- Aug 4, 2009
- 281,398
- 142,632
- 2,615
Yes. Only 18 months into his One Term, he destroyed the recovery from the recession with a cure that was far worse than the original downturn.
Your problem Bod is that Historians will look at things objectively and 95% do not consider Fox News to be a legitimate source
The economy was is in a panic when Obama took office. The Dow had dropped 6000 points, GDP was negative in five of the last six quarters. The Banks were on the verge of collapse and so were GM and Chrysler.
Obama took positive actions to reverse the collapse and pull us out of recession. He will get credit for that
The Federal Reserve, The Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the CBO are all divisions of Fox News?
Who knew? Thanks for clearing that up.
The banks were already handled via the Bush TARP program - and all but Citibank have repaid their loans.
It would have been better for both GM and Chrysler to go through orderly bankruptcy proceedings than for the government to bully legitimate bondholders into giving up their rightful claim in favor of bloated unions. All Obama did was to defer their eventual collapse.
The true test of Obamanomics is GDP growth (Q2 came in at 1.6% - Q3 is not forecasted to be much better - in prior recoveries, growth exceeded 6% at this point) and unemployment (which would be over 10% if 1.1M additional people had not given up looking for jobs since April) - on both of these, Obamanomics is an Epic Fail.
Sadly, your "Everything would have worked out better if Obama had done nothing" won't cut it. Historians rely on action and results. other than right wing revisionists, nobody will buy into your theories.
Like I said, Obama will be a top ten President when he finally leaves office