Factcheck.org: judging Obama's presidency based on FACTS not hyperbole or rhetoric

[healthmyths]

This thread is partly inspired by welfarequeen's poll on how USMB members grade Obama's presidency. The large majority of you gave Obama an F which, in my opinion, is completely unfair and is an obvious indication of willful ignorance.

This is a fair and balanced assessment of how the country has faired under Obama. They are based upon numbers only. Subjective criticism such as his character or leadership skills are not in this article. I highlighted in bold what I consider to be important points. Keep in mind that these figures only represent what has happened UNDER Obama. Which means many factors influence them. Not just Obama.

America is still gaining jobs under President Obama, but millions more live in poverty, typical household incomes have not kept pace with inflation, and the federal debt is up nearly 90 percent and on pace to double before he leaves office. Stockholders, meanwhile, are far wealthier than they were the day he was sworn in.
U.S. oil production continues to boom, as do wind and solar power, while dependence on foreign oil keeps dropping. International opinion of the United States has slipped a bit, but generally remains far higher than before he took office, except in the Muslim world, where it has gotten even worse.

These are among the findings in our latest update of “Obama’s Numbers.”

This is another in our series of regular quarterly updates of key statistical indicators of the Obama presidency. It follows our “Obama’s Numbers” article in October, a pre-election update we posted Nov. 5, and quarterly updates posted April 16 and July 19.
The mix of statistics in these reports will vary. This update includes income and poverty figures that are issued annually, for example. We select other figures that are available monthly or quarterly depending on what we judge to be most topical. Our intent is to provide accurate measures of what’s changed — for better or worse — since Obama first took office in January 2009.


– by Brooks Jackson

Obama?s Numbers, October Update

To me the trick is determining how much Obama's policies have influenced these economic numbers. And of course not just him, but Congress as well.

My take on the economy: Things could be better with 7.3% unemployment. However, the economy went into a free fall in 2007. 100,000s of jobs were being lost each month up. The unemployment rate may have gone up under Obama, but there is no denying that Obama has created more jobs than Bush did in his entire 8 years. In other words, a president only has so much control over a nation's economy. In my perspective, the higher unemployment rate has very little to do with Obama's policies. Could he have done more to repair the problem? Maybe, but our do-nothing congress has contributed a great deal to this. Republicans, historically since 2000, have done NOTHING to improve the economy.

FACTCHECK.ORG is funded by the same non-profit that funded Obama...Annenberg Foundation

Prior to fiscal 2010, we were supported entirely by three sources: funds from the APPC’s own resources (specifically an endowment created in 1993 by the Annenberg Foundation at the direction of the late Walter Annenberg, and a 1995 grant by the Annenberg Foundation to fund APPC’s Washington, D.C., base); additional funds from the Annenberg Foundation; and grants from the Flora Family Foundation. We do not seek and have never accepted, directly or indirectly, any funds from corporations, unions, partisan organizations or advocacy groups.

Note: In addition to the sums reported here, FactCheck.org receives in-kind support from the Annenberg Public Policy Center including office space, utilities and technical support from APPC staff, and salary for one election-year staff employee. We do not attempt to assign a dollar value to these in-kind services, which are funded from the APPC’s own resources.
Our Funding

So do you think FACTCHECK.ORG is unbiased???

The four plus years (1995-1999) Barack Obama spent as founding chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) represent his track record as reformer, as someone who reached out in a public-private collaboration and had the audacity to believe his effort would make things better. At the time he became leader of this ambitious project to remake the public schools of Chicago, he was 33 years old and a third year associate at a small Chicago law firm, Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland.
Archived-Articles: Obama's Lost Annenberg Years Coming to Light

 

[Oldstyle]

Billy's only interested in "some" facts while eager to avoid others. It's why his original premise that this string would be an attempt to judge the Obama Presidency without hyperbole or rhetoric is so amusing since he immediately used hyperbole and rhetoric to defend Barack.

I'm not quite sure WHY people like Billy think that simply declaring the ACA an accomplishment while ignoring how flawed it is, bolsters Obama's resume? The deficiencies in that legislation are only now becoming apparent to the American people and they are reacting to those deficiencies with anger. This is the signature piece of legislation that Barack Obama has given America and it turns out that he lied about what it was and how it will affect us. That's the President of the United States telling bald faced lies over and over to the American people because he KNEW that if he told that truth about ObamaCare that it would never be passed by Congress.

