A Look at the Senate Democrats' JOBS & INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN FOR AMERICA’S WORKERS

[Toddsterpatriot]

Really?
What spending did he actively work to reduce?
Must be a big list........

You also might find this interesting to look at which cuts Obama proposed in his last budget. Do you give these ideas a thumbs up or thumbs down? Note that these were included in the 2017 budget proposed by Obama that Trump is taking full credit for...

Visualising Obama's Budget Cuts

Thumbs up and multiply them by 10.
Did he do anything like that before his final year?
If he'd have done something like that in year 2 or 3, I'd be a lot more impressed.

 

[Slade3200]

That’s all you got? A “funny”? How about you answer some simple questions without the spin job

He added $9.3 trillion to the debt.
You think that will add jobs? Boost the market?
FFS, 50% of GDP added to the debt, and he had the same GDP growth as Bush?

Wow! Great job. DERP!

I said with out the spin. You seem incapable of honest conversation. I also have problems with Obama’s spending. It wasn’t 9.3 trillion as the majority of that was mandatory spending that we were already committed to, but the discretionary spending could have been done more responsibly. He did reduce the deficit throughout his term following the stimulus which should be noted. Do you know by how much he reduced the deficit?

Now back to the original questions. This is the third time I’ve asked. Can you give direct answers to direct questions without the spin?

What was the unemployement rate in 2009? where was the stock market? How was the housing market? How about in 2016? How’d they do in those areas?

He did reduce the deficit throughout his term following the stimulus which should be noted.

Really?
What spending did he actively work to reduce?
Must be a big list........

What was the unemployement rate in 2009? where was the stock market?

View attachment 182985

Civilian Unemployment Rate

View attachment 182986

S&P 500

Thank you for answering, those charts tell a pretty positive story so though you didn’t put it into words I think we both see a healthy trend towards the good.

As for the reduction in the deficit, of course that wasn’t all due to Obama. The growing economy, despite the “slow growth” argument, was largely responsible for the reduction in deficits. How about I answer your question and provide one of those charts for Obama’s descretionary spending so we can see exactly what he was responsible for... from the spike (2009) on, which way is his spending going? Up or down?

As for the reduction in the deficit, of course that wasn’t all due to Obama.

Was any due to Obama?

The growing economy, despite the “slow growth” argument, was largely responsible for the reduction in deficits.

Imagine how much higher growth could have been without so many new regulations standing on the brakes for 8 years....

One can also make a case that lack of regulations on the financial sector lead to the crash. And to answer your question yes Obama gets credit, that’s how it works. The leader gets credit and blame for the countries successes and failures. You ignored a huge part of the conversation to inject your partisan spin again. Would you care to go back and address the fact that the deficit and descretionary spending trended downwards from 2009 through 2016

 

[Slade3200]

Really?
What spending did he actively work to reduce?
Must be a big list........

You also might find this interesting to look at which cuts Obama proposed in his last budget. Do you give these ideas a thumbs up or thumbs down? Note that these were included in the 2017 budget proposed by Obama that Trump is taking full credit for...

Visualising Obama's Budget Cuts

Thumbs up and multiply them by 10.
Did he do anything like that before his final year?
If he'd have done something like that in year 2 or 3, I'd be a lot more impressed.

You think it would have been smart to cut budgets in the middle of one of our nations largest economic recessions? Interesting. Play that out for me and explain how that leads to prosperous growth and a healthy economy...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He added $9.3 trillion to the debt.
You think that will add jobs? Boost the market?
FFS, 50% of GDP added to the debt, and he had the same GDP growth as Bush?

Wow! Great job. DERP!

I said with out the spin. You seem incapable of honest conversation. I also have problems with Obama’s spending. It wasn’t 9.3 trillion as the majority of that was mandatory spending that we were already committed to, but the discretionary spending could have been done more responsibly. He did reduce the deficit throughout his term following the stimulus which should be noted. Do you know by how much he reduced the deficit?

Now back to the original questions. This is the third time I’ve asked. Can you give direct answers to direct questions without the spin?

What was the unemployement rate in 2009? where was the stock market? How was the housing market? How about in 2016? How’d they do in those areas?

He did reduce the deficit throughout his term following the stimulus which should be noted.

Really?
What spending did he actively work to reduce?
Must be a big list........

What was the unemployement rate in 2009? where was the stock market?

View attachment 182985

Civilian Unemployment Rate

View attachment 182986

S&P 500

Thank you for answering, those charts tell a pretty positive story so though you didn’t put it into words I think we both see a healthy trend towards the good.

As for the reduction in the deficit, of course that wasn’t all due to Obama. The growing economy, despite the “slow growth” argument, was largely responsible for the reduction in deficits. How about I answer your question and provide one of those charts for Obama’s descretionary spending so we can see exactly what he was responsible for... from the spike (2009) on, which way is his spending going? Up or down?

As for the reduction in the deficit, of course that wasn’t all due to Obama.

Was any due to Obama?

The growing economy, despite the “slow growth” argument, was largely responsible for the reduction in deficits.

Imagine how much higher growth could have been without so many new regulations standing on the brakes for 8 years....

One can also make a case that lack of regulations on the financial sector lead to the crash. And to answer your question yes Obama gets credit, that’s how it works. The leader gets credit and blame for the countries successes and failures. You ignored a huge part of the conversation to inject your partisan spin again. Would you care to go back and address the fact that the deficit and descretionary spending trended downwards from 2009 through 2016

One can also make a case that lack of regulations on the financial sector lead to the crash.

Which added regulations would have prevented the crash?

And to answer your question yes Obama gets credit, that’s how it works.

I agree, $9.3 trillion added to the debt, slowest recovery since WWII.

Would you care to go back and address the fact that the deficit and descretionary spending trended downwards from 2009 through 2016

No. I'm still trying to figure out what Obama did to reduce either.

 

[mikegriffith1]

One can also make a case that lack of regulations on the financial sector lead to the crash.

On the contrary, it was federal intervention in the housing market and in the lending industry that led to the crash. Without the feds pushing lenders to loosen credit standards, and without the feds securing or financing low-income home loans, there would have been far fewer toxic assets to bundle in the first place. And, without the ridiculous Sarbanes-Oxley mark-to-market rules, the numerous assets that were still viable would not have been falsely categorized as toxic.

Would you care to go back and address the fact that the deficit and descretionary spending trended downwards from 2009 through 2016.

I 90% agree. Obama did in fact clamp down on spending after the stimulus--until 2016, when he signed the bipartisan budget deal, which discarded the spending caps, etc., etc. There were many good things in that budget deal, but a lot of bad too.

 

[Slade3200]

I said with out the spin. You seem incapable of honest conversation. I also have problems with Obama’s spending. It wasn’t 9.3 trillion as the majority of that was mandatory spending that we were already committed to, but the discretionary spending could have been done more responsibly. He did reduce the deficit throughout his term following the stimulus which should be noted. Do you know by how much he reduced the deficit?

Now back to the original questions. This is the third time I’ve asked. Can you give direct answers to direct questions without the spin?

What was the unemployement rate in 2009? where was the stock market? How was the housing market? How about in 2016? How’d they do in those areas?

He did reduce the deficit throughout his term following the stimulus which should be noted.

Really?
What spending did he actively work to reduce?
Must be a big list........

What was the unemployement rate in 2009? where was the stock market?

View attachment 182985

Civilian Unemployment Rate

View attachment 182986

S&P 500

Thank you for answering, those charts tell a pretty positive story so though you didn’t put it into words I think we both see a healthy trend towards the good.

As for the reduction in the deficit, of course that wasn’t all due to Obama. The growing economy, despite the “slow growth” argument, was largely responsible for the reduction in deficits. How about I answer your question and provide one of those charts for Obama’s descretionary spending so we can see exactly what he was responsible for... from the spike (2009) on, which way is his spending going? Up or down?

As for the reduction in the deficit, of course that wasn’t all due to Obama.

Was any due to Obama?

The growing economy, despite the “slow growth” argument, was largely responsible for the reduction in deficits.

Imagine how much higher growth could have been without so many new regulations standing on the brakes for 8 years....

One can also make a case that lack of regulations on the financial sector lead to the crash. And to answer your question yes Obama gets credit, that’s how it works. The leader gets credit and blame for the countries successes and failures. You ignored a huge part of the conversation to inject your partisan spin again. Would you care to go back and address the fact that the deficit and descretionary spending trended downwards from 2009 through 2016

One can also make a case that lack of regulations on the financial sector lead to the crash.

Which added regulations would have prevented the crash?

And to answer your question yes Obama gets credit, that’s how it works.

I agree, $9.3 trillion added to the debt, slowest recovery since WWII.

Would you care to go back and address the fact that the deficit and descretionary spending trended downwards from 2009 through 2016

No. I'm still trying to figure out what Obama did to reduce either.

Well aren’t you the king of skirting around the issue. How annoying... which added regulations would have prevented the crash? How about Dodd Frank and the many regulations applied that added transparency and oversight on the financial institutions who’s wreckless actions where what caused the crash.

You complain about slowest recovery since world war 2 but I’ll take that over a depression wouldn’t you? How did our recovery do compared to the rest of the worlds major economies that also suffered a recession in 2008? Did you know he also had the most rapid deficit reduction since ww2? How about one of the largest increases in the Dow? How about one of the largest drops in unemployment?

See you gotta balance out your rhetoric a bit so you don’t come off like such a partisan hack.

 

[Slade3200]

One can also make a case that lack of regulations on the financial sector lead to the crash.

On the contrary, it was federal intervention in the housing market and in the lending industry that led to the crash. Without the feds pushing lenders to loosen credit standards, and without the feds securing or financing low-income home loans, there would have been far fewer toxic assets to bundle in the first place. And, without the ridiculous Sarbanes-Oxley mark-to-market rules, the numerous assets that were still viable would not have been falsely categorized as toxic.

Would you care to go back and address the fact that the deficit and descretionary spending trended downwards from 2009 through 2016.

I 90% agree. Obama did in fact clamp down on spending after the stimulus--until 2016, when he signed the bipartisan budget deal, which discarded the spending caps, etc., etc. There were many good things in that budget deal, but a lot of bad too.

You are right that government intervention played a part. Regan’s deregulation and Clinton’s push to boost homeownership were big elements that led to the crash. It was a multi decade chain reaction

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He did reduce the deficit throughout his term following the stimulus which should be noted.

Really?
What spending did he actively work to reduce?
Must be a big list........

What was the unemployement rate in 2009? where was the stock market?

View attachment 182985

Civilian Unemployment Rate

View attachment 182986

S&P 500

Thank you for answering, those charts tell a pretty positive story so though you didn’t put it into words I think we both see a healthy trend towards the good.

As for the reduction in the deficit, of course that wasn’t all due to Obama. The growing economy, despite the “slow growth” argument, was largely responsible for the reduction in deficits. How about I answer your question and provide one of those charts for Obama’s descretionary spending so we can see exactly what he was responsible for... from the spike (2009) on, which way is his spending going? Up or down?

As for the reduction in the deficit, of course that wasn’t all due to Obama.

Was any due to Obama?

The growing economy, despite the “slow growth” argument, was largely responsible for the reduction in deficits.

Imagine how much higher growth could have been without so many new regulations standing on the brakes for 8 years....

One can also make a case that lack of regulations on the financial sector lead to the crash. And to answer your question yes Obama gets credit, that’s how it works. The leader gets credit and blame for the countries successes and failures. You ignored a huge part of the conversation to inject your partisan spin again. Would you care to go back and address the fact that the deficit and descretionary spending trended downwards from 2009 through 2016

One can also make a case that lack of regulations on the financial sector lead to the crash.

Which added regulations would have prevented the crash?

And to answer your question yes Obama gets credit, that’s how it works.

I agree, $9.3 trillion added to the debt, slowest recovery since WWII.

Would you care to go back and address the fact that the deficit and descretionary spending trended downwards from 2009 through 2016

No. I'm still trying to figure out what Obama did to reduce either.

Well aren’t you the king of skirting around the issue. How annoying... which added regulations would have prevented the crash? How about Dodd Frank and the many regulations applied that added transparency and oversight on the financial institutions who’s wreckless actions where what caused the crash.

You complain about slowest recovery since world war 2 but I’ll take that over a depression wouldn’t you? How did our recovery do compared to the rest of the worlds major economies that also suffered a recession in 2008? Did you know he also had the most rapid deficit reduction since ww2? How about one of the largest increases in the Dow? How about one of the largest drops in unemployment?

See you gotta balance out your rhetoric a bit so you don’t come off like such a partisan hack.

How about Dodd Frank and the many regulations applied that added transparency and oversight

Dodd Frank would have prevented banks from writing and buying crappy mortgages? Which part?

You complain about slowest recovery since world war 2 but I’ll take that over a depression wouldn’t you?

The recession ended in June 2009.
If the economy was growing, what would Obama have to do to drive us into a depression?

How did our recovery do compared to the rest of the worlds major economies that also suffered a recession in 2008?

Well, thanks to TARP, we started recapitalizing our banks very quickly.
Europe waited a lot longer, because they hate nasty rich people and banks even more than we do.

Did you know he also had the most rapid deficit reduction since ww2?

And still added $9.3 trillion to the debt.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm a history major, Slade and I remember recent history rather well, thank you! Healthcare WAS an immediate focus for them...starting early in 2009.

Great then you tell me, was healthcare their only focus or did they work on other efforts? Which ones?

You tell me...did they work on immigration reform? Did they work on tax reform? If not...why not?

Asked and answered. They were pulling us out of a recession and trying to fix our financial institutions, corporations, save jobs, restore the housing market and do major healthcare reform... ya know little stuff like that. They tried for taxes and immigration afterward but by that time the obstructionists had taken power and those proposals became dead in the water

So answer me this, Slade? If they were really concerned with pulling us out of a recession...why would they first concentrate on healthcare...something that added uncertainty and costs to doing business drastically slowing down the recovery? Let's be honest here...it was TARP that kept US financials afloat and that was a George W. Bush thing. Obama and your progressives passed the Obama Stimulus...something that spent a whole lot of money and didn't come close to doing what they promised it would! The results were so bad in fact that they had to start using a new economic term "jobs created or saved" because they created so few jobs! They used stimulus money to reward their base with deals for unions, public sector workers and big campaign contributors like the guys running Solyndra.

I'm amused by your contention that they were too "busy" to deal with immigration reform or tax reform. The truth is...they never tried because they were rushing to pass things like ObamaCare and pushing for things like Cap & Trade which would have REALLY screwed up the recovery! They got voted out in the 2010 midterms because it had become painfully obvious that they cared more about passing their liberal agenda then they did about the millions of people in the Private Sector who were out of work and burning up their life's savings trying to stay afloat!

Is this your first bout with politics? If the Dems win in November can I use the same argument against Trump and criticize him for not doing the great infrastructure bill that he campaigned about?

I’m not a huge Obama fan when it comes to his policies. I liked him as a person but did think he could have done better executing many of his plans. But I’m being honest about how politics works. You don’t go after healthcare, immigration reform, and tax reform in the same year all while trying to pull the country out of a recession. You can criticize his policies all you want, you got plenty of ammo, but lose the critique about him not going after all the major reforms in his first two years. We both know that’s not realistic.

I'm amused by how you gloss over how the CHOICE of what they decided to concentrate on...despite what they knew would be a negative effect on the economy...isn't somehow their fault? To use an analogy...if your house was on fire...would you solely concentrate on things to put out the fire...or would you change the heating system and add insulation to the walls to make it more energy efficient? Granted...the latter choice might be a fine one if it weren't for the fire but it's an absolutely ludicrous choice if it were!

So you've got the US economy in a free fall...the equivalent of a house on fire...and what do you progressives concentrate on? Reforming the healthcare system? Passing Cap & Trade legislation to combat pollution? That was next up on your liberal agenda. Millions of Americans out of work and desperate for jobs...and Harry, Barry and Nancy want to pass Cap & Trade? They want to pass healthcare reform that makes it more expensive to do business in the US? Seriously? Then they wondered why they got (to use Obama's description!) "shellacked" in the mid term elections?

You'll have to explain why it's not "realistic" to have expected better choices by Democratic leaders when they were calling all the shots back in 2009!

 

[Slade3200]

Thank you for answering, those charts tell a pretty positive story so though you didn’t put it into words I think we both see a healthy trend towards the good.

