The Facts About Obama's Economic Record

[Mac1958]

This stuff is complicated.

nothing complicated about it, Mike's post proves what a fucking failure O'Husseinbama has been...., for his entire life.

From a political perspective, pretty much everything is nice 'n simple.

From an economic/finance perspective, not so much.

.

 

[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?

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

In none of those links did the candidate discuss the horrible Obama economy. You fail.

Pay attention, dummy. The GOP candidates ARE NOT making the economy the primary subject in their stump speeches.

 

[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

In none of those links did the candidate discuss the horrible Obama economy. You fail.

Pay attention, dummy. The GOP candidates ARE NOT making the economy the primary subject in their stump speeches.

Of course they are. Of course every link mentioned how the economy is not working for the vast majority of Americans. Of course its the economy, stupid.

 

[Stephanie]

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.

They are still SPINNING for him. good grief
poll after poll show's the American people see the country going in the wrong direction under this loser

 

[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?

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

In none of those links did the candidate discuss the horrible Obama economy. You fail.

Pay attention, dummy. The GOP candidates ARE NOT making the economy the primary subject in their stump speeches.

Of course they are. Of course every link mentioned how the economy is not working for the vast majority of Americans. Of course its the economy, stupid.

They talked about how the economic improvements haven't reached the middle class and poor. That's not the same thing as saying that Obama has made the economy worse. They aren't saying that BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW ITS NOT THE CASE, ya nutcase.

 

[nat4900]

For the GOPers, they can't knock down the economy too much since their OVERWHLEMING funding base comes directly from those who have benefitted from the current economy and a relatively low tax burden.............So THOSE 2 factors will not be addressed too sternly from the republican candidates.

Conversely, democrat candidates MUST appeal to that sane portion of the middle class ("sane" excludes the evangelicals, tea sippers and closeted racists) and demand that the tax burden be more fairly shared by the very rich.

Trickle down economics......Reagan's insane mantra....has FAILED.

 

[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

In none of those links did the candidate discuss the horrible Obama economy. You fail.

Pay attention, dummy. The GOP candidates ARE NOT making the economy the primary subject in their stump speeches.

Of course they are. Of course every link mentioned how the economy is not working for the vast majority of Americans. Of course its the economy, stupid.

They talked about how the economic improvements haven't reached the middle class and poor. That's not the same thing as saying that Obama has made the economy worse. They aren't saying that BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW ITS NOT THE CASE, ya nutcase.

Yes! Obama's economy is working so well the middle class and poor are getting left behind. Because if you're the top 1% then everything is peachy with Obama.

 

[The Rabbi]

For the GOPers, they can't knock down the economy too much since their OVERWHLEMING funding base comes directly from those who have benefitted from the current economy and a relatively low tax burden.............So THOSE 2 factors will not be addressed too sternly from the republican candidates.

Conversely, democrat candidates MUST appeal to that sane portion of the middle class ("sane" excludes the evangelicals, tea sippers and closeted racists) and demand that the tax burden be more fairly shared by the very rich.

Trickle down economics......Reagan's insane mantra....has FAILED.

And Hillary's funding comes from...welfare mothers?
There is no trickle down economics. Under Obama we have trickle up poverty.

 

[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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This stuff is complicated.

nothing complicated about it, Mike's post proves what a fucking failure O'Husseinbama has been...., for his entire life.

When did you nuts decide that it was up to the government to create jobs?

 

[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

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.

Obama will have accumulated more debt than every other president combined once he leaves office. That is simply fact.

 

[nat4900]

Obama will have accumulated more debt than every other president combined once he leaves office. That is simply fact.

Its "simple fact" ONLY to the simple minded morons....like you!!

Right wingers in congress remind me of those who after a huge meal at an expensive restaurant, decide to go to the bathroom when the bill comes to the table.......or those who bitch after an extravagant shopping spree when the credit card bill comes due.

 

[chikenwing]

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?

What does it mean to you? Obama care passed without a single repub vote.

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama will have accumulated more debt than every other president combined once he leaves office. That is simply fact.

Its "simple fact" ONLY to the simple minded morons....like you!!

Right wingers in congress remind me of those who after a huge meal at an expensive restaurant, decide to go to the bathroom when the bill comes to the table.......or those who bitch after an extravagant shopping spree when the credit card bill comes due.

bllhablahblah. Suck it. Obama's policies, foreign and domestic, are the most failed ever. No president has ever compiled a record of failure this dismal. None.

 

[Ringel05]

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.

 

[chikenwing]

Obama will have accumulated more debt than every other president combined once he leaves office. That is simply fact.

Its "simple fact" ONLY to the simple minded morons....like you!!

Right wingers in congress remind me of those who after a huge meal at an expensive restaurant, decide to go to the bathroom when the bill comes to the table.......or those who bitch after an extravagant shopping spree when the credit card bill comes due.

So really ya got nothing, but that's a great deflection.

 

[chikenwing]

Yes and no,the economy does have its own life and its fickle ,the wet blank that this white house has tossed onto bussnes with his retoric has caused problems way more than what positives my have happend.

 

[nat4900]

I, for one, am not here to always defend Obama's policies ( there are many, many instances where I disagree with his conciliatory practices with republicans who have wanted him out of office from day one...)
However, until right wingers come to term with the HUGE burden of unpaid for war expenditures and insane tax cuts to the always promising but seldom delivering oligarchs, then the conversation is basically over.

 

[The Rabbi]

I, for one, am not here to always defend Obama's policies ( there are many, many instances where I disagree with his conciliatory practices with republicans who have wanted him out of office from day one...)
However, until right wingers come to term with the HUGE burden of unpaid for war expenditures and insane tax cuts to the always promising but seldom delivering oligarchs, then the conversation is basically over.

Obama reversed the tax cuts and teh deficit is still enormous. How do you explain this?

 

[chikenwing]

I, for one, am not here to always defend Obama's policies ( there are many, many instances where I disagree with his conciliatory practices with republicans who have wanted him out of office from day one...)
However, until right wingers come to term with the HUGE burden of unpaid for war expenditures and insane tax cuts to the always promising but seldom delivering oligarchs, then the conversation is basically over.

OK pull your pants up and go home,Iraq has long been paid for DC has more cash flowing in then ever,and when you hear the old tax cuts for the rich it is over