Take note that Billy's response to someone questioning "his" take on the Obama Presidency is to rain insults on them rather than rebutting what they've said. So much for an examination free from hyperbole and rhetoric! If anyone takes exception to Billy's hyperbole and rhetoric, Billy flips out.

"You are such an idiot. My "take" was completely balanced. I acknowledged that the unemployment was still high and that Obama could possibly have done more. And no, it is not just republicans in congress that could have done more, it was also Bush. He was president for 8 years yet 2.5 times less jobs were created under his administration than Obama's 5 years. You are the biased one you dumbshit. You won't give Obama credit for ANYTHING. You keep going on about this cap and trade, EPA standards yet they didn't even go into practice! That makes those points moot. God you are pathetic. I started this thread because of the alarming amount of people who gave him an F. I made it clear in that thread Obama did not deserve an A. I gave him a B. Call that bias if you want, but ill say it again, you won't give him credit for ANYTHING. That is what makes you bias. You are a partisan hack who is in serious denial."

 

[longknife]

The Soros financed Fact Check is the biggest propaganda machine around and can't provide "facts" for anything.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Soros financed Fact Check is the biggest propaganda machine around and can't provide "facts" for anything.

I seem to recall them rating Obama's promise on ACA "True"

 

[Friends]

Bush's unemployment rate was barely ever over 5 percent if that.

During George W. Bush's first month in office the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent. During his last full month in office unemployment was 7.3 percent.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

When Bush was president, an average of 375,000 jobs were created per year. In the words of The Wall Street Journal that was, "the worst track record on record." This is what The Wall Street Journal has to say about Bush's economic performance:

"President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

"His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office."
Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

This is what the Atlantic has to say about the Bush years: "Thursday's annual Census Bureau report on income, poverty and access to health care-the Bureau's principal report card on the well-being of average Americans-closes the books on the economic record of George W. Bush.

"It's not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride.

"On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially."
Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - Ronald Brownstein - The Atlantic

 

[Oldstyle]

Bush's unemployment rate was barely ever over 5 percent if that.

During George W. Bush's first month in office the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent. During his last full month in office unemployment was 7.3 percent.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

When Bush was president, an average of 375,000 jobs were created per year. In the words of The Wall Street Journal that was, "the worst track record on record." This is what The Wall Street Journal has to say about Bush's economic performance:

"President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

"His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office."
Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

This is what the Atlantic has to say about the Bush years: "Thursday's annual Census Bureau report on income, poverty and access to health care-the Bureau's principal report card on the well-being of average Americans-closes the books on the economic record of George W. Bush.

"It's not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride.

"On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially."
Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - Ronald Brownstein - The Atlantic

Well gee whiz...Bush had to deal with the aftermath of the Dot Com boom's collapse...the post 9/11 economic crash and the bubble crash in 2007...yet you're somehow shocked that his numbers are worse than Obama's? Bush had quite a bit on his plate. Obama managed to almost match Bush's poor numbers even though when he took over we were bottoming out of the recession and were in the process of throwing trillions of dollars in stimulus at the economy. Historically there is a bounce following a recession. Barack Obama's numbers should have been helped by that but his policy choices turned our economy into a basketball with half the air let out. We never got a bounce...we got a "splat".

 

[The Rabbi]

Bush's unemployment rate was barely ever over 5 percent if that.

During George W. Bush's first month in office the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent. During his last full month in office unemployment was 7.3 percent.

l]

And the last month was the worst of his presidency. By contrast the rate was about the same at the beginning of the Obama presidency and was the best of his two terms so far.

 

[Katzndogz]

We don't know what obama's record on job creation is since he's had the agencies reporting on job creation lie about it consistently.

What objective facts can squeeze out from all the lies, is that most of the job creation were part time jobs with a loss in full time jobs.

 

[Billy000]

You forget that Bush had only a 4-5% unemployment. In other words.....there wasn't a lot of job growth because people were fully employed who wanted a job.

Bill, why did you completely ignore my post from yesterday?

This is the second time I'm asking why you're ignoring my earlier post, Bill. 'Sup, dude?
I'm not being insulting, but you just keep ignoring.

You forget that Bush had only a 4-5% unemployment. In other words.....there wasn't a lot of job growth because people were fully employed who wanted a job.

Any comment? Any at all?

Um, no. The unemployment rate in Dec of 2008 was 7.8%.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[The Rabbi]

Bill, why did you completely ignore my post from yesterday?

This is the second time I'm asking why you're ignoring my earlier post, Bill. 'Sup, dude?
I'm not being insulting, but you just keep ignoring.