As for the reduction in the deficit, of course that wasn’t all due to Obama. The growing economy, despite the “slow growth” argument, was largely responsible for the reduction in deficits. How about I answer your question and provide one of those charts for Obama’s descretionary spending so we can see exactly what he was responsible for... from the spike (2009) on, which way is his spending going? Up or down?

As for the reduction in the deficit, of course that wasn’t all due to Obama.

Was any due to Obama?

The growing economy, despite the “slow growth” argument, was largely responsible for the reduction in deficits.

Imagine how much higher growth could have been without so many new regulations standing on the brakes for 8 years....

One can also make a case that lack of regulations on the financial sector lead to the crash. And to answer your question yes Obama gets credit, that’s how it works. The leader gets credit and blame for the countries successes and failures. You ignored a huge part of the conversation to inject your partisan spin again. Would you care to go back and address the fact that the deficit and descretionary spending trended downwards from 2009 through 2016

One can also make a case that lack of regulations on the financial sector lead to the crash.

Which added regulations would have prevented the crash?

And to answer your question yes Obama gets credit, that’s how it works.

I agree, $9.3 trillion added to the debt, slowest recovery since WWII.

Would you care to go back and address the fact that the deficit and descretionary spending trended downwards from 2009 through 2016

No. I'm still trying to figure out what Obama did to reduce either.

Well aren’t you the king of skirting around the issue. How annoying... which added regulations would have prevented the crash? How about Dodd Frank and the many regulations applied that added transparency and oversight on the financial institutions who’s wreckless actions where what caused the crash.

You complain about slowest recovery since world war 2 but I’ll take that over a depression wouldn’t you? How did our recovery do compared to the rest of the worlds major economies that also suffered a recession in 2008? Did you know he also had the most rapid deficit reduction since ww2? How about one of the largest increases in the Dow? How about one of the largest drops in unemployment?

See you gotta balance out your rhetoric a bit so you don’t come off like such a partisan hack.

How about Dodd Frank and the many regulations applied that added transparency and oversight

Dodd Frank would have prevented banks from writing and buying crappy mortgages? Which part?

You complain about slowest recovery since world war 2 but I’ll take that over a depression wouldn’t you?

The recession ended in June 2009.
If the economy was growing, what would Obama have to do to drive us into a depression?

How did our recovery do compared to the rest of the worlds major economies that also suffered a recession in 2008?

Well, thanks to TARP, we started recapitalizing our banks very quickly.
Europe waited a lot longer, because they hate nasty rich people and banks even more than we do.

Did you know he also had the most rapid deficit reduction since ww2?

And still added $9.3 trillion to the debt.

So is it your thing to answer questions with questions? Maybe instead of answering you I’ll just respond the same way you respond to me... what do you think about that?

 

[Slade3200]

Great then you tell me, was healthcare their only focus or did they work on other efforts? Which ones?

You tell me...did they work on immigration reform? Did they work on tax reform? If not...why not?

Asked and answered. They were pulling us out of a recession and trying to fix our financial institutions, corporations, save jobs, restore the housing market and do major healthcare reform... ya know little stuff like that. They tried for taxes and immigration afterward but by that time the obstructionists had taken power and those proposals became dead in the water

So answer me this, Slade? If they were really concerned with pulling us out of a recession...why would they first concentrate on healthcare...something that added uncertainty and costs to doing business drastically slowing down the recovery? Let's be honest here...it was TARP that kept US financials afloat and that was a George W. Bush thing. Obama and your progressives passed the Obama Stimulus...something that spent a whole lot of money and didn't come close to doing what they promised it would! The results were so bad in fact that they had to start using a new economic term "jobs created or saved" because they created so few jobs! They used stimulus money to reward their base with deals for unions, public sector workers and big campaign contributors like the guys running Solyndra.

I'm amused by your contention that they were too "busy" to deal with immigration reform or tax reform. The truth is...they never tried because they were rushing to pass things like ObamaCare and pushing for things like Cap & Trade which would have REALLY screwed up the recovery! They got voted out in the 2010 midterms because it had become painfully obvious that they cared more about passing their liberal agenda then they did about the millions of people in the Private Sector who were out of work and burning up their life's savings trying to stay afloat!

Is this your first bout with politics? If the Dems win in November can I use the same argument against Trump and criticize him for not doing the great infrastructure bill that he campaigned about?

I’m not a huge Obama fan when it comes to his policies. I liked him as a person but did think he could have done better executing many of his plans. But I’m being honest about how politics works. You don’t go after healthcare, immigration reform, and tax reform in the same year all while trying to pull the country out of a recession. You can criticize his policies all you want, you got plenty of ammo, but lose the critique about him not going after all the major reforms in his first two years. We both know that’s not realistic.

I'm amused by how you gloss over how the CHOICE of what they decided to concentrate on...despite what they knew would be a negative effect on the economy...isn't somehow their fault? To use an analogy...if your house was on fire...would you solely concentrate on things to put out the fire...or would you change the heating system and add insulation to the walls to make it more energy efficient? Granted...the latter choice might be a fine one if it weren't for the fire but it's an absolutely ludicrous choice if it were!

So you've got the US economy in a free fall...the equivalent of a house on fire...and what do you progressives concentrate on? Reforming the healthcare system? Passing Cap & Trade legislation to combat pollution? That was next up on your liberal agenda. Millions of Americans out of work and desperate for jobs...and Harry, Barry and Nancy want to pass Cap & Trade? They want to pass healthcare reform that makes it more expensive to do business in the US? Seriously? Then they wondered why they got (to use Obama's description!) "shellacked" in the mid term elections?

You'll have to explain why it's not "realistic" to have expected better choices by Democratic leaders when they were calling all the shots back in 2009!

Yes well that is an ideologicall difference between conservatives and progressives. Obama injected the economy with stimulus funds to help stabilize, he instituted regulatory reform in Dodd Frank to tighten the accountability of our lending institutions which were part of the cause of the crash, and then he went after much needed healthcare reform... not for economic reasons but to try and help the sick, suffering and dying get care. What an asshole huh?!

 

[Oldstyle]

You tell me...did they work on immigration reform? Did they work on tax reform? If not...why not?

Asked and answered. They were pulling us out of a recession and trying to fix our financial institutions, corporations, save jobs, restore the housing market and do major healthcare reform... ya know little stuff like that. They tried for taxes and immigration afterward but by that time the obstructionists had taken power and those proposals became dead in the water

So answer me this, Slade? If they were really concerned with pulling us out of a recession...why would they first concentrate on healthcare...something that added uncertainty and costs to doing business drastically slowing down the recovery? Let's be honest here...it was TARP that kept US financials afloat and that was a George W. Bush thing. Obama and your progressives passed the Obama Stimulus...something that spent a whole lot of money and didn't come close to doing what they promised it would! The results were so bad in fact that they had to start using a new economic term "jobs created or saved" because they created so few jobs! They used stimulus money to reward their base with deals for unions, public sector workers and big campaign contributors like the guys running Solyndra.

I'm amused by your contention that they were too "busy" to deal with immigration reform or tax reform. The truth is...they never tried because they were rushing to pass things like ObamaCare and pushing for things like Cap & Trade which would have REALLY screwed up the recovery! They got voted out in the 2010 midterms because it had become painfully obvious that they cared more about passing their liberal agenda then they did about the millions of people in the Private Sector who were out of work and burning up their life's savings trying to stay afloat!

Is this your first bout with politics? If the Dems win in November can I use the same argument against Trump and criticize him for not doing the great infrastructure bill that he campaigned about?

I’m not a huge Obama fan when it comes to his policies. I liked him as a person but did think he could have done better executing many of his plans. But I’m being honest about how politics works. You don’t go after healthcare, immigration reform, and tax reform in the same year all while trying to pull the country out of a recession. You can criticize his policies all you want, you got plenty of ammo, but lose the critique about him not going after all the major reforms in his first two years. We both know that’s not realistic.

I'm amused by how you gloss over how the CHOICE of what they decided to concentrate on...despite what they knew would be a negative effect on the economy...isn't somehow their fault? To use an analogy...if your house was on fire...would you solely concentrate on things to put out the fire...or would you change the heating system and add insulation to the walls to make it more energy efficient? Granted...the latter choice might be a fine one if it weren't for the fire but it's an absolutely ludicrous choice if it were!

So you've got the US economy in a free fall...the equivalent of a house on fire...and what do you progressives concentrate on? Reforming the healthcare system? Passing Cap & Trade legislation to combat pollution? That was next up on your liberal agenda. Millions of Americans out of work and desperate for jobs...and Harry, Barry and Nancy want to pass Cap & Trade? They want to pass healthcare reform that makes it more expensive to do business in the US? Seriously? Then they wondered why they got (to use Obama's description!) "shellacked" in the mid term elections?

You'll have to explain why it's not "realistic" to have expected better choices by Democratic leaders when they were calling all the shots back in 2009!

Yes well that is an ideologicall difference between conservatives and progressives. Obama injected the economy with stimulus funds to help stabilize, he instituted regulatory reform in Dodd Frank to tighten the accountability of our lending institutions which were part of the cause of the crash, and then he went after much needed healthcare reform... not for economic reasons but to try and help the sick, suffering and dying get care. What an asshole huh?!

When progressives "injected" the economy with stimulus funds...who did they concentrate that help on? People in the Private Sector? Or did they reward their base? Much of the Obama Stimulus went to keeping people in the Public Sector working while millions in the Private Sector were ignored.

As for healthcare reform? Let's be honest here for a change, Slade...shall we? The ACA was first and foremost an income redistribution program by liberals to provide low income people with subsidized healthcare and have the middle class pay for that care with higher healthcare costs for them. They lied to the American people about the costs and how it would work and they did so DELIBERATELY! So yes, that does make Harry, Barry and Nancy assholes!

 

[Oldstyle]

You still haven't answered the question why with the economy in serious trouble and millions out of work in the Private Sector..you progressives went after healthcare reform and Cap & Trade legislation...two things that would cause jobs not to be created!

That's taking advantage of a crisis to pass parts of a liberal agenda that you've wanted for decades...while you ignore the suffering of millions!

 

[rshermn]

Great then you tell me, was healthcare their only focus or did they work on other efforts? Which ones?

You tell me...did they work on immigration reform? Did they work on tax reform? If not...why not?

Asked and answered. They were pulling us out of a recession and trying to fix our financial institutions, corporations, save jobs, restore the housing market and do major healthcare reform... ya know little stuff like that. They tried for taxes and immigration afterward but by that time the obstructionists had taken power and those proposals became dead in the water

So answer me this, Slade? If they were really concerned with pulling us out of a recession...why would they first concentrate on healthcare...something that added uncertainty and costs to doing business drastically slowing down the recovery? Let's be honest here.Ah, yes. Tarp helped some, but only cons would suggest that it pulled the US out of a Depression. ..it was TARP that kept US financials afloat and that was a George W. Bush thing. Obama and your progressives passed the Obama Stimulus...something that spent a whole lot of money and didn't come close to doing what they promised it would!
The results were so bad in fact that they had to start using a new economic term "jobs created or saved" because they created so few jobs! They used stimulus money to reward their base with deals for unions, public sector workers and big campaign contributors like the guys running Solyndra.

I'm amused by your contention that they were too "busy" to deal with immigration reform or tax reform. The truth is...they never tried because they were rushing to pass things like ObamaCare and pushing for things like Cap & Trade which would have REALLY screwed up the recovery! Any proof, of that, me boy?? They got voted out in the 2010 midterms because it had become painfully obvious that they cared more about passing their liberal agenda then they did about the millions of people in the Private Sector who were out of work and burning up their life's savings trying to stay afloat!

Is this your first bout with politics? If the Dems win in November can I use the same argument against Trump and criticize him for not doing the great infrastructure bill that he campaigned about?

I’m not a huge Obama fan when it comes to his policies. No, you are, and always have been, a con troll. You do not like anything done by Democrats. I liked him as a person but did think he could have done better executing many of his plans. But I’m being honest about how politics works. You don’t go after healthcare, immigration reform, and tax reform in the same year all while trying to pull the country out of a recession. You can criticize his policies all you want, you got plenty of ammo, but lose the critique about him not going after all the major reforms in his first two years. We both know that’s not realistic.

I'm amused by how you gloss over how the CHOICE of what they decided to concentrate on...despite what they knew would be a negative effect on the economy...isn't somehow their fault? To use an analogy...if your house was on fire...would you solely concentrate on things to put out the fire...or would you change the heating system and add insulation to the walls to make it more energy efficient? Granted...the latter choice might be a fine one if it weren't for the fire but it's an absolutely ludicrous choice if it were!

So you've got the US economy in a free fall...the equivalent of a house on fire...and what do you progressives concentrate on? Reforming the healthcare system? Passing Cap & Trade legislation to combat pollution? That was next up on your liberal agenda. Millions of Americans out of work and desperate for jobs...and Harry, Barry and Nancy want to pass Cap & Trade? They want to pass healthcare reform that makes it more expensive to do business in the US? Seriously? Then they wondered why they got (to use Obama's description!) "shellacked" in the mid term elections?

You'll have to explain why it's not "realistic" to have expected better choices by Democratic leaders when they were calling all the shots back in 2009!

Ah, as a history major you forgot about the great Republican Meeting on the eve of Obama taking the presidency. You know, the late night meeting when Republican Leadership decided to block anything that Obama tried to pass during his presidency. And the fact that they did indeed block every effort that they could for the next 8 years.
But, the Obama stimulus, as you call it, had major effects. Consider the final report card, done annually by Factcheck.org, So, there you go, the good and bad of the obama stimulus, along with the republican efforts to block anything that Obama did.
You suggest you are a student of politics. If so, you would know that any president can do only what congress agrees to help him with. And republicans agreed to help in NO cases. Perhaps you can help me find the bills passed by congress during that time that helped the bad economy. Cause most can find none.
So, instead of spending all of your time in bat shit crazy con web sites pulling out conservative talking points, perhaps you could spend some time in an impartial site that provides you with the actual results.

ARTICLES
Obama’s Final Numbers

Statistical indicators of President Obama's eight years in office.

By Brooks Jackson

Posted on September 29, 2017 | Updated on February 14, 2018

[/paste:font]
Analysis
Gathering statistics is a painstaking and time-consuming job. Figures on crime, household incomes and poverty in 2016 weren’t released until September 2017, for example.

But now we have a reasonably complete statistical picture of the Obama years, which began in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and ended with the highest level of household income ever recorded.

These facts often turn out to be at odds with the impressions created by candidates who, for example, claimed wages and incomes were stagnant when in fact they were rising. The facts also can conflict with impressions created by news media reporting dramatic but untypical events. Despite nonstop coverage of several mass shootings, for example, the murder rate was going down for most of the Obama years, hitting the lowest ever recorded in 2014.

Some of these figures remain subject to tweaks and revisions. Figures on handgun production in 2016 are still “preliminary,” for example, and others will remain subject to slight revisions for years to come, as statisticians routinely refine their methods and assumptions. We will keep this update current as necessary in the months and years to come. For now, it’s as “final” as possible.

Update, Feb. 14, 2018: We updated this article and its graphics to reflect that the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ annual “benchmarking” revisions added more than 150,000 jobs to its previously reported figure for January 2017, bringing the total added under Obama to more than 11.6 million (up from 11.5 million), an 8.7 percent increase (up from 8.6 percent).

We also updated a graphic in the “Immigration” section to reflect that the U.S. Border Patrol revised its figures on people caught while illegally trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border upward by four for calendar year 2016.

Jobs and Unemployment
Jobs — Over Obama’s eight years in office, the economy added a net total of more than 11.6 million jobs — a gain in total nonfarm employment of 8.7 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.



That percentage gain is not as large as for most other administrations since the end of World War II.

In fact, the only other post-war administrations to see smaller gains in employment were those of Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, who eked out a bare 1 percent gain, Dwight D. Eisenhower (7.1 percent in his eight years), and Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush (2.5 percent during his four years).

Jimmy Carter saw a much stronger employment gain — 12.8 percent — despite the fact that his administration lasted only four years, half as long as Obama’s.

Note: For these historical comparisons, we’ve begun with the inauguration of Harry Truman in 1949, when he became the first president elected after the end of World War II. For simplicity, we’ve combined the administrations of Democrats John F. Kennedy and his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson (who took office after Kennedy was assassinated), and of Republicans Richard Nixon and his successor, Gerald Ford (who served out the remainder of Nixon’s second term after Nixon resigned), as though each were single eight-year administrations.

