, over-regulation, the apology tour, hostility to religious freedom, lukewarm support of Israel, perceived racism, nixing the Keystone XL pipeline, the war on coal, gay marriage, the Iran nuke deal, etc., etc. But the main reason Hillary lost was that she was so obviously corrupt and phony.

Obviously she was not phony and corrupt enough as the phoniest and most corrupt lying POS in the universe beat her!

And the election was rigged. Trump admitted it himself.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Would be interesting if a "fair" assessment would consider that the worst attack on American soil happened under Bush. Obama had it gravy for 8 years.

But this does beg the question, if things were so great under Obama why didn't Hillary, who made it abundantly clear that she wanted to continue Obama's legacy, get reelected in a landslide? She only got 227 electoral votes, she got her ASS handed to her.

And then democrats lost both the house and senate. If things were so great under a democratic congress, why have they lost more power than any other house or senate since Eisenhower?

I think that Dems lost Congress and many state houses, plus the 2016 presidential election, partly because of Obama's other policies: Obamacare, over-regulation, the apology tour, hostility to religious freedom, lukewarm support of Israel, perceived racism, nixing the Keystone XL pipeline, the war on coal, gay marriage, the Iran nuke deal, etc., etc. But the main reason Hillary lost was that she was so obviously corrupt and phony.

Obviously she was not phony and corrupt enough as the phoniest and most corrupt lying POS in the universe beat her!

And the election was rigged. Trump admitted it himself.

Really? So Obama was wrong saying that you couldn't rig US elections?

 

[Faun]

Would be interesting if a "fair" assessment would consider that the worst attack on American soil happened under Bush. Obama had it gravy for 8 years.

But this does beg the question, if things were so great under Obama why didn't Hillary, who made it abundantly clear that she wanted to continue Obama's legacy, get reelected in a landslide? She only got 227 electoral votes, she got her ASS handed to her.

And then democrats lost both the house and senate. If things were so great under a democratic congress, why have they lost more power than any other house or senate since Eisenhower?

I think that Dems lost Congress and many state houses, plus the 2016 presidential election, partly because of Obama's other policies: Obamacare, over-regulation, the apology tour, hostility to religious freedom, lukewarm support of Israel, perceived racism, nixing the Keystone XL pipeline, the war on coal, gay marriage, the Iran nuke deal, etc., etc. But the main reason Hillary lost was that she was so obviously corrupt and phony.

Obviously she was not phony and corrupt enough as the phoniest and most corrupt lying POS in the universe beat her!

And the election was rigged. Trump admitted it himself.

Really? So Obama was wrong saying that you couldn't rig US elections?

LOLOL

You say that as though Obama could never be wrong about anything.

You’re fucked in the head.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Would be interesting if a "fair" assessment would consider that the worst attack on American soil happened under Bush. Obama had it gravy for 8 years.

But this does beg the question, if things were so great under Obama why didn't Hillary, who made it abundantly clear that she wanted to continue Obama's legacy, get reelected in a landslide? She only got 227 electoral votes, she got her ASS handed to her.

And then democrats lost both the house and senate. If things were so great under a democratic congress, why have they lost more power than any other house or senate since Eisenhower?

I think that Dems lost Congress and many state houses, plus the 2016 presidential election, partly because of Obama's other policies: Obamacare, over-regulation, the apology tour, hostility to religious freedom, lukewarm support of Israel, perceived racism, nixing the Keystone XL pipeline, the war on coal, gay marriage, the Iran nuke deal, etc., etc. But the main reason Hillary lost was that she was so obviously corrupt and phony.

Obviously she was not phony and corrupt enough as the phoniest and most corrupt lying POS in the universe beat her!

And the election was rigged. Trump admitted it himself.

Really? So Obama was wrong saying that you couldn't rig US elections?

Yeah, isn't that interesting? Obama swore up and down that it was "IMPOSSIBLE" for anyone to rig a U.S. election. It's amazing how the Left jumps back and forth and all around when it comes to their arguments.

 

[edthecynic]

Would be interesting if a "fair" assessment would consider that the worst attack on American soil happened under Bush. Obama had it gravy for 8 years.

But this does beg the question, if things were so great under Obama why didn't Hillary, who made it abundantly clear that she wanted to continue Obama's legacy, get reelected in a landslide? She only got 227 electoral votes, she got her ASS handed to her.

And then democrats lost both the house and senate. If things were so great under a democratic congress, why have they lost more power than any other house or senate since Eisenhower?

I think that Dems lost Congress and many state houses, plus the 2016 presidential election, partly because of Obama's other policies: Obamacare, over-regulation, the apology tour, hostility to religious freedom, lukewarm support of Israel, perceived racism, nixing the Keystone XL pipeline, the war on coal, gay marriage, the Iran nuke deal, etc., etc. But the main reason Hillary lost was that she was so obviously corrupt and phony.

Obviously she was not phony and corrupt enough as the phoniest and most corrupt lying POS in the universe beat her!

And the election was rigged. Trump admitted it himself.

Really? So Obama was wrong saying that you couldn't rig US elections?

Yeah, isn't that interesting? Obama swore up and down that it was "IMPOSSIBLE" for anyone to rig a U.S. election. It's amazing how the Left jumps back and forth and all around when it comes to their arguments.

You bigots have habitually said Obama is always wrong. Like a broken watch you finally got it right!

 

[MarcATL]

Would be interesting if a "fair" assessment would consider that the worst attack on American soil happened under Bush. Obama had it gravy for 8 years.

But this does beg the question, if things were so great under Obama why didn't Hillary, who made it abundantly clear that she wanted to continue Obama's legacy, get reelected in a landslide? She only got 227 electoral votes, she got her ASS handed to her.

And then democrats lost both the house and senate. If things were so great under a democratic congress, why have they lost more power than any other house or senate since Eisenhower?

LOLOL

You people are truly fucked in the head.

Yeah, Bush’s Great Recession, which was a roughly $30 trillion hit to our economy — was ”gravy.”

These people have absolutely no sense. None.