You forget that Bush had only a 4-5% unemployment. In other words.....there wasn't a lot of job growth because people were fully employed who wanted a job.

Any comment? Any at all?

Um, no. The unemployment rate in Dec of 2008 was 7.8%.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

That really isn't a response to his point. Billy, don't be a Zero.

 

[Billy000]

You are such an idiot. My "take" was completely balanced. I acknowledged that the unemployment was still high and that Obama could possibly have done more. And no, it is not just republicans in congress that could have done more, it was also Bush. He was president for 8 years yet 2.5 times less jobs were created under his administration than Obama's 5 years.

You are the biased one you dumbshit. You won't give Obama credit for ANYTHING. You keep going on about this cap and trade, EPA standards yet they didn't even go into practice! That makes those points moot. God you are pathetic.

I started this thread because of the alarming amount of people who gave him an F. I made it clear in that thread Obama did not deserve an A. I gave him a B. Call that bias if you want, but ill say it again, you won't give him credit for ANYTHING. That is what makes you bias. You are a partisan hack who is in serious denial.

Your take was completely "balanced"? Really, Billy? You didn't start this thread with the idea of setting the record straight about how you think Barack Obama has done a great job and that it's the Republicans that are to blame for his Administration's shortcomings? You say you started this thread because you were alarmed that so many people gave Obama an F? Do you not understand that people are angry at the President right now with good reason and THAT is why they are giving him an F grade? Why is that "alarming" to you?

As for Cap & Trade, Card Check and more stringent enforcement of greenhouse gas regulations being "moot" because they were never put into practice? You're showing a woeful ignorance of how businesses function, Billy! An ignorance that seems to be epidemic amongst progressives these days. Don't any of you people take business classes in college?

Let's see if I can break it down for you...

Businesses make decisions based on what they perceive to be happening in the future. If the Administration in power declares that they want stricter enforcement on green house gas emissions and you run a company who will be affected by that, then you WILL change the way you go about doing business to reflect the new regulations. If the Administration declares that they will be seeking passage of new Cap & Trade legislation, something that will increase the energy costs of many factories operating in the US, then if I'm a CEO determining where I'm about to build a new factory I am GOING to factor in the additional energy costs in deciding whether or not a new factory is feasible and indeed whether or not to even build it here IN the United States.

So when Barry comes out and SAYS he wants Cap & Trade legislation...that IN AND OF ITSELF has a major impact on the Private Sector even if he never gets it because companies have to make decisions over their future based on a guess whether this goes through or not. Guesses cause indecision and indecision makes companies conservative in their outlook. The widget factory that you were going to build in the US that would employ 5,000 workers? You may very well decide to postpone that capital outlay until you have a better idea what the energy costs will be IF Cap & Trade were passed. Or you may decide to play it safe and build that widget factory in some other country that doesn't have an EPA nor Cap & Trade surcharges on energy. Can you understand NOW why even proposed legislation that is never adopted can cause job loss?

I never said republicans were responsible for Obama's shortcomings. I said that they have done nothing to improve the economy since 2000. Tax cuts don't create jobs. That's a fact. There is plenty of evidence that says so.

Oh gee, and what's their excuse now that both of those issues have blown over? Where is the evidence that those impending decisions even had a SIGNIFICANT impact on the economy in the first place? Keyword SIGNIFICANT. There isn't ANY. Let's also not forget that stockholders are wealthier than ever. You still haven't given me any evidence to further your point.

You, like so many progressives, have this misconception that government has to DO something in order to make an economy grow. That simply isn't the case in a free market based economy. The sad truth is that government intervention in free markets almost ALWAYS causes unintended consequences that slow growth.

As for your contention that tax cuts don't create jobs? I would argue that there is substantial proof that they do indeed and have been used successfully by both Democratic and Republican Presidents to do just that. JFK and Ronald Reagan both used tax cuts to spur economic growth and create jobs.

Then there is your contention that pending legislation has no affect on business decisions. The "proof" of that is simple common sense, Billy. If I tell you that I'm about to pass a twenty cent a gallon tax on gasoline...would that make you more or less likely to buy a car that gets a measly 8 miles to the gallon? Would your decision change if you were about to move to a different State that won't have that twenty cent a gallon tax? It's essentially the same thing there that happens when a CEO tries to determine whether to build that new plant here or overseas. But for some reason you refuse to see that...[/QUOTE]

There is no evidence that the job growth under Reagan had anything to do with his tax cuts. If tax cuts did spur economic growth, Bush should have created millions of jobs. But as I said, job growth under Bush was pathetic.