In our graphics, we show Republican administrations in red, Democratic administrations in blue.

Obama had the unique disadvantage of taking office in the midst of theworst financial crisis since the Great Depression. More than 4 million jobs were lost in his first year in office, on top of the 4 million lost in George W. Bush’s final year.

To be sure, Bush’s eight years were marked by two recessions, including one that began two months after he took office in 2001. That helps explain why job creation on his watch was by far the worst of any post-war administration.

Both Bush and Obama also were bucking strong demographic trends. The surging percentages of women entering the job market, which started in the 1960s, peaked at the end of the Clinton administration. Also, “baby boomers” — those born in the years after WWII veterans returned from the war to take up family life — reached retirement age in great numbers during Obama’s time.

Labor Force Participation — Because of these and other factors, relatively fewer people said they wanted to work. Under Obama, the labor force — those either working or actively looking for a job — slipped from 65.7 percent of those age 16 and older to 62.9 percent.

Job Openings — With relatively fewer people seeking employment, a job shortage changed to a worker shortage under Obama. The Department of Labor reported that the number of unfilled job openings more than doubled during Obama’s time, hitting just under 6 million in July 2016. That was at the time the highest in the more than 16 years that Labor Department statisticians had tracked this number.

Before Obama’s tenure, the only time job openings topped 5 million was January 2001. During Obama’s second term, there were 26 months with over 5 million openings. It has since continued to rise, topping 6 million for the first time in June 2017, under President Donald Trump.

Unemployment — The unemployment rate was high when Obama took office — 7.8 percent — and it continued to get worse in his first year. It peaked at 10 percent in October 2009 and didn’t drop below 9 percent until two years after that.

But slowly, and more or less steadily, the rate improved. By the time Obama left office, the jobless rate had dropped 3 full percentage points, an improvement exceeded only by the slightly bigger declines during the Clinton and Kennedy-Johnson administrations.



By the time Obama left office, the jobless rate was down to 4.8 percent — well below the historical norm of 5.6 percent (the median rate for all the months since Truman’s inauguration in January 1949).

But getting down to that point was a long, slow grind. So slow that over all of Obama’s 96 months in office, the median jobless rate was 7.7 percent — the highest for any administration since the end of World War II.


Obama’s experience is similar to that of Ronald Reagan — who presided over the second highest median jobless rate, 7.2 percent.

In Reagan’s first term, unemployment peaked at 10.8 percent — higher than Obama’s 10 percent peak. And under Reagan, it stayed at or above 10 percent for 10 straight months starting in September 1982 — compared with Obama’s one-month high of 10 percent.

Like Obama, Reagan also saw the rate decline steadily after the worst was over.

By the time Reagan left office in January 1989, the rate was down to 5.4 percent, not far above Obama’s final month at 4.8 percent.

Both Obama and Reagan left office with job approval ratings above 50 percent.

Income and Poverty
The inflation-adjusted incomes of American households reached the highest level ever recorded under Obama. The Census Bureau’s measure of median household income reached $59,039 in 2016. That was $2,963 more in “real” (inflation-adjusted) dollars than in 2008, for an overall gain of 5.3 percent.
The median figure represents the midpoint — half of all households earned more, half less. And while real median income hit a record level in Obama’s final year, it was a long, rough road to the top.

In fact, the 5.3 percent gain under Obama barely made up for the 4.2 percent loss under his predecessor. And for his first six years in office, median income was below the level in 2008.

Obama’s 5.3 percent gain was less than the 13.9 percent gain under Bill Clinton, and the 8.1 percent gain under Reagan. It is also pushed up to a degree by a change in the Census Bureau’s survey questions in 2014, designed to correct for under-reporting of certain types of income in previous years.

The trend to higher incomes also shows up in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ monthly report on average weekly earnings for all workers, adjusted for inflation. That figure, which includes salaried managers and supervisors, was 4.1 percent higher in the month Obama left office than it was in the month he first entered the White House. It was 3.7 percent higher for just production and nonsupervisory employees.

As incomes rose, the rate of poverty declined. The percentage of Americans living with income below the official poverty line went down to 12.7 percent of the population in 2016, a half-point drop compared with 2008.



That decline also wasn’t nearly enough to reverse the 1.9 percentage point rise in poverty under George W. Bush, and it was far less than the 3.5 percentage point decline under Clinton.

And even though the rate of poverty went down under Obama, the number of people in poverty rose — just not as fast as the population in general. In 2016, just over 40.6 million Americans were still living below the poverty line, an increase of 787,000 people compared with 2008. Under George W. Bush, the number went up by more than 8 million, after going down by more than 6 million under Clinton.

Home Prices
Home values rebounded under Obama, reaching a new high in his final year.

Sales figures from the National Association of Realtors show the national median price of an existing, single-family home was $235,500 in 2016. That was $38,900 higher than in 2008, an increase of 19.8 percent under Obama.

The 2016 figure was a record, but only in raw dollars, without accounting for inflation. Prices reached their pre-recession high in 2006. In the decade between then and Obama’s final year, home prices rose 6.1 percent, while the Consumer Price Index rose 19 percent.

Home Ownership
The home ownership rate drifted down under Obama, touching the lowest point in more than half a century during his final year.

In the second quarter of 2016, 62.9 percent of households owned their own home, according to Census Bureau figures. That ties the lowest point since the Census Bureau began collecting the figures. The last time the rate was that low was in the third quarter of 1965.

The home ownership rate began its slide after peaking at 69.2 percent in the second quarter of 2004. It already had come down 1.7 percentage points before Obama took office, but it went down by a greater amount in his two terms as president.

In Obama’s last quarter, the rate rebounded to 63.7 percent, as the economy improved and sales of new and existing homes hit their best pace since before Obama entered office. But the ownership rate was still 3.8 percentage points lower than the quarter before he took office.

Food Stamps
The number of people receiving food aid under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as “food stamps”) rose by a third under Obama.

In Obama’s last month in office, there were just under 42.7 million Americans receiving SNAP assistance, a gain of 10.7 million or just under 33.5 percent from January 2009.

The number grew as the 2007-2009 recession threw millions out of work, as benefit levels were boosted for several years by the stimulus legislation Obama signed in 2009. The average benefit per person went up from around $113 per person in January 2009 to around $134 in July.

At the peak of food stamp enrollment in December 2012, a total of 47.8 million were receiving aid, an increase of nearly 16 million or 49 percent.

But then millions melted from the rolls as employment and incomes improved, and as Congress cut benefit levels, which dropped to a monthly average of around $124 per person in Obama’s final month.

Measured from his first month to his last, benefit levels and enrollment both grew less under Obama than under his predecessor.

Under George W. Bush, the number of people getting food stamps grew by 14.7 million, or 85 percent (compared with the 10.7 million, 33 percent gain under Obama). The average monthly benefit per person grew from $73.89 in the month Bush took office to $113.60 the month he left. That’s a 54 percent increase, compared with the 9 percent gain at the end of Obama’s time in office.

Corporate Profits
Corporations did much better than workers during Obama’s time. Their profits hit several new yearly highs during his tenure.



Profits had surged under George W. Bush as well, but when Obama took office they had plunged from their previous peak in 2006, due to the financial crisis and ensuing economic downturn. Then they recovered quickly under Obama — far more quickly than jobs or personal incomes — and reached a new record in 2010, his second year in office.

From there they climbed even higher, setting more new annual records in 2012, 2013 and 2014, when they reached $1.74 trillion.

Profits slipped a bit in 2015, but in Obama’s final year profits were still $1.69 trillion — not far below the 2014 record and 57.3 percent higher than in 2008, the year before he took office.

That gain was higher than during all but three other post-war administrations, behind the 122.7 percent gain under George W. Bush, the 124.5 percent gain during the Nixon-Ford years and the 87.5 percent gain during the Kennedy-Johnson years. It was only slightly higher than the 57.0 percent gain during Truman’s final, four-year term.



Technical note: There are several ways to measure corporate profits. We present here the same historical measure followed by Federal Reserve Bank economists, which gauges profits of U.S. corporations from all their global operations, after taxes and without adjustments for inflation, inventory changes or changes in capital (such as depreciation.) Annual figures go back to 1929, and can be found on line 45 of BEA’s “National Income by Types of Income” table (Table 1.12).

Stock Prices
Owners of corporate stocks also did quite well under Obama. The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock average more than doubled — rising by 166 percent during his eight years in office.


Among post-war administrations, that’s second only to the 209 percent rise in the S&P index during Clinton’s two terms, and it handily outpaced the 114 percent gain under Reagan.

To some extent, the gain under Obama represents a rebound from an unusually depressed level. The financial crisis of 2007-2009 caused stock prices to plunge. By George W. Bush’s last day in office, the S&P 500 stood 37 percent below where it had been on the last trading day before he first took office in 2001.

Other stock market indexes tell similar stories. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 138 percent under Obama after falling 22 percent under his predecessor, for example.

Some of the gain took place in the weeks just after Trump was elected, a“Trump Rally” that many attribute at least partly to investor optimism that the president-elect would, once in office, cut taxes and regulation as promised. But the S&P rise between Election Day and Obama’s last day in office was just under 6 percent — a small fraction of the entire gain during Obama’s tenure. Stock prices already had set record after record before Trump’s election, as we have written before.

Debt and Deficits
The federal debt more than doubled under Obama, and he left Trump a legacy of worsening deficits.

Debt — On the day Obama left office, the U.S. government’s debt owed to the public was more than $14.4 trillion, an increase of more than 128 percent during his eight years.

The debt also has grown dramatically even when measured as a percentage of the growing economy, from 52.3 percent of gross domestic product at the end of fiscal year 2009 to 77.0 percent as of the end of fiscal year 2016 on Sept. 30, 2016, according to historical budget figures from the Office of Management and Budget.

Deficits — Under Obama, annual federal deficits fell, but then turned up again.

The deficit hit $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2009. As we’ve documented elsewhere, Obama inherited most of that deficit and signed spending measures that contributed as much as $203 billion to FY 2009’s red ink.

After that, the yearly deficits declined markedly for several years. In fiscal year 2015, the deficit was $438 billion, a drop of 69 percent from FY 2009.

But deficits were again on the rise as Obama left office. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in June 2017 that the deficit for FY 2017 — which ends Sept. 30 and is the last one for which Obama signed spending bills — will increase to $693 billion.

CBO also projects that under current law, annual deficits will again exceed $1 trillion in 2022 and beyond. As things stand, federal debt owed to the public will reach 80 percent of GDP in 2020, and more than 91 percent in 2027, CBO projects.

Health Insurance
Coverage — Millions of Americans gained health insurance coverage as a result of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

The percentage of all U.S. residents who lack coverage dropped sharply, from 14.7 percent the year before Obama entered the White House to 9.0 percent in his final year — the lowest on record. Nevertheless, those gains fell far short of Obama’s 2007 campaign promise to “cover every American.”


Our data come from the National Health Interview Survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has tracked health insurance coverage on a reasonably consistent basis since 1997.

According to NHIS figures, 43.8 million Americans of all ages lacked health insurance in 2008, but in 2016 that number was down to 28.6 million — a drop of 15.2 million people.

The number of uninsured actually rose during the first two years of Obama’s time, reaching 48.6 million in 2010. That’s because of the Great Recession of 2007-2009, when millions of workers lost their jobs, and any health insurance benefits that went with them.

The number of uninsured drifted down after that, as the economy slowly recovered. But then it dropped sharply beginning in 2014, the first year that the ACA’s main provisions took effect. Those provisions required that individuals obtain coverage or pay a tax penalty, made government-paid Medicaid available more widely to millions of additional low-income people, and provided government subsidies to help those further up the income scale pay for private insurance.

Premiums — Obama also failed to deliver on his campaign promise to “lower your premiums by up to $2,500 per family per year.” For the typical worker, premiums continued to rise faster than wages or inflation, though more slowly than before.

Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance (which covers nearly56 percent of the population, according to Census figures) rose 43 percent under Obama for family policies, and 37 percent for policies covering a single person.


That information comes from annual surveys by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Education Trust, which is the nonprofit research arm of the American Hospital Association.

To be sure, premiums rose twice as fast before Obama took office. Family rates rose 97 percent and single-coverage rates rose 90 percent during George W. Bush’s eight years in office.

But the rise under Obama continued to outpace the average weekly earnings of all employees (up 20 percent under Obama) and the rise inconsumer prices (up 15 percent).

The effect on take-home pay for workers was made even larger because employers picked up a somewhat smaller share of the total cost of health coverage on average.



Under Obama, the worker portion of annual health insurance premiums rose by $1,923 for a family policy, and $408 for single coverage. Both those figures represented a 57 percent increase during his eight years in office.

Obama promised to lower premiums when he first ran for the White House. “We’re going to work with your employers to lower your premiums by up to $2,500 per family, per year,” he said. At another point, he said, “We will start by reducing premiums by as much as $2,500 per family.” Aides said when Obama spoke of “lowering” or “reducing” premiums he really meant that he would reduce the rate of growth, though he did not make that clear when speaking to voters.

Immigration
The flow of people caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegallyslowed markedly under Obama. In his final year, the U.S. Border Patrol apprehended just under 443,000, down 35 percent from the year before he took office.

Though it’s impossible to know how many illegal crossings went undetected, the number of those apprehended is the best available indicator of the overall trend.



The percentage decline under Obama was far less than the 58 percent decline under George W. Bush, who nearly doubled the number of agents stationed at the Southwest border. Under funding levels established by Bush, the number grew from 9,147 agents in fiscal year 2001 to 17,408 in FY 2009 (which began Oct. 1, 2008).

Under Obama, that number continued to increase, hitting a peak of 18,611 in FY 2013. The number then declined to 17,026 in fiscal year 2016.

Meanwhile, the number of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally actually fell, from an estimated 11.7 million in 2008, to an estimated 11.0 million in 2015, according to the Pew Research Center. That’s a decline of roughly 700,000, or 6 percent.

Similarly, the Center for Migration Studies estimated that the population of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally dropped from 11,460,000 in 2008 to 11,045,000 in 2015, a decline of 415,000, or 3.6 percent. The CMS study attributed the decline to tighter airline security, increased enforcement at the border and improving economic conditions in Mexico.

Such estimates are inexact; those breaking the law by being here can’t be expected to confess that to Census officials. But demographers have applied consistent methodologies from year to year, and agree that the trend has been downward.

Energy
Oil — U.S. crude oil production, mainly due to advances in drilling technology, surged under Obama, helping to drive down fuel prices. In 2016, the U.S. produced 77 percent more crude oil than it did in 2008.

As a result, U.S. reliance on imported oil dropped by more than half. In 2016, the U.S. imported only 24.8 percent of the petroleum and refined products that it consumed, down from 57 percent in 2008. In 2015, it imported 24.1 percent, which was the lowest annual level of dependency on imports since 1970.

Wind & Solar — Wind and solar power has more than quadrupled under Obama. Electricity generated by large-scale wind and solar power facilities increased by 369 percent during the Obama years.

The increase in solar power in particular has been spectacular. The U.S. generated nearly 43 times more electricity from solar power in 2016 than in 2008.

Wind and solar accounted for 6.5 percent of total large-scale generation in 2016, up from a mere 1.4 percent in 2008. Wind and solar now account for as large a share as hydroelectric power, also at 6.5 percent of the total.

These figures are for “utility scale” electricity generation. In 2014, EIA also began tracking small-scale (under 1 megawatt) “distributed” solar voltaic generation, such as the power produced by rooftop systems installed by homeowners. In 2016, wind and solar accounted for 6.9 percent of the combined total of utility-scale power and “distributed” solar power.

Coal — As wind and solar rose, coal declined. Obama put forth new restrictions that his administration called a “Clean Power Plan,” and his critics dubbed a “war on coal.”

In 2016, U.S. coal production was 728 million metric tons, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That’s a decline of 38 percent since 2008.

During the Obama years, electric utilities shifted away from burning coal, which accounted for 48 percent of their power generation in 2008, but only 30 percent in 2016. The share supplied by burning natural gas went up from 21 percent to 34 percent, and the share supplied by nuclear plants remained steady at just under 20 percent.

