Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Good debate. As a business owner I can say that the economy is booming and getting stronger. For 2014 I added 82 employees and last 2 months alone I added 147 employees. Hospitals and labs are buying my equipments. I'm not an Obama fan either but I look at the reality. So I give credits to Obama.Shrub left Obama with a $1.2 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2009, and a totally destroyed U.S. and global economy. Shrub added $3 trillion to the debt with welfare for millionaires, and destroyed the balanced budget. He also added $6 trillion to the debt with his invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Shrub also bailed out Wall Street with a trillion dollars. That's $10 trillion on Shrub.We continue to see liberals here ignoring the facts about Obama's economic record, to the point of claiming that the economy is "roaring" (actually, GDP growth has slowed to a crawl again), that Obama "rescued" America from the economic mess "that Bush left behind," that Obama has been more fiscally conservative than Bush, and other rather surprising myths. Here are some facts to set the record straight--and plenty of links will be provided at the end of the post [I just added an addendum with more links]:
-- Obama has shattered Bush's record of debt accumulation, and he has done so in less than 6.5 years. In 8 years, Bush added $4.9 trillion to the national debt (from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.6 trillion in January 2009). In only 6 years and 5 months, Obama has added $7.5 trillion to the national debt (from $10.6 trillion in January 2009 to $18.1 trillion as of last month). And it's worth noting that we would be even deeper in debt if Obama and the Democrats had gotten their way on spending.
-- Obama's "recovery" has been the slowest and weakest in modern history. For example, by this same point in Reagan's recovery, the labor force participation rate was substantially higher, median income was higher, disposable income was higher, and the gain in jobs was more than twice as high. And it should be noted that the recession that Reagan had to overcome was arguably just as bad as, and in some ways worse than, the one that Obama faced (e.g., the unemployment rate went higher, interest rates were in double digits, and inflation was in double digits in the recession that Reagan faced).
-- Under Obama, there has been a net increase in the number of Americans out of the workforce. In February 2009, there were 80.7 million Americans out of the workforce. As of last month, there were 92.9 million Americans out of the workforce, a whopping increase of 12.2 million in less than 6.5 years.
Some liberals have argued that workforce participation has dropped because the number of retirees has substantially increased. Sorry, that argument won't work. Kyle Smith, an economic and financial analyst with Forbes magazine, explains:
It’s misleading to compare employment rates during the two presidencies. Imagine 90 out of 100 people are employed, and because the economy looks like it’s picking up more steam 10 more people enter the workforce. If nine out of ten of them find jobs, the unemployment rate doesn’t go down at all, yet ten percent more people are employed.
Reagan’s economy was so strong that, for the last three-quarters of his administration, Americans were flooding into the workforce. Under Obama, the opposite has happened, and those who have given up on working aren’t counted as unemployed. Even today, more than five years into the tepid recovery, labor-force participation remains at its lowest level since 1978.
Don’t blame waves of retirement for that fact: the Census Bureau reported that, from 2005 to 2010, older Americans actually became more likely to be employed. The percentage of 65-69 year-olds remaining in the workforce jumped from 26 percent to 32 percent over a ten-year-period ending in 2012. Among those 70-74 the jump was even more startling: from 14 percent to 19.5 percent. Meanwhile workers in the prime of their lives have simply left the playing field. (Sorry Obama Fans Reagan Did Better on Jobs and Growth - Forbes
-- Believe it or not, under Obama, income equality has gotten worse and has done so at a faster rate than under any other president since Jimmy Carter.
-- During Obama's 6 years and 5 months in office, median income has dropped substantially from the average median income under Bush (adjusted for inflation). Under Bush, median income averaged at least $56K. Under Obama, median income has averaged around $53K. Last month (May), median income finally reached $54.5K (under Bush, it stayed above $55K for at least 92 of Bush's 96 months in office).
-- Under Obama, wage growth has been worse than it was under Reagan and Clinton.