 

[Meister]

Bush's unemployment rate was barely ever over 5 percent if that.

During George W. Bush's first month in office the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent. During his last full month in office unemployment was 7.3 percent.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

When Bush was president, an average of 375,000 jobs were created per year. In the words of The Wall Street Journal that was, "the worst track record on record." This is what The Wall Street Journal has to say about Bush's economic performance:

"President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

"His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office."
Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

This is what the Atlantic has to say about the Bush years: "Thursday's annual Census Bureau report on income, poverty and access to health care-the Bureau's principal report card on the well-being of average Americans-closes the books on the economic record of George W. Bush.

"It's not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride.

"On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially."
Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - Ronald Brownstein - The Atlantic

Bush had uneployment below 5% nearly his entire tenure. Of that 5%, there was a % that wouldn't work. So he had full employment. Now, connect the dots with job creation between the two. You people just ignore the cold facts to try and bolster your messiah

 

[Billy000]

Bush's unemployment rate was barely ever over 5 percent if that.

During George W. Bush's first month in office the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent. During his last full month in office unemployment was 7.3 percent.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

When Bush was president, an average of 375,000 jobs were created per year. In the words of The Wall Street Journal that was, "the worst track record on record." This is what The Wall Street Journal has to say about Bush's economic performance:

"President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

"His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office."
Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

This is what the Atlantic has to say about the Bush years: "Thursday's annual Census Bureau report on income, poverty and access to health care-the Bureau's principal report card on the well-being of average Americans-closes the books on the economic record of George W. Bush.

"It's not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride.

"On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially."
Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - Ronald Brownstein - The Atlantic

Well gee whiz...Bush had to deal with the aftermath of the Dot Com boom's collapse...the post 9/11 economic crash and the bubble crash in 2007...yet you're somehow shocked that his numbers are worse than Obama's? Bush had quite a bit on his plate. Obama managed to almost match Bush's poor numbers even though when he took over we were bottoming out of the recession and were in the process of throwing trillions of dollars in stimulus at the economy. Historically there is a bounce following a recession. Barack Obama's numbers should have been helped by that but his policy choices turned our economy into a basketball with half the air let out. We never got a bounce...we got a "splat".

That point is completley moot if the unemployment rate was 7.8% in Dec of 2008.

There is no denying Obama inherited an economic mess.

Edit: my bad. It was 7.3 in Dec of 2008.

 

[The Rabbi]

During George W. Bush's first month in office the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent. During his last full month in office unemployment was 7.3 percent.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

When Bush was president, an average of 375,000 jobs were created per year. In the words of The Wall Street Journal that was, "the worst track record on record." This is what The Wall Street Journal has to say about Bush's economic performance:

"President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

"His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office."
Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

This is what the Atlantic has to say about the Bush years: "Thursday's annual Census Bureau report on income, poverty and access to health care-the Bureau's principal report card on the well-being of average Americans-closes the books on the economic record of George W. Bush.

"It's not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride.

"On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially."
Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - Ronald Brownstein - The Atlantic

Well gee whiz...Bush had to deal with the aftermath of the Dot Com boom's collapse...the post 9/11 economic crash and the bubble crash in 2007...yet you're somehow shocked that his numbers are worse than Obama's? Bush had quite a bit on his plate. Obama managed to almost match Bush's poor numbers even though when he took over we were bottoming out of the recession and were in the process of throwing trillions of dollars in stimulus at the economy. Historically there is a bounce following a recession. Barack Obama's numbers should have been helped by that but his policy choices turned our economy into a basketball with half the air let out. We never got a bounce...we got a "splat".

That point is completley moot if the unemployment rate was 7.8% in Dec of 2008.

There is no denying Obama inherited an economic mess.

And promptly made it worse.

 

[Billy000]

Bush's unemployment rate was barely ever over 5 percent if that.

During George W. Bush's first month in office the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent. During his last full month in office unemployment was 7.3 percent.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

When Bush was president, an average of 375,000 jobs were created per year. In the words of The Wall Street Journal that was, "the worst track record on record." This is what The Wall Street Journal has to say about Bush's economic performance:

"President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

"His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office."
Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

This is what the Atlantic has to say about the Bush years: "Thursday's annual Census Bureau report on income, poverty and access to health care-the Bureau's principal report card on the well-being of average Americans-closes the books on the economic record of George W. Bush.

"It's not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride.