Carbon Emissions — Meanwhile, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere from U.S. energy-related sources has declined during Obama’s time.

Between 2008 and 2016, the amount of carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels went down 11 percent, according to estimates from the EIA.

Emissions have been falling even as the economy has been growing, in part because utilities — driven by lower natural gas prices and government regulations — have been burning more natural gas and less coal. Emissions from electric power plants in 2016 were the lowest since 1988, according to EIA figures.

Trade
Obama promised in his 2010 State of the Union address to “double our exports over the next five years.” That didn’t happen.

Instead, as the economies of major U.S. trading partners struggled, so did U.S. exports.

During the full eight years of Obama’s presidency, annual exports of goods and services rose by just under 20 percent (and actually declined in 2015 and 2016).

Meanwhile imports grew even more slowly, by just 6.4 percent, and so the U.S. trade deficit shrunk by nearly 29 percent.

Guns
Obama campaigned on a promise to reinstate the “assault weapon” ban that expired in 2004, but that didn’t happen either. As president, he alsoproposed several new gun laws that never passed.

Instead, annual U.S. handgun production nearly tripled, as millions of Americans flocked to buy firearms.


In 2016, production of pistols and revolvers totaled 5,314,511, according tointerim figures released in June by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. That’s an increase of 192 percent over the figure for 2008, and it broke the previous record set in 2013.

The government doesn’t collect figures on sales of guns. But the National Shooting Sports Foundation — the gun industry’s trade group — tracks approximate sales figures by adjusting FBI statistics on background checks to remove those not related to actual sales, such as checks required for concealed-carry permits.

Those NSSF-adjusted figures also set a record in Obama’s final year, topping 15.7 million. That’s an increase of 75 percent above the 2008 level.

These figures cover rifles and shotguns and previously owned weapons, as well as new handguns. They are only an approximation of actual sales, since some of these checks cover purchases of multiple weapons, and of course some sales still occur without background checks.

Crime
Despite more than a score of mass shootings, crime declined substantially overall during the Obama years.

The FBI’s crime statistics show the number of violent crimes in 2016 was 10.5 percent lower than the number in 2008, and the number of property crimes dropped 19 percent.

Meanwhile the population increased by more than 6 percent, so the rateof crime dropped even more. The number of violent crimes per 100,000 population was nearly 16 percent lower in 2016 than in 2008, and the property crime rate dropped nearly 24 percent.

Among violent crimes the biggest drop was a nearly 30 percent reduction in robberies. But the murder rate dropped hardly at all — declining from 5.4 per 100,000 in 2008 to 5.3 in 2016.

Earlier, in 2014, the murder rate had dropped to the lowest level on record — 4.4 per 100,000 — but it rose in Obama’s final two years in office.



Car Mileage
Obama set a goal of doubling the fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks, but that promise isn’t working out. Although he put in place a regulatory requirement that cars and light trucks average 54.5 miles per gallon by model year 2025, car buyers had other ideas.

For light duty vehicles actually purchased, the average EPA city/highway sticker mileage has been stuck at 25.1 mpg for model years 2014, 2015 and 2016, according to the Transportation Research Institute of the University of Michigan.

Model year 2017 isn’t looking any different. Vehicles sold during Obama’s final month in office also averaged 25.1 mpg — only 20 percent above where it was eight years earlier. Meanwhile, the Obama mileageregulations are under review by the new administration.

Guantanamo
During Obama’s final 20 days in office another 18 prisoners were released from the military detention camp for suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and shipped to other countries. That brought the total number remaining to 41.

When he first took office, Obama ordered the facility to be closed within a year. But Congress balked, and in the end Obama was able to accomplish an 83 percent reduction in the head count over eight years.

War Deaths
During Obama’s time in office, 2,035 U.S. military personnel died as a result of the Afghan war and the fighting in and around Iraq, according tofigures kept by iCasualties.org.

Between Jan. 20, 2009, and Jan. 20, 2017, there were 1,751 U.S. military fatalities connected to the Afghan war, which became America’s longest war in 2010 and still has no end in sight.

Also during Obama’s time, there were 284 fatalities connected to the conflict in Iraq. He pulled all U.S. troops out of Iraq at the end of 2011, but began sending them back in 2014 after Islamic State fighters swooped in and captured large sections of the country.

Editor’s Note: In January, we plan to publish our first quarterly report on President Donald Trump.

Sources
Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National); Total Nonfarm Employment, Seasonally Adjusted.” Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey; Unemployment Rate, Seasonally Adjusted.” Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey: Job Openings, Seasonally Adjusted.” Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey; Labor Force Participation Rate.” Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

U.S. Census Bureau. “Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016.” 12 Sep 2017.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National); Average Weekly Earnings of All Employees, 1982-1984 Dollars.” Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

National Association of Realtors. “Sales Price of Existing Single-Family Homes.” 20 Sep 2017.

U.S. Census Bureau. “Time Series: Not Seasonally Adjusted Home Ownership Rate.” Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Data as of Sept. 8 2017).” Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) data, fiscal years 1968-2017.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Table 6.19D. Corporate Profits After Tax by Industry.” 3 Aug 2017. Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers.” Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

S&P Dow Jones Indices, “500 and DJI Daily Historical,” proprietary data furnished upon request and used with permission under academic license. 29 Aug 2017.

U.S. Treasury. “The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It.” Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

Office of Management and Budget. “Table 7.1—Federal Debt at the End of Year: 1940–2022.” May 2017.

Congressional Budget Office. “An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2017 to 2027″ Table 1. 29 Jun 2017.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; National Health Interview Survey. “Early Release of Selected Estimates Based on Data From the 2016 National Health Interview Survey.” May 2017.

Kaiser Family Foundation. “Premiums and Worker Contributions Among Workers Covered by Employer-Sponsored Coverage, 1999-2017.” 19 Sep 2017.

U.S. Border Patrol. “Total Illegal Alien Apprehensions By Month” Fiscal Years 2000-2016. Undated. Accessed 25 Sep 2017.

U.S. Border Patrol. “U.S. Border Patrol Apprehensions FY2017 YTD(October 1 – August 31).” Undated. Accessed 25 Sep 2017.

U.S. Border Patrol. “Border Patrol Agent Staffing by Fiscal Year.” 1 Oct 2016.

Passel, Jeffrey et al. “Table A1: Unauthorized Immigrant Population.” Pew Research Center. 3 Sep 2014.

Passel, Jeffrey et al. “As Mexican share declined, U.S. unauthorized immigrant population fell in 2015 below recession level.” Pew Research Center. 25 April 2017.

Warren, Robert. “Zero Undocumented Population Growth Is Here to Stay and Immigration Reform Would Preserve and Extend These Gains.” Center for Migration Studies. Jun 2017.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. “U.S. Crude Oil Production.” Short Term Energy Outlook. 12 Sep 2017. Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Table 3.3a Petroleum Trade: Overview.” Monthly Energy Review. 28 Aug 2017.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. Electric Power Monthly, “Table 1.1.A. Net Generation from Renewable Sources: Total (All Sectors), 2007-July 2017.” 26 Sep 2017.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Coal Production; Total U.S.” Short Term Energy Outlook. 12 Sep 2017. Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Table 12.1 Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Energy Consumption by Source,” Monthly Energy Review. 28 Aug 2017.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Affairs. “Table 1. U.S. International Transactions: Exports, Imports and Balances.” 6 Sep 2017.

U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Export Report,” Year 2016 Interim.” 27 Jun 2017.

U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Export Report,” Year 2008.” 8 Mar 2011.

National Shooting Sports Foundation. “NSSF-Adjusted NICS – Historical Monthly Chart” Proprietary data supplied on request. 25 Sep 2017.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Crime in the United States 2016.” Table 1. 25 Sep 2017.

Sivak, Michael and Brandon Schoettle. “Average sales-weighted fuel-economy rating (window sticker) of purchased new vehicles for October 2007 through August 2017.” University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. 5 Sep 2017, Accessed 25 Sep 2017.

New York Times. The Guantanamo Docket. “Timeline: A chronology of detainees’ arrivals, transfers and deaths.” 27 Sep 2017.

iCasualties.org. “Operation Enduring Freedom; Afghanistan Coalition Military Fatalities .” Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

iCasualties.org. “Operation Iraqi Freedom; Iraq Coalition Military Fatalities.” Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

Thank you for answering, those charts tell a pretty positive story so though you didn’t put it into words I think we both see a healthy trend towards the good.

As for the reduction in the deficit, of course that wasn’t all due to Obama. The growing economy, despite the “slow growth” argument, was largely responsible for the reduction in deficits. How about I answer your question and provide one of those charts for Obama’s descretionary spending so we can see exactly what he was responsible for... from the spike (2009) on, which way is his spending going? Up or down?

As for the reduction in the deficit, of course that wasn’t all due to Obama.

Was any due to Obama?

The growing economy, despite the “slow growth” argument, was largely responsible for the reduction in deficits.

Imagine how much higher growth could have been without so many new regulations standing on the brakes for 8 years....

One can also make a case that lack of regulations on the financial sector lead to the crash. And to answer your question yes Obama gets credit, that’s how it works. The leader gets credit and blame for the countries successes and failures. You ignored a huge part of the conversation to inject your partisan spin again. Would you care to go back and address the fact that the deficit and descretionary spending trended downwards from 2009 through 2016

One can also make a case that lack of regulations on the financial sector lead to the crash.

Which added regulations would have prevented the crash?

And to answer your question yes Obama gets credit, that’s how it works.

I agree, $9.3 trillion added to the debt, slowest recovery since WWII.

Would you care to go back and address the fact that the deficit and descretionary spending trended downwards from 2009 through 2016

No. I'm still trying to figure out what Obama did to reduce either.

Well aren’t you the king of skirting around the issue. How annoying... which added regulations would have prevented the crash? How about Dodd Frank and the many regulations applied that added transparency and oversight on the financial institutions who’s wreckless actions where what caused the crash.

You complain about slowest recovery since world war 2 but I’ll take that over a depression wouldn’t you? How did our recovery do compared to the rest of the worlds major economies that also suffered a recession in 2008? Did you know he also had the most rapid deficit reduction since ww2? How about one of the largest increases in the Dow? How about one of the largest drops in unemployment?

See you gotta balance out your rhetoric a bit so you don’t come off like such a partisan hack.

How about Dodd Frank and the many regulations applied that added transparency and oversight

Dodd Frank would have prevented banks from writing and buying crappy mortgages? Which part?

You complain about slowest recovery since world war 2 but I’ll take that over a depression wouldn’t you?

The recession ended in June 2009.
If the economy was growing, what would Obama have to do to drive us into a depression?

How did our recovery do compared to the rest of the worlds major economies that also suffered a recession in 2008?

Well, thanks to TARP, we started recapitalizing our banks very quickly.
Europe waited a lot longer, because they hate nasty rich people and banks even more than we do.

Did you know he also had the most rapid deficit reduction since ww2?

And still added $9.3 trillion to the debt.

Great then you tell me, was healthcare their only focus or did they work on other efforts? Which ones?

You tell me...did they work on immigration reform? Did they work on tax reform? If not...why not?

Asked and answered. They were pulling us out of a recession and trying to fix our financial institutions, corporations, save jobs, restore the housing market and do major healthcare reform... ya know little stuff like that. They tried for taxes and immigration afterward but by that time the obstructionists had taken power and those proposals became dead in the water

So answer me this, Slade? If they were really concerned with pulling us out of a recession...why would they first concentrate on healthcare...something that added uncertainty and costs to doing business drastically slowing down the recovery? Let's be honest here...it was TARP that kept US financials afloat and that was a George W. Bush thing. Obama and your progressives passed the Obama Stimulus...something that spent a whole lot of money and didn't come close to doing what they promised it would! The results were so bad in fact that they had to start using a new economic term "jobs created or saved" because they created so few jobs! They used stimulus money to reward their base with deals for unions, public sector workers and big campaign contributors like the guys running Solyndra.

I'm amused by your contention that they were too "busy" to deal with immigration reform or tax reform. The truth is...they never tried because they were rushing to pass things like ObamaCare and pushing for things like Cap & Trade which would have REALLY screwed up the recovery! They got voted out in the 2010 midterms because it had become painfully obvious that they cared more about passing their liberal agenda then they did about the millions of people in the Private Sector who were out of work and burning up their life's savings trying to stay afloat!

Is this your first bout with politics? If the Dems win in November can I use the same argument against Trump and criticize him for not doing the great infrastructure bill that he campaigned about?

I’m not a huge Obama fan when it comes to his policies. I liked him as a person but did think he could have done better executing many of his plans. But I’m being honest about how politics works. You don’t go after healthcare, immigration reform, and tax reform in the same year all while trying to pull the country out of a recession. You can criticize his policies all you want, you got plenty of ammo, but lose the critique about him not going after all the major reforms in his first two years. We both know that’s not realistic.

I'm amused by how you gloss over how the CHOICE of what they decided to concentrate on...despite what they knew would be a negative effect on the economy...isn't somehow their fault? To use an analogy...if your house was on fire...would you solely concentrate on things to put out the fire...or would you change the heating system and add insulation to the walls to make it more energy efficient? Granted...the latter choice might be a fine one if it weren't for the fire but it's an absolutely ludicrous choice if it were!

So you've got the US economy in a free fall...the equivalent of a house on fire...and what do you progressives concentrate on? Reforming the healthcare system? Passing Cap & Trade legislation to combat pollution? That was next up on your liberal agenda. Millions of Americans out of work and desperate for jobs...and Harry, Barry and Nancy want to pass Cap & Trade? They want to pass healthcare reform that makes it more expensive to do business in the US? Seriously? Then they wondered why they got (to use Obama's description!) "shellacked" in the mid term elections?

You'll have to explain why it's not "realistic" to have expected better choices by Democratic leaders when they were calling all the shots back in 2009!

Great then you tell me, was healthcare their only focus or did they work on other efforts? Which ones?

You tell me...did they work on immigration reform? Did they work on tax reform? If not...why not?

Asked and answered. They were pulling us out of a recession and trying to fix our financial institutions, corporations, save jobs, restore the housing market and do major healthcare reform... ya know little stuff like that. They tried for taxes and immigration afterward but by that time the obstructionists had taken power and those proposals became dead in the water

So answer me this, Slade? If they were really concerned with pulling us out of a recession...why would they first concentrate on healthcare...something that added uncertainty and costs to doing business drastically slowing down the recovery? Let's be honest here...it was TARP that kept US financials afloat and that was a George W. Bush thing. Obama and your progressives passed the Obama Stimulus...something that spent a whole lot of money and didn't come close to doing what they promised it would! The results were so bad in fact that they had to start using a new economic term "jobs created or saved" because they created so few jobs! They used stimulus money to reward their base with deals for unions, public sector workers and big campaign contributors like the guys running Solyndra.

I'm amused by your contention that they were too "busy" to deal with immigration reform or tax reform. The truth is...they never tried because they were rushing to pass things like ObamaCare and pushing for things like Cap & Trade which would have REALLY screwed up the recovery! They got voted out in the 2010 midterms because it had become painfully obvious that they cared more about passing their liberal agenda then they did about the millions of people in the Private Sector who were out of work and burning up their life's savings trying to stay afloat!

Is this your first bout with politics? If the Dems win in November can I use the same argument against Trump and criticize him for not doing the great infrastructure bill that he campaigned about?

I’m not a huge Obama fan when it comes to his policies. I liked him as a person but did think he could have done better executing many of his plans. But I’m being honest about how politics works. You don’t go after healthcare, immigration reform, and tax reform in the same year all while trying to pull the country out of a recession. You can criticize his policies all you want, you got plenty of ammo, but lose the critique about him not going after all the major reforms in his first two years. We both know that’s not realistic.

I'm amused by how you gloss over how the CHOICE of what they decided to concentrate on...despite what they knew would be a negative effect on the economy...isn't somehow their fault? To use an analogy...if your house was on fire...would you solely concentrate on things to put out the fire...or would you change the heating system and add insulation to the walls to make it more energy efficient? Granted...the latter choice might be a fine one if it weren't for the fire but it's an absolutely ludicrous choice if it were!

So you've got the US economy in a free fall...the equivalent of a house on fire...and what do you progressives concentrate on? Reforming the healthcare system? Passing Cap & Trade legislation to combat pollution? That was next up on your liberal agenda. Millions of Americans out of work and desperate for jobs...and Harry, Barry and Nancy want to pass Cap & Trade? They want to pass healthcare reform that makes it more expensive to do business in the US? Seriously? Then they wondered why they got (to use Obama's description!) "shellacked" in the mid term elections?

