The Facts About Obama's Economic Record

[Manonthestreet]

and reopened the welfare floodgates Clinton had turned off.....

 

[Auld Phart]

Democrats had 57 seats, and 2 independents (?) that caucused with them.

59

all they needed, as they did with other bills, was to bribe 1 Republican to get it passed.

They didn't even try, tho, did they?

 

[nat4900]

On top of everything this man has lied about: he finally tell the truth here
Isn't that what you ALL elected him for. to do everything he can for ILLEGAL immigrants. VIDEO OF IT if you can STAND it at the site.

SNIP:

‘I’m doing EVERYTHING I can’ for illegal aliens – Obama in his weekly address
Posted by soopermexican on Jun 6, 2015 at 10:20 AM in Politics | 50 Comments



Obama made clear who his real constituents are when he crapped on regular Americans and said he’s doing everything he can for illegal aliens in his weekly address.

Watch below:



Well hey at least he’s being honest for once about who he really cares about…


video of at the site
Read more: http://therightscoop.com/im-doing-everything-i-can-for-illegal-aliens-obama-in-his-weekly-address/#ixzz3cOAoKu9g

As usual, this idiot DEFLECTS from the O/P........

and, as Obama has stated over and over and over again, let the Congress pass immigration statutes and he will NOT have to issue executive orders.......

But, scared of pissing off the sliver of support that the GOP has with Hispanics/Latinos, republicans in congress will opt to do NOTHING and would rather sit on their asses and bitch at Obama.

 

[Stephanie]

and reopened the welfare floodgates Clinton had turned off.....

Well he promised TRANSFORMATION
I don't get what the majority who voted him DIDN'T get what he frikken meant BY IT

my gawd, I'm NOT sure we can make it for the next year and half with him

 

[nat4900]

Democrats had 57 seats, and 2 independents (?) that caucused with them.

59

all they needed, as they did with other bills, was to bribe 1 Republican to get it passed.

They didn't even try, tho, did they?

Wrong AGAIN.......why do you assume that every democrat walks in lock step with the DNC.........Of course the answer to that may be that virtually NO republican dares to balk at what the RNC demands......
....AND THERE'S THE MAIN REASON WHY I'M A DEMOCTRAT.

 

[Auld Phart]

Democrats had 57 seats, and 2 independents (?) that caucused with them.

59

all they needed, as they did with other bills, was to bribe 1 Republican to get it passed.

They didn't even try, tho, did they?

Wrong AGAIN.......why do you assume that every democrat walks in lock step with the DNC.........Of course the answer to that may be that virtually NO republican dares to balk at what the RNC demands......
....AND THERE'S THE MAIN REASON WHY I'M A DEMOCTRAT.

"why do you assume that every democrat walks in lock step with the DNC"

history.

They march in lockstep about as much as Republicans.

Just not as much fuss made about it.

 

[Care4all]

Democrats had a lock on Congress, and the White House during Obamas first term.

The failure to increase tax rates to pay for those items is theirs

For 4 months, Obama had a filibuster proof Senate, why lie and say it was for 4 years? When you also should know that the congress became a Republican majority in 2010....guess it's easier to lie about it and accept the truth?

 

[Auld Phart]

Did I say it was Filibuster proof?

anything needing a straight up vote, they got.

Anything needing a 60 vote majority, they needed to 'convince' 1 Republican to vote for it, usually.

" congress became a Republican majority in 2010"

The House did, not the Senate.

Why are you lying about it?

 

[nat4900]

history.

They march in lockstep about as much as Republicans.

Just not as much fuss made about it.

Just a recent set of examples:

1. How many republicans voted AGAINST the war ON Iraq?
2. How many democrats vote AGAINST the TPP pushed by Obama?

 

[nat4900]

The House did, not the Senate.

Why are you lying about it?

Should we go through the cute little steps as to HOW a bill becomes law?

 

[Auld Phart]

ACA, Stimulus, Cash for Clunkers. I'm sure I can find other examples

 

[Auld Phart]

The House did, not the Senate.

Why are you lying about it?

Should we go through the cute little steps as to HOW a bill becomes law?

Go for it.

 

[Manonthestreet]

history.

They march in lockstep about as much as Republicans.

Just not as much fuss made about it.

Just a recent set of examples:

1. How many republicans voted AGAINST the war ON Iraq?
2. How many democrats vote AGAINST the TPP pushed by Obama?

How many repubs voted against Bushes banker bailout and his amnesty....oooops

 

[The Rabbi]

The O/P should be labeled as partisan UNTIL the right wing answers TWO simple questions:

How did the Bush administration plan to pay for the Iraq debacle?
How did the Bush administration plan to pay for Medicare Pt. D?

BOOSH!
Iraq wound down years ago and gov't spending is still at a record. Why can't you explain that?

 

[LoneLaugher]

This stuff is complicated.

I've never seen this long a period of constantly conflicting data, not even close. Every time I get my hopes up on some good data, some lousy data comes along. Every time I think we may be going back into the shitter, some great numbers pop up. About four freaking years of this now. Absolutely bizarre.

On one hand, this administration has clearly damaged the psyche of American business with various statements it has made and actions such as the ACA. And in an increasingly competitive global economy, that's some pretty lousy timing.

On the other hand, the Meltdown was broad, deep, terribly complex and unique, and only when we look back later will we be able to see the longer term damage, in terms of the way both businesses and individuals now approach risk regardless of WHO is in the White House. This constant comparison of the Meltdown to other recessions is absurd.

And oh, by the way, since I know this is coming: The stock market is not the economy.

.

What various statements?

 

[The Rabbi]

Democrats had a lock on Congress, and the White House during Obamas first term.

The failure to increase tax rates to pay for those items is theirs

Of course you're conveniently forgetting exactly what a "lock" means in congressional voting.....Do you still think that 51% constitutes a majority in congress?

Was there anything that Republicans blocked in the first 2 years? Nope.
Keep spinning.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You'd think all of the GOP candidates would be screaming about the horrible economy at every opportunity. I wonder why they aren't?

 

[The Rabbi]

You'd think all of the GOP candidates would be screaming about the horrible economy at every opportunity. I wonder why they aren't?

You're so fucking stupid. This is the problem.
Bush pitches economic vision test out campaign message - CNNPolitics.com

Marco Rubio lays out his economic vision - The Washington Post

My Plan to Raise Growth and Incomes - WSJ
etc

 

[auditor0007]

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

Nice long thread which completely ignores the most important thing which is what each of them had to start with. Bush started with a strong economy and a budget that was basically balanced. Bush left Obama with an economy that was shedding 750,000 jobs per month and a budget deficit of $1.4 trillion for 2009. It's like GW started as GM of the 1991 Chicago Bulls with Michael Jordan and a loaded team, while Obama started out with the New York Knicks six years ago. And the worst thing is that GW turned those championship Bulls teams into the flailing New York Knicks.

It's funny how cons just completely miss this point time and time again.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Nice long thread which completely ignores the most important thing which is what each of them had to start with. Bush started with a strong economy and a budget that was basically balanced. Bush left Obama with an economy that was shedding 750,000 jobs per month and a budget deficit of $1.4 trillion for 2009. It's like GW started as GM of the 1991 Chicago Bulls with Michael Jordan and a loaded team, while Obama started out with the New York Knicks six years ago. And the worst thing is that GW turned those championship Bulls teams into the flailing New York Knicks.

It's funny how cons just completely miss this point time and time again.

Bullshit.
Bush started with a threat from al Qaeda and an incipient recession. He solved that recession within 18 months.
Obama started with a recession that had bottomed out and proceeded to make it worse for the next 6 years.