"On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially."
Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - Ronald Brownstein - The Atlantic

Bush had uneployment below 5% nearly his entire tenure. Of that 5%, there was a % that wouldn't work. So he had full employment. Now, connect the dots with job creation between the two. You people just ignore the cold facts to try and bolster your messiah

And yet the unemployment was at 7.3% in Dec of 2008 and his job growth record was pathetic.

Facts are so inconvenient aren't they?

 

[Billy000]

Well gee whiz...Bush had to deal with the aftermath of the Dot Com boom's collapse...the post 9/11 economic crash and the bubble crash in 2007...yet you're somehow shocked that his numbers are worse than Obama's? Bush had quite a bit on his plate. Obama managed to almost match Bush's poor numbers even though when he took over we were bottoming out of the recession and were in the process of throwing trillions of dollars in stimulus at the economy. Historically there is a bounce following a recession. Barack Obama's numbers should have been helped by that but his policy choices turned our economy into a basketball with half the air let out. We never got a bounce...we got a "splat".

That point is completley moot if the unemployment rate was 7.8% in Dec of 2008.

There is no denying Obama inherited an economic mess.

And promptly made it worse.

How? 2.5 times more jobs were created under Obama than Bush in all his 8 years.

Man, you cons are such children. You can't accept you lost the argument.

 

[Ernie S.]

This thread is partly inspired by welfarequeen's poll on how USMB members grade Obama's presidency. The large majority of you gave Obama an F which, in my opinion, is completely unfair and is an obvious indication of willful ignorance.

This is a fair and balanced assessment of how the country has faired under Obama. They are based upon numbers only. Subjective criticism such as his character or leadership skills are not in this article. I highlighted in bold what I consider to be important points. Keep in mind that these figures only represent what has happened UNDER Obama. Which means many factors influence them. Not just Obama.




Obama?s Numbers, October Update

To me the trick is determining how much Obama's policies have influenced these economic numbers. And of course not just him, but Congress as well.

My take on the economy: Things could be better with 7.3% unemployment. However, the economy went into a free fall in 2007. 100,000s of jobs were being lost each month up. The unemployment rate may have gone up under Obama, but there is no denying that Obama has created more jobs than Bush did in his entire 8 years. In other words, a president only has so much control over a nation's economy. In my perspective, the higher unemployment rate has very little to do with Obama's policies. Could he have done more to repair the problem? Maybe, but our do-nothing congress has contributed a great deal to this. Republicans, historically since 2000, have done NOTHING to improve the economy.

Obama and Bush create no jobs other then maybe military or government. Bush's unemployment rate was barely ever over 5 percent if that. It took the take over of congress by the democrats to destroy the economy. The facts are, that before the democrats Bush's economy was doing well. After they took over and started ignoring Bush things went to crap. That is just undeniable fact. The debt that Obama has racked up is a rooster waiting to come home to roost. Not saying Bush was better but Obama isn't either.

You are of course conveniently denying that the economy was in a free fall starting in 2007. Obviously the effects of that are going to spill over into his presidency.

Tell me. What exactly have republicans done to improve our economy since Bush was in office up until now?

2007? You mean when Reid/Pelosi took over Congress?.

 

[Edgetho]

That point is completley moot if the unemployment rate was 7.8% in Dec of 2008.

There is no denying Obama inherited an economic mess.

And promptly made it worse.

How? 2.5 times more jobs were created under Obama than Bush in all his 8 years.

Man, you cons are such children. You can't accept you lost the argument.

That is a lie

 

[Friends]

Well gee whiz...Bush had to deal with the aftermath of the Dot Com boom's collapse...the post 9/11 economic crash and the bubble crash in 2007...yet you're somehow shocked that his numbers are worse than Obama's? Bush had quite a bit on his plate. Obama managed to almost match Bush's poor numbers even though when he took over we were bottoming out of the recession and were in the process of throwing trillions of dollars in stimulus at the economy. Historically there is a bounce following a recession. Barack Obama's numbers should have been helped by that but his policy choices turned our economy into a basketball with half the air let out. We never got a bounce...we got a "splat".

The first Bush recession did not begin until March 2001.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

Bush inherited peace, prosperity, and a growing budget surplus. Bush wrecked everything by cutting taxes while starting two expensive and unnecessary wars he could not win.

Cutting taxes while starting two wars was grotesquely irresponsible. Unfortunately, that is the Republican way.

Obama has been a disappointment. I do not know any Democrats who are enthusiastic about him, or who ever called him the "Messiah." Nevertheless, he inherited a mess. Bush created one.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Hahaha...another Billy0000 Fail thread.
If you would have read your own link....