You'll have to explain why it's not "realistic" to have expected better choices by Democratic leaders when they were calling all the shots back in 2009!

Great then you tell me, was healthcare their only focus or did they work on other efforts? Which ones?

You tell me...did they work on immigration reform? Did they work on tax reform? If not...why not?

Asked and answered. They were pulling us out of a recession and trying to fix our financial institutions, corporations, save jobs, restore the housing market and do major healthcare reform... ya know little stuff like that. They tried for taxes and immigration afterward but by that time the obstructionists had taken power and those proposals became dead in the water

So answer me this, Slade? If they were really concerned with pulling us out of a recession...why would they first concentrate on healthcare...something that added uncertainty and costs to doing business drastically slowing down the recovery? Let's be honest here...it was TARP that kept US financials afloat and that was a George W. Bush thing. Obama and your progressives passed the Obama Stimulus...something that spent a whole lot of money and didn't come close to doing what they promised it would! The results were so bad in fact that they had to start using a new economic term "jobs created or saved" because they created so few jobs! They used stimulus money to reward their base with deals for unions, public sector workers and big campaign contributors like the guys running Solyndra.

I'm amused by your contention that they were too "busy" to deal with immigration reform or tax reform. The truth is...they never tried because they were rushing to pass things like ObamaCare and pushing for things like Cap & Trade which would have REALLY screwed up the recovery! They got voted out in the 2010 midterms because it had become painfully obvious that they cared more about passing their liberal agenda then they did about the millions of people in the Private Sector who were out of work and burning up their life's savings trying to stay afloat!

Is this your first bout with politics? If the Dems win in November can I use the same argument against Trump and criticize him for not doing the great infrastructure bill that he campaigned about?

I’m not a huge Obama fan when it comes to his policies. I liked him as a person but did think he could have done better executing many of his plans. But I’m being honest about how politics works. You don’t go after healthcare, immigration reform, and tax reform in the same year all while trying to pull the country out of a recession. You can criticize his policies all you want, you got plenty of ammo, but lose the critique about him not going after all the major reforms in his first two years. We both know that’s not realistic.

I'm amused by how you gloss over how the CHOICE of what they decided to concentrate on...despite what they knew would be a negative effect on the economy...isn't somehow their fault? To use an analogy...if your house was on fire...would you solely concentrate on things to put out the fire...or would you change the heating system and add insulation to the walls to make it more energy efficient? Granted...the latter choice might be a fine one if it weren't for the fire but it's an absolutely ludicrous choice if it were!

So you've got the US economy in a free fall...the equivalent of a house on fire...and what do you progressives concentrate on? Reforming the healthcare system? Passing Cap & Trade legislation to combat pollution? That was next up on your liberal agenda. Millions of Americans out of work and desperate for jobs...and Harry, Barry and Nancy want to pass Cap & Trade? They want to pass healthcare reform that makes it more expensive to do business in the US? Seriously? Then they wondered why they got (to use Obama's description!) "shellacked" in the mid term elections?

You'll have to explain why it's not "realistic" to have expected better choices by Democratic leaders when they were calling all the shots back in 2009!

As for the reduction in the deficit, of course that wasn’t all due to Obama.

Was any due to Obama?

The growing economy, despite the “slow growth” argument, was largely responsible for the reduction in deficits.

Imagine how much higher growth could have been without so many new regulations standing on the brakes for 8 years....

One can also make a case that lack of regulations on the financial sector lead to the crash. And to answer your question yes Obama gets credit, that’s how it works. The leader gets credit and blame for the countries successes and failures. You ignored a huge part of the conversation to inject your partisan spin again. Would you care to go back and address the fact that the deficit and descretionary spending trended downwards from 2009 through 2016

One can also make a case that lack of regulations on the financial sector lead to the crash.

Which added regulations would have prevented the crash?

And to answer your question yes Obama gets credit, that’s how it works.

I agree, $9.3 trillion added to the debt, slowest recovery since WWII.

Would you care to go back and address the fact that the deficit and descretionary spending trended downwards from 2009 through 2016

No. I'm still trying to figure out what Obama did to reduce either.

Well aren’t you the king of skirting around the issue. How annoying... which added regulations would have prevented the crash? How about Dodd Frank and the many regulations applied that added transparency and oversight on the financial institutions who’s wreckless actions where what caused the crash.

You complain about slowest recovery since world war 2 but I’ll take that over a depression wouldn’t you? How did our recovery do compared to the rest of the worlds major economies that also suffered a recession in 2008? Did you know he also had the most rapid deficit reduction since ww2? How about one of the largest increases in the Dow? How about one of the largest drops in unemployment?

See you gotta balance out your rhetoric a bit so you don’t come off like such a partisan hack.

How about Dodd Frank and the many regulations applied that added transparency and oversight

Dodd Frank would have prevented banks from writing and buying crappy mortgages? Which part?

You complain about slowest recovery since world war 2 but I’ll take that over a depression wouldn’t you?

The recession ended in June 2009.
If the economy was growing, what would Obama have to do to drive us into a depression?

How did our recovery do compared to the rest of the worlds major economies that also suffered a recession in 2008?

Well, thanks to TARP, we started recapitalizing our banks very quickly.
Europe waited a lot longer, because they hate nasty rich people and banks even more than we do.

Did you know he also had the most rapid deficit reduction since ww2?

And still added $9.3 trillion to the debt.

So is it your thing to answer questions with questions? Maybe instead of answering you I’ll just respond the same way you respond to me... what do you think about that?

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/death-tax-talking-point-wont-die/

 

[rshermn]

You tell me...did they work on immigration reform? Did they work on tax reform? If not...why not?

Asked and answered. They were pulling us out of a recession and trying to fix our financial institutions, corporations, save jobs, restore the housing market and do major healthcare reform... ya know little stuff like that. They tried for taxes and immigration afterward but by that time the obstructionists had taken power and those proposals became dead in the water

So answer me this, Slade? If they were really concerned with pulling us out of a recession...why would they first concentrate on healthcare...something that added uncertainty and costs to doing business drastically slowing down the recovery? Let's be honest here. ..it was TARP that kept US financials afloat and that was a George W. Bush thing. Ah, yes. Tarp helped some, but only cons would suggest that it pulled the US out of a Depression.
TARP Did Not Save Us From A Great Depression, It Nearly Created One
Jim Boswell,
Quanta Analytics
TARP Did Not Save Us From A Great Depression, It Nearly Created One
If you try to look at history, and analyze history, instead of simply posting conservative talking points, you get a different outlook on the world.

Obama and your progressives passed the Obama Stimulus...something that spent a whole lot of money and didn't come close to doing what they promised it would!
So you say. But you are wrong, again simply carrying the water of the Republican party by posting nonsensical con talking points. Lets see what an impartial source suggests the ACCA accomplished through:
Of all the myths and falsehoods that Republicans have spread about President Obama, the most pernicious and long-lasting is that the $832 billion stimulus package did not work. Since 2009, Republican lawmakers have inextricably linked the words “failed” and “stimulus,” and last week, five years after passage of the Recovery Act, they dusted off their old playbook again.
“The ‘stimulus’ has turned out to be a classic case of big promises and big spending with little results,” wrote Speaker John Boehner. “Five years and hundreds of billions of dollars later, millions of families are still asking, ‘where are the jobs?’ ”

The stimulus could have done more good had it been bigger and more carefully constructed. But put simply, it prevented a second recession that could have turned into a depression. It created or saved an average of 1.6 million jobs a year for four years. (There are the jobs, Mr. Boehner.) It raised the nation’s economic output by 2 to 3 percent from 2009 to 2011. It prevented a significant increase in poverty — without it, 5.3 million additional people would have become poor in 2010.
Opinion | What the Stimulus Accomplished
And below, more con talking points:
The results were so bad in fact that they had to start using a new economic term "jobs created or saved" because they created so few jobs! They used stimulus money to reward their base with deals for unions, public sector workers and big campaign contributors like the guys running Solyndra.


I'm amused by your contention that they were too "busy" to deal with immigration reform or tax reform. The truth is...they never tried because they were rushing to pass things like ObamaCare and pushing for things like Cap & Trade which would have REALLY screwed up the recovery! Any proof, of that, me boy?? They got voted out in the 2010 midterms because it had become painfully obvious that they cared more about passing their liberal agenda then they did about the millions of people in the Private Sector who were out of work and burning up their life's savings trying to stay afloat!

Is this your first bout with politics? If the Dems win in November can I use the same argument against Trump and criticize him for not doing the great infrastructure bill that he campaigned about?

I’m not a huge Obama fan when it comes to his policies. No, you are, and always have been, a con troll. You do not like anything done by Democrats. I liked him as a person but did think he could have done better executing many of his plans. But I’m being honest about how politics works. You don’t go after healthcare, immigration reform, and tax reform in the same year all while trying to pull the country out of a recession. You can criticize his policies all you want, you got plenty of ammo, but lose the critique about him not going after all the major reforms in his first two years. We both know that’s not realistic.

I'm amused by how you gloss over how the CHOICE of what they decided to concentrate on...despite what they knew would be a negative effect on the economy...isn't somehow their fault? To use an analogy...if your house was on fire...would you solely concentrate on things to put out the fire...or would you change the heating system and add insulation to the walls to make it more energy efficient? Granted...the latter choice might be a fine one if it weren't for the fire but it's an absolutely ludicrous choice if it were!

So you've got the US economy in a free fall...

No, it is not that easy. We did not just "have a US economy in free fall" We had an economy that was caused by a republican administration that loved seeing the financial sector of the economy having a really unrestrained feeding frenzy, CAUSING the free fall. So, you need to do something about it. or allow it to evolve into a great depression. the equivalent of a house on fire...and what do you progressives concentrate on? Reforming the healthcare system? Passing Cap & Trade legislation to combat pollution? That was next up on your liberal agenda. Millions of Americans out of work and desperate for jobs...and Harry, Barry and Nancy want to pass Cap & Trade? They want to pass healthcare reform that makes it more expensive to do business in the US? Seriously? Then they wondered why they got (to use Obama's description!) "shellacked" in the mid term elections?

You'll have to explain why it's not "realistic" to have expected better choices by Democratic leaders when they were calling all the shots back in 2009!

Ah, as a history major you forgot about the great Republican Meeting on the eve of Obama taking the presidency. You know, the late night meeting when Republican Leadership decided to block anything that Obama tried to pass during his presidency. And the fact that they did indeed block every effort that they could for the next 8 years.
But, the Obama stimulus, as you call it, had major effects. Consider the final report card, done annually by Factcheck.org, So, there you go, the good and bad of the obama stimulus, along with the republican efforts to block anything that Obama did.
You suggest you are a student of politics. If so, you would know that any president can do only what congress agrees to help him with. And republicans agreed to help in NO cases. Perhaps you can help me find the bills passed by congress during that time that helped the bad economy. Cause most can find none.
So, instead of spending all of your time in bat shit crazy con web sites pulling out conservative talking points, perhaps you could spend some time in an impartial site that provides you with the actual results.

ARTICLES
Obama’s Final Numbers

Statistical indicators of President Obama's eight years in office.

By Brooks Jackson

Posted on September 29, 2017 | Updated on February 14, 2018

[/paste:font]
Analysis
Gathering statistics is a painstaking and time-consuming job. Figures on crime, household incomes and poverty in 2016 weren’t released until September 2017, for example.

But now we have a reasonably complete statistical picture of the Obama years, which began in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and ended with the highest level of household income ever recorded.

These facts often turn out to be at odds with the impressions created by candidates who, for example, claimed wages and incomes were stagnant when in fact they were rising. The facts also can conflict with impressions created by news media reporting dramatic but untypical events. Despite nonstop coverage of several mass shootings, for example, the murder rate was going down for most of the Obama years, hitting the lowest ever recorded in 2014.

Some of these figures remain subject to tweaks and revisions. Figures on handgun production in 2016 are still “preliminary,” for example, and others will remain subject to slight revisions for years to come, as statisticians routinely refine their methods and assumptions. We will keep this update current as necessary in the months and years to come. For now, it’s as “final” as possible.

Update, Feb. 14, 2018: We updated this article and its graphics to reflect that the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ annual “benchmarking” revisions added more than 150,000 jobs to its previously reported figure for January 2017, bringing the total added under Obama to more than 11.6 million (up from 11.5 million), an 8.7 percent increase (up from 8.6 percent).

We also updated a graphic in the “Immigration” section to reflect that the U.S. Border Patrol revised its figures on people caught while illegally trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border upward by four for calendar year 2016.

Jobs and Unemployment
Jobs — Over Obama’s eight years in office, the economy added a net total of more than 11.6 million jobs — a gain in total nonfarm employment of 8.7 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.



That percentage gain is not as large as for most other administrations since the end of World War II.

In fact, the only other post-war administrations to see smaller gains in employment were those of Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, who eked out a bare 1 percent gain, Dwight D. Eisenhower (7.1 percent in his eight years), and Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush (2.5 percent during his four years).

Jimmy Carter saw a much stronger employment gain — 12.8 percent — despite the fact that his administration lasted only four years, half as long as Obama’s.

Note: For these historical comparisons, we’ve begun with the inauguration of Harry Truman in 1949, when he became the first president elected after the end of World War II. For simplicity, we’ve combined the administrations of Democrats John F. Kennedy and his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson (who took office after Kennedy was assassinated), and of Republicans Richard Nixon and his successor, Gerald Ford (who served out the remainder of Nixon’s second term after Nixon resigned), as though each were single eight-year administrations.

In our graphics, we show Republican administrations in red, Democratic administrations in blue.

Obama had the unique disadvantage of taking office in the midst of theworst financial crisis since the Great Depression. More than 4 million jobs were lost in his first year in office, on top of the 4 million lost in George W. Bush’s final year.

To be sure, Bush’s eight years were marked by two recessions, including one that began two months after he took office in 2001. That helps explain why job creation on his watch was by far the worst of any post-war administration.

Both Bush and Obama also were bucking strong demographic trends. The surging percentages of women entering the job market, which started in the 1960s, peaked at the end of the Clinton administration. Also, “baby boomers” — those born in the years after WWII veterans returned from the war to take up family life — reached retirement age in great numbers during Obama’s time.

Labor Force Participation — Because of these and other factors, relatively fewer people said they wanted to work. Under Obama, the labor force — those either working or actively looking for a job — slipped from 65.7 percent of those age 16 and older to 62.9 percent.

Job Openings — With relatively fewer people seeking employment, a job shortage changed to a worker shortage under Obama. The Department of Labor reported that the number of unfilled job openings more than doubled during Obama’s time, hitting just under 6 million in July 2016. That was at the time the highest in the more than 16 years that Labor Department statisticians had tracked this number.

Before Obama’s tenure, the only time job openings topped 5 million was January 2001. During Obama’s second term, there were 26 months with over 5 million openings. It has since continued to rise, topping 6 million for the first time in June 2017, under President Donald Trump.

Unemployment — The unemployment rate was high when Obama took office — 7.8 percent — and it continued to get worse in his first year. It peaked at 10 percent in October 2009 and didn’t drop below 9 percent until two years after that.

But slowly, and more or less steadily, the rate improved. By the time Obama left office, the jobless rate had dropped 3 full percentage points, an improvement exceeded only by the slightly bigger declines during the Clinton and Kennedy-Johnson administrations.



By the time Obama left office, the jobless rate was down to 4.8 percent — well below the historical norm of 5.6 percent (the median rate for all the months since Truman’s inauguration in January 1949).

But getting down to that point was a long, slow grind. So slow that over all of Obama’s 96 months in office, the median jobless rate was 7.7 percent — the highest for any administration since the end of World War II.


Obama’s experience is similar to that of Ronald Reagan — who presided over the second highest median jobless rate, 7.2 percent.

In Reagan’s first term, unemployment peaked at 10.8 percent — higher than Obama’s 10 percent peak. And under Reagan, it stayed at or above 10 percent for 10 straight months starting in September 1982 — compared with Obama’s one-month high of 10 percent.

Like Obama, Reagan also saw the rate decline steadily after the worst was over.

By the time Reagan left office in January 1989, the rate was down to 5.4 percent, not far above Obama’s final month at 4.8 percent.

Both Obama and Reagan left office with job approval ratings above 50 percent.

Income and Poverty
The inflation-adjusted incomes of American households reached the highest level ever recorded under Obama. The Census Bureau’s measure of median household income reached $59,039 in 2016. That was $2,963 more in “real” (inflation-adjusted) dollars than in 2008, for an overall gain of 5.3 percent.
The median figure represents the midpoint — half of all households earned more, half less. And while real median income hit a record level in Obama’s final year, it was a long, rough road to the top.

In fact, the 5.3 percent gain under Obama barely made up for the 4.2 percent loss under his predecessor. And for his first six years in office, median income was below the level in 2008.

Obama’s 5.3 percent gain was less than the 13.9 percent gain under Bill Clinton, and the 8.1 percent gain under Reagan. It is also pushed up to a degree by a change in the Census Bureau’s survey questions in 2014, designed to correct for under-reporting of certain types of income in previous years.

The trend to higher incomes also shows up in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ monthly report on average weekly earnings for all workers, adjusted for inflation. That figure, which includes salaried managers and supervisors, was 4.1 percent higher in the month Obama left office than it was in the month he first entered the White House. It was 3.7 percent higher for just production and nonsupervisory employees.

As incomes rose, the rate of poverty declined. The percentage of Americans living with income below the official poverty line went down to 12.7 percent of the population in 2016, a half-point drop compared with 2008.



That decline also wasn’t nearly enough to reverse the 1.9 percentage point rise in poverty under George W. Bush, and it was far less than the 3.5 percentage point decline under Clinton.

And even though the rate of poverty went down under Obama, the number of people in poverty rose — just not as fast as the population in general. In 2016, just over 40.6 million Americans were still living below the poverty line, an increase of 787,000 people compared with 2008. Under George W. Bush, the number went up by more than 8 million, after going down by more than 6 million under Clinton.

Home Prices
Home values rebounded under Obama, reaching a new high in his final year.

Sales figures from the National Association of Realtors show the national median price of an existing, single-family home was $235,500 in 2016. That was $38,900 higher than in 2008, an increase of 19.8 percent under Obama.

The 2016 figure was a record, but only in raw dollars, without accounting for inflation. Prices reached their pre-recession high in 2006. In the decade between then and Obama’s final year, home prices rose 6.1 percent, while the Consumer Price Index rose 19 percent.

Home Ownership
The home ownership rate drifted down under Obama, touching the lowest point in more than half a century during his final year.

In the second quarter of 2016, 62.9 percent of households owned their own home, according to Census Bureau figures. That ties the lowest point since the Census Bureau began collecting the figures. The last time the rate was that low was in the third quarter of 1965.

The home ownership rate began its slide after peaking at 69.2 percent in the second quarter of 2004. It already had come down 1.7 percentage points before Obama took office, but it went down by a greater amount in his two terms as president.

In Obama’s last quarter, the rate rebounded to 63.7 percent, as the economy improved and sales of new and existing homes hit their best pace since before Obama entered office. But the ownership rate was still 3.8 percentage points lower than the quarter before he took office.

Food Stamps
The number of people receiving food aid under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as “food stamps”) rose by a third under Obama.

In Obama’s last month in office, there were just under 42.7 million Americans receiving SNAP assistance, a gain of 10.7 million or just under 33.5 percent from January 2009.

The number grew as the 2007-2009 recession threw millions out of work, as benefit levels were boosted for several years by the stimulus legislation Obama signed in 2009. The average benefit per person went up from around $113 per person in January 2009 to around $134 in July.

At the peak of food stamp enrollment in December 2012, a total of 47.8 million were receiving aid, an increase of nearly 16 million or 49 percent.

But then millions melted from the rolls as employment and incomes improved, and as Congress cut benefit levels, which dropped to a monthly average of around $124 per person in Obama’s final month.

Measured from his first month to his last, benefit levels and enrollment both grew less under Obama than under his predecessor.

Under George W. Bush, the number of people getting food stamps grew by 14.7 million, or 85 percent (compared with the 10.7 million, 33 percent gain under Obama). The average monthly benefit per person grew from $73.89 in the month Bush took office to $113.60 the month he left. That’s a 54 percent increase, compared with the 9 percent gain at the end of Obama’s time in office.

Corporate Profits
Corporations did much better than workers during Obama’s time. Their profits hit several new yearly highs during his tenure.



Profits had surged under George W. Bush as well, but when Obama took office they had plunged from their previous peak in 2006, due to the financial crisis and ensuing economic downturn. Then they recovered quickly under Obama — far more quickly than jobs or personal incomes — and reached a new record in 2010, his second year in office.

From there they climbed even higher, setting more new annual records in 2012, 2013 and 2014, when they reached $1.74 trillion.

Profits slipped a bit in 2015, but in Obama’s final year profits were still $1.69 trillion — not far below the 2014 record and 57.3 percent higher than in 2008, the year before he took office.

That gain was higher than during all but three other post-war administrations, behind the 122.7 percent gain under George W. Bush, the 124.5 percent gain during the Nixon-Ford years and the 87.5 percent gain during the Kennedy-Johnson years. It was only slightly higher than the 57.0 percent gain during Truman’s final, four-year term.



Technical note: There are several ways to measure corporate profits. We present here the same historical measure followed by Federal Reserve Bank economists, which gauges profits of U.S. corporations from all their global operations, after taxes and without adjustments for inflation, inventory changes or changes in capital (such as depreciation.) Annual figures go back to 1929, and can be found on line 45 of BEA’s “National Income by Types of Income” table (Table 1.12).

Stock Prices
Owners of corporate stocks also did quite well under Obama. The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock average more than doubled — rising by 166 percent during his eight years in office.


Among post-war administrations, that’s second only to the 209 percent rise in the S&P index during Clinton’s two terms, and it handily outpaced the 114 percent gain under Reagan.

To some extent, the gain under Obama represents a rebound from an unusually depressed level. The financial crisis of 2007-2009 caused stock prices to plunge. By George W. Bush’s last day in office, the S&P 500 stood 37 percent below where it had been on the last trading day before he first took office in 2001.

Other stock market indexes tell similar stories. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 138 percent under Obama after falling 22 percent under his predecessor, for example.

Some of the gain took place in the weeks just after Trump was elected, a“Trump Rally” that many attribute at least partly to investor optimism that the president-elect would, once in office, cut taxes and regulation as promised. But the S&P rise between Election Day and Obama’s last day in office was just under 6 percent — a small fraction of the entire gain during Obama’s tenure. Stock prices already had set record after record before Trump’s election, as we have written before.

Debt and Deficits
The federal debt more than doubled under Obama, and he left Trump a legacy of worsening deficits.

Debt — On the day Obama left office, the U.S. government’s debt owed to the public was more than $14.4 trillion, an increase of more than 128 percent during his eight years.

The debt also has grown dramatically even when measured as a percentage of the growing economy, from 52.3 percent of gross domestic product at the end of fiscal year 2009 to 77.0 percent as of the end of fiscal year 2016 on Sept. 30, 2016, according to historical budget figures from the Office of Management and Budget.

Deficits — Under Obama, annual federal deficits fell, but then turned up again.

The deficit hit $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2009. As we’ve documented elsewhere, Obama inherited most of that deficit and signed spending measures that contributed as much as $203 billion to FY 2009’s red ink.

After that, the yearly deficits declined markedly for several years. In fiscal year 2015, the deficit was $438 billion, a drop of 69 percent from FY 2009.

But deficits were again on the rise as Obama left office. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in June 2017 that the deficit for FY 2017 — which ends Sept. 30 and is the last one for which Obama signed spending bills — will increase to $693 billion.

CBO also projects that under current law, annual deficits will again exceed $1 trillion in 2022 and beyond. As things stand, federal debt owed to the public will reach 80 percent of GDP in 2020, and more than 91 percent in 2027, CBO projects.

Health Insurance
Coverage — Millions of Americans gained health insurance coverage as a result of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

The percentage of all U.S. residents who lack coverage dropped sharply, from 14.7 percent the year before Obama entered the White House to 9.0 percent in his final year — the lowest on record. Nevertheless, those gains fell far short of Obama’s 2007 campaign promise to “cover every American.”


Our data come from the National Health Interview Survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has tracked health insurance coverage on a reasonably consistent basis since 1997.

According to NHIS figures, 43.8 million Americans of all ages lacked health insurance in 2008, but in 2016 that number was down to 28.6 million — a drop of 15.2 million people.

The number of uninsured actually rose during the first two years of Obama’s time, reaching 48.6 million in 2010. That’s because of the Great Recession of 2007-2009, when millions of workers lost their jobs, and any health insurance benefits that went with them.

The number of uninsured drifted down after that, as the economy slowly recovered. But then it dropped sharply beginning in 2014, the first year that the ACA’s main provisions took effect. Those provisions required that individuals obtain coverage or pay a tax penalty, made government-paid Medicaid available more widely to millions of additional low-income people, and provided government subsidies to help those further up the income scale pay for private insurance.

Premiums — Obama also failed to deliver on his campaign promise to “lower your premiums by up to $2,500 per family per year.” For the typical worker, premiums continued to rise faster than wages or inflation, though more slowly than before.

Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance (which covers nearly56 percent of the population, according to Census figures) rose 43 percent under Obama for family policies, and 37 percent for policies covering a single person.


That information comes from annual surveys by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Education Trust, which is the nonprofit research arm of the American Hospital Association.

To be sure, premiums rose twice as fast before Obama took office. Family rates rose 97 percent and single-coverage rates rose 90 percent during George W. Bush’s eight years in office.

But the rise under Obama continued to outpace the average weekly earnings of all employees (up 20 percent under Obama) and the rise inconsumer prices (up 15 percent).

The effect on take-home pay for workers was made even larger because employers picked up a somewhat smaller share of the total cost of health coverage on average.



Under Obama, the worker portion of annual health insurance premiums rose by $1,923 for a family policy, and $408 for single coverage. Both those figures represented a 57 percent increase during his eight years in office.

Obama promised to lower premiums when he first ran for the White House. “We’re going to work with your employers to lower your premiums by up to $2,500 per family, per year,” he said. At another point, he said, “We will start by reducing premiums by as much as $2,500 per family.” Aides said when Obama spoke of “lowering” or “reducing” premiums he really meant that he would reduce the rate of growth, though he did not make that clear when speaking to voters.

Immigration
The flow of people caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegallyslowed markedly under Obama. In his final year, the U.S. Border Patrol apprehended just under 443,000, down 35 percent from the year before he took office.

Though it’s impossible to know how many illegal crossings went undetected, the number of those apprehended is the best available indicator of the overall trend.



The percentage decline under Obama was far less than the 58 percent decline under George W. Bush, who nearly doubled the number of agents stationed at the Southwest border. Under funding levels established by Bush, the number grew from 9,147 agents in fiscal year 2001 to 17,408 in FY 2009 (which began Oct. 1, 2008).

Under Obama, that number continued to increase, hitting a peak of 18,611 in FY 2013. The number then declined to 17,026 in fiscal year 2016.

Meanwhile, the number of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally actually fell, from an estimated 11.7 million in 2008, to an estimated 11.0 million in 2015, according to the Pew Research Center. That’s a decline of roughly 700,000, or 6 percent.

Similarly, the Center for Migration Studies estimated that the population of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally dropped from 11,460,000 in 2008 to 11,045,000 in 2015, a decline of 415,000, or 3.6 percent. The CMS study attributed the decline to tighter airline security, increased enforcement at the border and improving economic conditions in Mexico.

Such estimates are inexact; those breaking the law by being here can’t be expected to confess that to Census officials. But demographers have applied consistent methodologies from year to year, and agree that the trend has been downward.

Energy
Oil — U.S. crude oil production, mainly due to advances in drilling technology, surged under Obama, helping to drive down fuel prices. In 2016, the U.S. produced 77 percent more crude oil than it did in 2008.

As a result, U.S. reliance on imported oil dropped by more than half. In 2016, the U.S. imported only 24.8 percent of the petroleum and refined products that it consumed, down from 57 percent in 2008. In 2015, it imported 24.1 percent, which was the lowest annual level of dependency on imports since 1970.

Wind & Solar — Wind and solar power has more than quadrupled under Obama. Electricity generated by large-scale wind and solar power facilities increased by 369 percent during the Obama years.

The increase in solar power in particular has been spectacular. The U.S. generated nearly 43 times more electricity from solar power in 2016 than in 2008.

Wind and solar accounted for 6.5 percent of total large-scale generation in 2016, up from a mere 1.4 percent in 2008. Wind and solar now account for as large a share as hydroelectric power, also at 6.5 percent of the total.

These figures are for “utility scale” electricity generation. In 2014, EIA also began tracking small-scale (under 1 megawatt) “distributed” solar voltaic generation, such as the power produced by rooftop systems installed by homeowners. In 2016, wind and solar accounted for 6.9 percent of the combined total of utility-scale power and “distributed” solar power.

Coal — As wind and solar rose, coal declined. Obama put forth new restrictions that his administration called a “Clean Power Plan,” and his critics dubbed a “war on coal.”

In 2016, U.S. coal production was 728 million metric tons, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That’s a decline of 38 percent since 2008.

During the Obama years, electric utilities shifted away from burning coal, which accounted for 48 percent of their power generation in 2008, but only 30 percent in 2016. The share supplied by burning natural gas went up from 21 percent to 34 percent, and the share supplied by nuclear plants remained steady at just under 20 percent.

Carbon Emissions — Meanwhile, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere from U.S. energy-related sources has declined during Obama’s time.

Between 2008 and 2016, the amount of carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels went down 11 percent, according to estimates from the EIA.

Emissions have been falling even as the economy has been growing, in part because utilities — driven by lower natural gas prices and government regulations — have been burning more natural gas and less coal. Emissions from electric power plants in 2016 were the lowest since 1988, according to EIA figures.

Trade
Obama promised in his 2010 State of the Union address to “double our exports over the next five years.” That didn’t happen.

Instead, as the economies of major U.S. trading partners struggled, so did U.S. exports.

During the full eight years of Obama’s presidency, annual exports of goods and services rose by just under 20 percent (and actually declined in 2015 and 2016).

Meanwhile imports grew even more slowly, by just 6.4 percent, and so the U.S. trade deficit shrunk by nearly 29 percent.

Guns
Obama campaigned on a promise to reinstate the “assault weapon” ban that expired in 2004, but that didn’t happen either. As president, he alsoproposed several new gun laws that never passed.

Instead, annual U.S. handgun production nearly tripled, as millions of Americans flocked to buy firearms.


In 2016, production of pistols and revolvers totaled 5,314,511, according tointerim figures released in June by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. That’s an increase of 192 percent over the figure for 2008, and it broke the previous record set in 2013.

The government doesn’t collect figures on sales of guns. But the National Shooting Sports Foundation — the gun industry’s trade group — tracks approximate sales figures by adjusting FBI statistics on background checks to remove those not related to actual sales, such as checks required for concealed-carry permits.

Those NSSF-adjusted figures also set a record in Obama’s final year, topping 15.7 million. That’s an increase of 75 percent above the 2008 level.

These figures cover rifles and shotguns and previously owned weapons, as well as new handguns. They are only an approximation of actual sales, since some of these checks cover purchases of multiple weapons, and of course some sales still occur without background checks.

Crime
Despite more than a score of mass shootings, crime declined substantially overall during the Obama years.

The FBI’s crime statistics show the number of violent crimes in 2016 was 10.5 percent lower than the number in 2008, and the number of property crimes dropped 19 percent.

Meanwhile the population increased by more than 6 percent, so the rateof crime dropped even more. The number of violent crimes per 100,000 population was nearly 16 percent lower in 2016 than in 2008, and the property crime rate dropped nearly 24 percent.

Among violent crimes the biggest drop was a nearly 30 percent reduction in robberies. But the murder rate dropped hardly at all — declining from 5.4 per 100,000 in 2008 to 5.3 in 2016.

Earlier, in 2014, the murder rate had dropped to the lowest level on record — 4.4 per 100,000 — but it rose in Obama’s final two years in office.



Car Mileage
Obama set a goal of doubling the fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks, but that promise isn’t working out. Although he put in place a regulatory requirement that cars and light trucks average 54.5 miles per gallon by model year 2025, car buyers had other ideas.

For light duty vehicles actually purchased, the average EPA city/highway sticker mileage has been stuck at 25.1 mpg for model years 2014, 2015 and 2016, according to the Transportation Research Institute of the University of Michigan.

Model year 2017 isn’t looking any different. Vehicles sold during Obama’s final month in office also averaged 25.1 mpg — only 20 percent above where it was eight years earlier. Meanwhile, the Obama mileageregulations are under review by the new administration.

Guantanamo
During Obama’s final 20 days in office another 18 prisoners were released from the military detention camp for suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and shipped to other countries. That brought the total number remaining to 41.

When he first took office, Obama ordered the facility to be closed within a year. But Congress balked, and in the end Obama was able to accomplish an 83 percent reduction in the head count over eight years.

War Deaths
During Obama’s time in office, 2,035 U.S. military personnel died as a result of the Afghan war and the fighting in and around Iraq, according tofigures kept by iCasualties.org.

Between Jan. 20, 2009, and Jan. 20, 2017, there were 1,751 U.S. military fatalities connected to the Afghan war, which became America’s longest war in 2010 and still has no end in sight.

Also during Obama’s time, there were 284 fatalities connected to the conflict in Iraq. He pulled all U.S. troops out of Iraq at the end of 2011, but began sending them back in 2014 after Islamic State fighters swooped in and captured large sections of the country.

Editor’s Note: In January, we plan to publish our first quarterly report on President Donald Trump.

Sources
Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National); Total Nonfarm Employment, Seasonally Adjusted.” Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey; Unemployment Rate, Seasonally Adjusted.” Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey: Job Openings, Seasonally Adjusted.” Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey; Labor Force Participation Rate.” Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

U.S. Census Bureau. “Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016.” 12 Sep 2017.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National); Average Weekly Earnings of All Employees, 1982-1984 Dollars.” Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

National Association of Realtors. “Sales Price of Existing Single-Family Homes.” 20 Sep 2017.

U.S. Census Bureau. “Time Series: Not Seasonally Adjusted Home Ownership Rate.” Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Data as of Sept. 8 2017).” Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) data, fiscal years 1968-2017.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Table 6.19D. Corporate Profits After Tax by Industry.” 3 Aug 2017. Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers.” Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

S&P Dow Jones Indices, “500 and DJI Daily Historical,” proprietary data furnished upon request and used with permission under academic license. 29 Aug 2017.

U.S. Treasury. “The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It.” Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

Office of Management and Budget. “Table 7.1—Federal Debt at the End of Year: 1940–2022.” May 2017.

Congressional Budget Office. “An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2017 to 2027″ Table 1. 29 Jun 2017.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; National Health Interview Survey. “Early Release of Selected Estimates Based on Data From the 2016 National Health Interview Survey.” May 2017.

Kaiser Family Foundation. “Premiums and Worker Contributions Among Workers Covered by Employer-Sponsored Coverage, 1999-2017.” 19 Sep 2017.

U.S. Border Patrol. “Total Illegal Alien Apprehensions By Month” Fiscal Years 2000-2016. Undated. Accessed 25 Sep 2017.

U.S. Border Patrol. “U.S. Border Patrol Apprehensions FY2017 YTD(October 1 – August 31).” Undated. Accessed 25 Sep 2017.

U.S. Border Patrol. “Border Patrol Agent Staffing by Fiscal Year.” 1 Oct 2016.

Passel, Jeffrey et al. “Table A1: Unauthorized Immigrant Population.” Pew Research Center. 3 Sep 2014.

Passel, Jeffrey et al. “As Mexican share declined, U.S. unauthorized immigrant population fell in 2015 below recession level.” Pew Research Center. 25 April 2017.

Warren, Robert. “Zero Undocumented Population Growth Is Here to Stay and Immigration Reform Would Preserve and Extend These Gains.” Center for Migration Studies. Jun 2017.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. “U.S. Crude Oil Production.” Short Term Energy Outlook. 12 Sep 2017. Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Table 3.3a Petroleum Trade: Overview.” Monthly Energy Review. 28 Aug 2017.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. Electric Power Monthly, “Table 1.1.A. Net Generation from Renewable Sources: Total (All Sectors), 2007-July 2017.” 26 Sep 2017.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Coal Production; Total U.S.” Short Term Energy Outlook. 12 Sep 2017. Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Table 12.1 Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Energy Consumption by Source,” Monthly Energy Review. 28 Aug 2017.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Affairs. “Table 1. U.S. International Transactions: Exports, Imports and Balances.” 6 Sep 2017.

U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Export Report,” Year 2016 Interim.” 27 Jun 2017.

U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Export Report,” Year 2008.” 8 Mar 2011.

National Shooting Sports Foundation. “NSSF-Adjusted NICS – Historical Monthly Chart” Proprietary data supplied on request. 25 Sep 2017.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Crime in the United States 2016.” Table 1. 25 Sep 2017.

Sivak, Michael and Brandon Schoettle. “Average sales-weighted fuel-economy rating (window sticker) of purchased new vehicles for October 2007 through August 2017.” University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. 5 Sep 2017, Accessed 25 Sep 2017.

New York Times. The Guantanamo Docket. “Timeline: A chronology of detainees’ arrivals, transfers and deaths.” 27 Sep 2017.

iCasualties.org. “Operation Enduring Freedom; Afghanistan Coalition Military Fatalities .” Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

iCasualties.org. “Operation Iraqi Freedom; Iraq Coalition Military Fatalities.” Data extracted 27 Sep 2017.

As for the reduction in the deficit, of course that wasn’t all due to Obama.

Was any due to Obama?

The growing economy, despite the “slow growth” argument, was largely responsible for the reduction in deficits.

Imagine how much higher growth could have been without so many new regulations standing on the brakes for 8 years....

One can also make a case that lack of regulations on the financial sector lead to the crash. And to answer your question yes Obama gets credit, that’s how it works. The leader gets credit and blame for the countries successes and failures. You ignored a huge part of the conversation to inject your partisan spin again. Would you care to go back and address the fact that the deficit and descretionary spending trended downwards from 2009 through 2016

One can also make a case that lack of regulations on the financial sector lead to the crash.

Which added regulations would have prevented the crash?

And to answer your question yes Obama gets credit, that’s how it works.

I agree, $9.3 trillion added to the debt, slowest recovery since WWII.

Would you care to go back and address the fact that the deficit and descretionary spending trended downwards from 2009 through 2016

No. I'm still trying to figure out what Obama did to reduce either.

Well aren’t you the king of skirting around the issue. How annoying... which added regulations would have prevented the crash? How about Dodd Frank and the many regulations applied that added transparency and oversight on the financial institutions who’s wreckless actions where what caused the crash.

You complain about slowest recovery since world war 2 but I’ll take that over a depression wouldn’t you? How did our recovery do compared to the rest of the worlds major economies that also suffered a recession in 2008? Did you know he also had the most rapid deficit reduction since ww2? How about one of the largest increases in the Dow? How about one of the largest drops in unemployment?

See you gotta balance out your rhetoric a bit so you don’t come off like such a partisan hack.

How about Dodd Frank and the many regulations applied that added transparency and oversight

Dodd Frank would have prevented banks from writing and buying crappy mortgages? Which part?

You complain about slowest recovery since world war 2 but I’ll take that over a depression wouldn’t you?

The recession ended in June 2009.
If the economy was growing, what would Obama have to do to drive us into a depression?

How did our recovery do compared to the rest of the worlds major economies that also suffered a recession in 2008?

Well, thanks to TARP, we started recapitalizing our banks very quickly.
Europe waited a lot longer, because they hate nasty rich people and banks even more than we do.

Did you know he also had the most rapid deficit reduction since ww2?

And still added $9.3 trillion to the debt.

You tell me...did they work on immigration reform? Did they work on tax reform? If not...why not?

Asked and answered. They were pulling us out of a recession and trying to fix our financial institutions, corporations, save jobs, restore the housing market and do major healthcare reform... ya know little stuff like that. They tried for taxes and immigration afterward but by that time the obstructionists had taken power and those proposals became dead in the water

So answer me this, Slade? If they were really concerned with pulling us out of a recession...why would they first concentrate on healthcare...something that added uncertainty and costs to doing business drastically slowing down the recovery? Let's be honest here...it was TARP that kept US financials afloat and that was a George W. Bush thing. Obama and your progressives passed the Obama Stimulus...something that spent a whole lot of money and didn't come close to doing what they promised it would! The results were so bad in fact that they had to start using a new economic term "jobs created or saved" because they created so few jobs! They used stimulus money to reward their base with deals for unions, public sector workers and big campaign contributors like the guys running Solyndra.

I'm amused by your contention that they were too "busy" to deal with immigration reform or tax reform. The truth is...they never tried because they were rushing to pass things like ObamaCare and pushing for things like Cap & Trade which would have REALLY screwed up the recovery! They got voted out in the 2010 midterms because it had become painfully obvious that they cared more about passing their liberal agenda then they did about the millions of people in the Private Sector who were out of work and burning up their life's savings trying to stay afloat!

Is this your first bout with politics? If the Dems win in November can I use the same argument against Trump and criticize him for not doing the great infrastructure bill that he campaigned about?

I’m not a huge Obama fan when it comes to his policies. I liked him as a person but did think he could have done better executing many of his plans. But I’m being honest about how politics works. You don’t go after healthcare, immigration reform, and tax reform in the same year all while trying to pull the country out of a recession. You can criticize his policies all you want, you got plenty of ammo, but lose the critique about him not going after all the major reforms in his first two years. We both know that’s not realistic.

I'm amused by how you gloss over how the CHOICE of what they decided to concentrate on...despite what they knew would be a negative effect on the economy...isn't somehow their fault? To use an analogy...if your house was on fire...would you solely concentrate on things to put out the fire...or would you change the heating system and add insulation to the walls to make it more energy efficient? Granted...the latter choice might be a fine one if it weren't for the fire but it's an absolutely ludicrous choice if it were!

So you've got the US economy in a free fall...the equivalent of a house on fire...and what do you progressives concentrate on? Reforming the healthcare system? Passing Cap & Trade legislation to combat pollution? That was next up on your liberal agenda. Millions of Americans out of work and desperate for jobs...and Harry, Barry and Nancy want to pass Cap & Trade? They want to pass healthcare reform that makes it more expensive to do business in the US? Seriously? Then they wondered why they got (to use Obama's description!) "shellacked" in the mid term elections?

You'll have to explain why it's not "realistic" to have expected better choices by Democratic leaders when they were calling all the shots back in 2009!

You tell me...did they work on immigration reform? Did they work on tax reform? If not...why not?

Asked and answered. They were pulling us out of a recession and trying to fix our financial institutions, corporations, save jobs, restore the housing market and do major healthcare reform... ya know little stuff like that. They tried for taxes and immigration afterward but by that time the obstructionists had taken power and those proposals became dead in the water

So answer me this, Slade? If they were really concerned with pulling us out of a recession...why would they first concentrate on healthcare...something that added uncertainty and costs to doing business drastically slowing down the recovery? Let's be honest here...it was TARP that kept US financials afloat and that was a George W. Bush thing. Obama and your progressives passed the Obama Stimulus...something that spent a whole lot of money and didn't come close to doing what they promised it would! The results were so bad in fact that they had to start using a new economic term "jobs created or saved" because they created so few jobs! They used stimulus money to reward their base with deals for unions, public sector workers and big campaign contributors like the guys running Solyndra.

I'm amused by your contention that they were too "busy" to deal with immigration reform or tax reform. The truth is...they never tried because they were rushing to pass things like ObamaCare and pushing for things like Cap & Trade which would have REALLY screwed up the recovery! They got voted out in the 2010 midterms because it had become painfully obvious that they cared more about passing their liberal agenda then they did about the millions of people in the Private Sector who were out of work and burning up their life's savings trying to stay afloat!

Is this your first bout with politics? If the Dems win in November can I use the same argument against Trump and criticize him for not doing the great infrastructure bill that he campaigned about?

I’m not a huge Obama fan when it comes to his policies. I liked him as a person but did think he could have done better executing many of his plans. But I’m being honest about how politics works. You don’t go after healthcare, immigration reform, and tax reform in the same year all while trying to pull the country out of a recession. You can criticize his policies all you want, you got plenty of ammo, but lose the critique about him not going after all the major reforms in his first two years. We both know that’s not realistic.

I'm amused by how you gloss over how the CHOICE of what they decided to concentrate on...despite what they knew would be a negative effect on the economy...isn't somehow their fault? To use an analogy...if your house was on fire...would you solely concentrate on things to put out the fire...or would you change the heating system and add insulation to the walls to make it more energy efficient? Granted...the latter choice might be a fine one if it weren't for the fire but it's an absolutely ludicrous choice if it were!

So you've got the US economy in a free fall...the equivalent of a house on fire...and what do you progressives concentrate on? Reforming the healthcare system? Passing Cap & Trade legislation to combat pollution? That was next up on your liberal agenda. Millions of Americans out of work and desperate for jobs...and Harry, Barry and Nancy want to pass Cap & Trade? They want to pass healthcare reform that makes it more expensive to do business in the US? Seriously? Then they wondered why they got (to use Obama's description!) "shellacked" in the mid term elections?

You'll have to explain why it's not "realistic" to have expected better choices by Democratic leaders when they were calling all the shots back in 2009!

You tell me...did they work on immigration reform? Did they work on tax reform? If not...why not?

Asked and answered. They were pulling us out of a recession and trying to fix our financial institutions, corporations, save jobs, restore the housing market and do major healthcare reform... ya know little stuff like that. They tried for taxes and immigration afterward but by that time the obstructionists had taken power and those proposals became dead in the water

So answer me this, Slade? If they were really concerned with pulling us out of a recession...why would they first concentrate on healthcare...something that added uncertainty and costs to doing business drastically slowing down the recovery? Let's be honest here...it was TARP that kept US financials afloat and that was a George W. Bush thing. Obama and your progressives passed the Obama Stimulus...something that spent a whole lot of money and didn't come close to doing what they promised it would! The results were so bad in fact that they had to start using a new economic term "jobs created or saved" because they created so few jobs! They used stimulus money to reward their base with deals for unions, public sector workers and big campaign contributors like the guys running Solyndra.

I'm amused by your contention that they were too "busy" to deal with immigration reform or tax reform. The truth is...they never tried because they were rushing to pass things like ObamaCare and pushing for things like Cap & Trade which would have REALLY screwed up the recovery! They got voted out in the 2010 midterms because it had become painfully obvious that they cared more about passing their liberal agenda then they did about the millions of people in the Private Sector who were out of work and burning up their life's savings trying to stay afloat!

Is this your first bout with politics? If the Dems win in November can I use the same argument against Trump and criticize him for not doing the great infrastructure bill that he campaigned about?

I’m not a huge Obama fan when it comes to his policies. I liked him as a person but did think he could have done better executing many of his plans. But I’m being honest about how politics works. You don’t go after healthcare, immigration reform, and tax reform in the same year all while trying to pull the country out of a recession. You can criticize his policies all you want, you got plenty of ammo, but lose the critique about him not going after all the major reforms in his first two years. We both know that’s not realistic.

I'm amused by how you gloss over how the CHOICE of what they decided to concentrate on...despite what they knew would be a negative effect on the economy...isn't somehow their fault? To use an analogy...if your house was on fire...would you solely concentrate on things to put out the fire...or would you change the heating system and add insulation to the walls to make it more energy efficient? Granted...the latter choice might be a fine one if it weren't for the fire but it's an absolutely ludicrous choice if it were!

So you've got the US economy in a free fall...the equivalent of a house on fire...and what do you progressives concentrate on? Reforming the healthcare system? Passing Cap & Trade legislation to combat pollution? That was next up on your liberal agenda. Millions of Americans out of work and desperate for jobs...and Harry, Barry and Nancy want to pass Cap & Trade? They want to pass healthcare reform that makes it more expensive to do business in the US? Seriously? Then they wondered why they got (to use Obama's description!) "shellacked" in the mid term elections?

You'll have to explain why it's not "realistic" to have expected better choices by Democratic leaders when they were calling all the shots back in 2009!

One can also make a case that lack of regulations on the financial sector lead to the crash. And to answer your question yes Obama gets credit, that’s how it works. The leader gets credit and blame for the countries successes and failures. You ignored a huge part of the conversation to inject your partisan spin again. Would you care to go back and address the fact that the deficit and descretionary spending trended downwards from 2009 through 2016

One can also make a case that lack of regulations on the financial sector lead to the crash.

Which added regulations would have prevented the crash?

And to answer your question yes Obama gets credit, that’s how it works.

I agree, $9.3 trillion added to the debt, slowest recovery since WWII.

Would you care to go back and address the fact that the deficit and descretionary spending trended downwards from 2009 through 2016

No. I'm still trying to figure out what Obama did to reduce either.

Well aren’t you the king of skirting around the issue. How annoying... which added regulations would have prevented the crash? How about Dodd Frank and the many regulations applied that added transparency and oversight on the financial institutions who’s wreckless actions where what caused the crash.

You complain about slowest recovery since world war 2 but I’ll take that over a depression wouldn’t you? How did our recovery do compared to the rest of the worlds major economies that also suffered a recession in 2008? Did you know he also had the most rapid deficit reduction since ww2? How about one of the largest increases in the Dow? How about one of the largest drops in unemployment?

See you gotta balance out your rhetoric a bit so you don’t come off like such a partisan hack.

How about Dodd Frank and the many regulations applied that added transparency and oversight

Dodd Frank would have prevented banks from writing and buying crappy mortgages? Which part?

You complain about slowest recovery since world war 2 but I’ll take that over a depression wouldn’t you?

The recession ended in June 2009.
If the economy was growing, what would Obama have to do to drive us into a depression?

How did our recovery do compared to the rest of the worlds major economies that also suffered a recession in 2008?

Well, thanks to TARP, we started recapitalizing our banks very quickly.
Europe waited a lot longer, because they hate nasty rich people and banks even more than we do.

Did you know he also had the most rapid deficit reduction since ww2?

And still added $9.3 trillion to the debt.

So is it your thing to answer questions with questions? Maybe instead of answering you I’ll just respond the same way you respond to me... what do you think about that?

 

[Oldstyle]

Wow...all that to hide the fact that Barack Obama oversaw the worst recovery from a recession since The Great Depression? Statistics are a wonderful thing...except when they're used to obscure rather than illuminate!

 

[Likkmee]

Muy Muy Muy Bueno ! Gracias senior Shoe-murr. Nosotros son Americanos tambien

 

[rshermn]

Asked and answered. They were pulling us out of a recession and trying to fix our financial institutions, corporations, save jobs, restore the housing market and do major healthcare reform... ya know little stuff like that. They tried for taxes and immigration afterward but by that time the obstructionists had taken power and those proposals became dead in the water

So answer me this, Slade? If they were really concerned with pulling us out of a recession...why would they first concentrate on healthcare...something that added uncertainty and costs to doing business drastically slowing down the recovery? Let's be honest here...it was TARP that kept US financials afloat and that was a George W. Bush thing. Obama and your progressives passed the Obama Stimulus...something that spent a whole lot of money and didn't come close to doing what they promised it would! The results were so bad in fact that they had to start using a new economic term "jobs created or saved" because they created so few jobs! They used stimulus money to reward their base with deals for unions, public sector workers and big campaign contributors like the guys running Solyndra.

I'm amused by your contention that they were too "busy" to deal with immigration reform or tax reform. The truth is...they never tried because they were rushing to pass things like ObamaCare and pushing for things like Cap & Trade which would have REALLY screwed up the recovery! They got voted out in the 2010 midterms because it had become painfully obvious that they cared more about passing their liberal agenda then they did about the millions of people in the Private Sector who were out of work and burning up their life's savings trying to stay afloat!

Is this your first bout with politics? If the Dems win in November can I use the same argument against Trump and criticize him for not doing the great infrastructure bill that he campaigned about?

I’m not a huge Obama fan when it comes to his policies. I liked him as a person but did think he could have done better executing many of his plans. But I’m being honest about how politics works. You don’t go after healthcare, immigration reform, and tax reform in the same year all while trying to pull the country out of a recession. You can criticize his policies all you want, you got plenty of ammo, but lose the critique about him not going after all the major reforms in his first two years. We both know that’s not realistic.

I'm amused by how you gloss over how the CHOICE of what they decided to concentrate on...despite what they knew would be a negative effect on the economy...isn't somehow their fault? To use an analogy...if your house was on fire...would you solely concentrate on things to put out the fire...or would you change the heating system and add insulation to the walls to make it more energy efficient? Granted...the latter choice might be a fine one if it weren't for the fire but it's an absolutely ludicrous choice if it were!

So you've got the US economy in a free fall...the equivalent of a house on fire...and what do you progressives concentrate on? Reforming the healthcare system? Passing Cap & Trade legislation to combat pollution? That was next up on your liberal agenda. Millions of Americans out of work and desperate for jobs...and Harry, Barry and Nancy want to pass Cap & Trade? They want to pass healthcare reform that makes it more expensive to do business in the US? Seriously? Then they wondered why they got (to use Obama's description!) "shellacked" in the mid term elections?

You'll have to explain why it's not "realistic" to have expected better choices by Democratic leaders when they were calling all the shots back in 2009!

Yes well that is an ideologicall difference between conservatives and progressives. Obama injected the economy with stimulus funds to help stabilize, he instituted regulatory reform in Dodd Frank to tighten the accountability of our lending institutions which were part of the cause of the crash, and then he went after much needed healthcare reform... not for economic reasons but to try and help the sick, suffering and dying get care. What an asshole huh?!

When progressives "injected" the economy with stimulus funds...who did they concentrate that help on? People in the Private Sector? Or did they reward their base? Much of the Obama Stimulus went to keeping people in the Public Sector working while millions in the Private Sector were ignored.

That is a simple and untrue con talking point, me boy. Try a little truth some time. Perhaps, just perhaps, when the economy was shedding a million or so jobs per month, it was time about stopping job loss and creating new jobs, and to hell with where they were. Really, that does not take much brain power to understand. Now, if you are a con, you want the jobs in the private sector, only. And you are not capable of seeing what is really easy to see for people with brains. Which is, me boy, if you create jobs and therefor income in one sector, it will affect the other sectors of the economy. Works, and always has worked, me boy. Simple for a non con.

As for healthcare reform? Let's be honest here for a change, Slade...shall we? The ACA was first and foremost an income redistribution program by liberals to provide low income people with subsidized healthcare and have the middle class pay for that care with higher healthcare costs for them. If so, you should be able to find an impartial source to prove your charge. If not, you are simply posting con talking points again. What was true, of course, was that we had millions of people suffering from a lack of health care, and watching their costs go up like a rocket, year after year. They lied to the American people about the costs and how it would work and they did so DELIBERATELY! Another con talking point with NO source to prove your charges. What a surprise. What was true is that the cost of healthcare stopped increasing at the rate it had. Funny how you ignore that simple fact eh. So yes, that does make Harry, Barry and Nancy assholes![ A statement making you an obvious con troll. Thanks for that, me boy. Always nice to know what you are dealing with. You do so hate truth.

/QUOTE]

 

[rshermn]

So answer me this, Slade? If they were really concerned with pulling us out of a recession...why would they first concentrate on healthcare...something that added uncertainty and costs to doing business drastically slowing down the recovery? Let's be honest here...it was TARP that kept US financials afloat and that was a George W. Bush thing. Obama and your progressives passed the Obama Stimulus...something that spent a whole lot of money and didn't come close to doing what they promised it would! The results were so bad in fact that they had to start using a new economic term "jobs created or saved" because they created so few jobs! They used stimulus money to reward their base with deals for unions, public sector workers and big campaign contributors like the guys running Solyndra.

I'm amused by your contention that they were too "busy" to deal with immigration reform or tax reform. The truth is...they never tried because they were rushing to pass things like ObamaCare and pushing for things like Cap & Trade which would have REALLY screwed up the recovery! They got voted out in the 2010 midterms because it had become painfully obvious that they cared more about passing their liberal agenda then they did about the millions of people in the Private Sector who were out of work and burning up their life's savings trying to stay afloat!

Is this your first bout with politics? If the Dems win in November can I use the same argument against Trump and criticize him for not doing the great infrastructure bill that he campaigned about?

I’m not a huge Obama fan when it comes to his policies. I liked him as a person but did think he could have done better executing many of his plans. But I’m being honest about how politics works. You don’t go after healthcare, immigration reform, and tax reform in the same year all while trying to pull the country out of a recession. You can criticize his policies all you want, you got plenty of ammo, but lose the critique about him not going after all the major reforms in his first two years. We both know that’s not realistic.

I'm amused by how you gloss over how the CHOICE of what they decided to concentrate on...despite what they knew would be a negative effect on the economy...isn't somehow their fault? To use an analogy...if your house was on fire...would you solely concentrate on things to put out the fire...or would you change the heating system and add insulation to the walls to make it more energy efficient? Granted...the latter choice might be a fine one if it weren't for the fire but it's an absolutely ludicrous choice if it were!

So you've got the US economy in a free fall...the equivalent of a house on fire...and what do you progressives concentrate on? Reforming the healthcare system? Passing Cap & Trade legislation to combat pollution? That was next up on your liberal agenda. Millions of Americans out of work and desperate for jobs...and Harry, Barry and Nancy want to pass Cap & Trade? They want to pass healthcare reform that makes it more expensive to do business in the US? Seriously? Then they wondered why they got (to use Obama's description!) "shellacked" in the mid term elections?

You'll have to explain why it's not "realistic" to have expected better choices by Democratic leaders when they were calling all the shots back in 2009!

Yes well that is an ideologicall difference between conservatives and progressives. Obama injected the economy with stimulus funds to help stabilize, he instituted regulatory reform in Dodd Frank to tighten the accountability of our lending institutions which were part of the cause of the crash, and then he went after much needed healthcare reform... not for economic reasons but to try and help the sick, suffering and dying get care. What an asshole huh?!

When progressives "injected" the economy with stimulus funds...who did they concentrate that help on? People in the Private Sector? Or did they reward their base? Much of the Obama Stimulus went to keeping people in the Public Sector working while millions in the Private Sector were ignored.

That is a simple and untrue con talking point, me boy. Try a little truth some time. Perhaps, just perhaps, when the economy was shedding a million or so jobs per month, it was time about stopping job loss and creating new jobs, and to hell with where they were. Really, that does not take much brain power to understand. Now, if you are a con, you want the jobs in the private sector, only. And you are not capable of seeing what is really easy to see for people with brains. Which is, me boy, if you create jobs and therefor income in one sector, it will affect the other sectors of the economy. Works, and always has worked, me boy. Simple for a non con.

As for healthcare reform? Let's be honest here for a change, Slade...shall we? The ACA was first and foremost an income redistribution program by liberals to provide low income people with subsidized healthcare and have the middle class pay for that care with higher healthcare costs for them. If so, you should be able to find an impartial source to prove your charge. If not, you are simply posting con talking points again. What was true, of course, was that we had millions of people suffering from a lack of health care, and watching their costs go up like a rocket, year after year. They lied to the American people about the costs and how it would work and they did so DELIBERATELY! Another con talking point with NO source to prove your charges. What a surprise. What was true is that the cost of healthcare stopped increasing at the rate it had. Funny how you ignore that simple fact eh. So yes, that does make Harry, Barry and Nancy assholes![ A statement making you an obvious con troll. Thanks for that, me boy. Always nice to know what you are dealing with. You do so hate truth.

/QUOTE]

You still haven't answered the question why with the economy in serious trouble and millions out of work in the Private Sector..you progressives went after healthcare reform and Cap & Trade legislation...two things that would cause jobs not to be created!

That's taking advantage of a crisis to pass parts of a liberal agenda that you've wanted for decades...while you ignore the suffering of millions!

Here is the problem, me boy. Neither cap and trade nor healthcare reform had a negative impact on employment. If they had, you would be able to post something other than more con talking points. You are simply posting con talking points again.
Now, why don't you stop wasting people's time and prove your assertions. Now, a more obvious measure, one that does not lie, is that the UE rate dropped from slightly over 10% to just under 5% during the Obama presidency. See how truth works, me boy.

 

[Oldstyle]

Is this your first bout with politics? If the Dems win in November can I use the same argument against Trump and criticize him for not doing the great infrastructure bill that he campaigned about?

I’m not a huge Obama fan when it comes to his policies. I liked him as a person but did think he could have done better executing many of his plans. But I’m being honest about how politics works. You don’t go after healthcare, immigration reform, and tax reform in the same year all while trying to pull the country out of a recession. You can criticize his policies all you want, you got plenty of ammo, but lose the critique about him not going after all the major reforms in his first two years. We both know that’s not realistic.

I'm amused by how you gloss over how the CHOICE of what they decided to concentrate on...despite what they knew would be a negative effect on the economy...isn't somehow their fault? To use an analogy...if your house was on fire...would you solely concentrate on things to put out the fire...or would you change the heating system and add insulation to the walls to make it more energy efficient? Granted...the latter choice might be a fine one if it weren't for the fire but it's an absolutely ludicrous choice if it were!

So you've got the US economy in a free fall...the equivalent of a house on fire...and what do you progressives concentrate on? Reforming the healthcare system? Passing Cap & Trade legislation to combat pollution? That was next up on your liberal agenda. Millions of Americans out of work and desperate for jobs...and Harry, Barry and Nancy want to pass Cap & Trade? They want to pass healthcare reform that makes it more expensive to do business in the US? Seriously? Then they wondered why they got (to use Obama's description!) "shellacked" in the mid term elections?

You'll have to explain why it's not "realistic" to have expected better choices by Democratic leaders when they were calling all the shots back in 2009!

Yes well that is an ideologicall difference between conservatives and progressives. Obama injected the economy with stimulus funds to help stabilize, he instituted regulatory reform in Dodd Frank to tighten the accountability of our lending institutions which were part of the cause of the crash, and then he went after much needed healthcare reform... not for economic reasons but to try and help the sick, suffering and dying get care. What an asshole huh?!

When progressives "injected" the economy with stimulus funds...who did they concentrate that help on? People in the Private Sector? Or did they reward their base? Much of the Obama Stimulus went to keeping people in the Public Sector working while millions in the Private Sector were ignored.

That is a simple and untrue con talking point, me boy. Try a little truth some time. Perhaps, just perhaps, when the economy was shedding a million or so jobs per month, it was time about stopping job loss and creating new jobs, and to hell with where they were. Really, that does not take much brain power to understand. Now, if you are a con, you want the jobs in the private sector, only. And you are not capable of seeing what is really easy to see for people with brains. Which is, me boy, if you create jobs and therefor income in one sector, it will affect the other sectors of the economy. Works, and always has worked, me boy. Simple for a non con.

As for healthcare reform? Let's be honest here for a change, Slade...shall we? The ACA was first and foremost an income redistribution program by liberals to provide low income people with subsidized healthcare and have the middle class pay for that care with higher healthcare costs for them. If so, you should be able to find an impartial source to prove your charge. If not, you are simply posting con talking points again. What was true, of course, was that we had millions of people suffering from a lack of health care, and watching their costs go up like a rocket, year after year. They lied to the American people about the costs and how it would work and they did so DELIBERATELY! Another con talking point with NO source to prove your charges. What a surprise. What was true is that the cost of healthcare stopped increasing at the rate it had. Funny how you ignore that simple fact eh. So yes, that does make Harry, Barry and Nancy assholes![ A statement making you an obvious con troll. Thanks for that, me boy. Always nice to know what you are dealing with. You do so hate truth.

/QUOTE]

You still haven't answered the question why with the economy in serious trouble and millions out of work in the Private Sector..you progressives went after healthcare reform and Cap & Trade legislation...two things that would cause jobs not to be created!

That's taking advantage of a crisis to pass parts of a liberal agenda that you've wanted for decades...while you ignore the suffering of millions!

Here is the problem, me boy. Neither cap and trade nor healthcare reform had a negative impact on employment. If they had, you would be able to post something other than more con talking points. You are simply posting con talking points again.
Now, why don't you stop wasting people's time and prove your assertions. Now, a more obvious measure, one that does not lie, is that the UE rate dropped from slightly over 10% to just under 5% during the Obama presidency. See how truth works, me boy.

OK, Sparky...and what Obama initiative do you want to cite for creating most of those jobs? A big chunk of the economic growth was created with an oil and gas boom due to fracking...which Barry opposed. He opposed it...but he and his followers sure were quick to claim increases in oil and gas production as one of his Administration's "successes"...which only proves how little he actually DID to grow the economy!