-- Under Obama, America's debt-to-GDP ratio has gotten much worse. In 2009, our debt was 76% of GDP. Our debt is now 102% of GDP. Our GDP is $17.6 trillion, but our debt is $18.1 trillion. So in just 6 years and 5 months, Obama has increased our debt-to-GDP ratio by a staggering 26 percentage points. (And, yes, we are approaching Greek levels of debt-to-GDP ratio.)
-- Obama's weak and slow recovery has broken the pattern of previous recoveries. In previous recessions in the modern era, the worse the recession was, the stronger the recovery was. Not so under Obama. James Pethokoukis explains:
Typically, after the economy suffers an unusually severe recession, it bounces back in an unusually rapid recovery -- what some economists and others refer to as the "rubber-band effect." But not now. Despite the huge worldwide recession in 2008-09, the economy has experienced only a weak recovery, with fewer people employed in America today than when President Obama took office. "At this point in the typical post-World War II recovery, the economy was growing at an average pace of nearly 5 percent. The Obama recovery has managed just over 2 percent." As James Pethokoukis notes in the New York Post,
A Federal Reserve study from late last year looked at the behavior of recoveries from recessions across 59 advanced and emerging market economies during the last 40 years. The Fed found, to no great surprise, that recoveries “tend to be faster” after severe recessions, such as the one we just had. . .The deeper the downturn, the more robust the rebound — unlessgovernment messes things up.
For example, during the 1981-82 recession, output fell by 2.7 percent and then rose by 15.9 percent over the next 10 quarters (at an average pace of 6.0 percent). During the Great Recession, output fell even more, by 5.1 percent. But during the 10 quarters since, total economic output is up only a paltry 6.2 percent. Score one for Reaganomics.
But what about the depressing effect of Wall Street’s near-death experience back in 2008 and 2009? Well, that same Fed study found that bank or other financial crises “do not affect the strength” of subsequent recoveries. . .[What] might explain half of the Obama recovery’s underperformance versus the Reagan recovery. . .? Maybe we can attribute that to policy differences.
While one president cut long-term marginal tax rates, the other tried a massive burst of federal spending. One empowered private enterprise; the other empowered government. (Economic Recovery Is Slow and Weak Due to Obama Administration Policies Competitive Enterprise Institute
Reagan vs. Obama These 5 Charts Prove Who Was the Better President
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_03062009.pdf
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
The Median Household Income Rose in April - dshort - Advisor Perspectives
Reagan s Median Income was double Obama s
Study Income Growth Under Obama Trails That Under Reagan Clinton
Sorry Obama Fans Reagan Did Better on Jobs and Growth
Wage growth still lagging behind Clinton Reagan years
United States Government Debt to GDP 1940-2015 Data Chart Calendar
America s economy cools in first quarter - Apr. 29 2015
U.S. economic growth slows to 0.2 percent grinding nearly to a halt - The Washington Post
News Release Gross Domestic Product
Economic Recovery Is Slow and Weak Due to Obama Administration Policies Competitive Enterprise Institute
Obama s Latest Non-Recovery Chokes Out - Breitbart
ADDENDUM
Our dismal GDP numbers Under Obama US stuck in slow growth rut
Articles The Obama Economic Record is Even Worse than You Realize
DONALD LAMBRO Obama cherry-picks number to boost economic record - Washington Times
By the Numbers Obama s Economic Jobs and Deficit Performance Is the Worst On Record
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics Facts And Figures - Forbes
Barack Obama-san - WSJ
Obama s Stimulus Five Years Later - WSJ
The Five Biggest Failures From President Obama s Stimulus Law - US News
Many Americans still struggling in dismal Obama economy Human Events
Here s How GOP Can Destroy Myth of Obama Economy - Wayne Allyn Root - Page full
Obama has cut the deficit in half, ended the wars, cut unemployment in half, and his economy has tripled Wall Street profits. As usual, cons fuzzy math continues. Con propaganda of Obama being a communist didn't work. Obama being foreign born didn't work. Obama being a Muslim didn't work. And con fuzzy math won't work either.
Obama reversed the tax cuts and teh deficit is still enormous. How do you explain this?
A perfect example of how easy it is to deceive the No Information Voter on the Right by simply flashing any shiny object in front of them. It never occurs to the Right that the fact that the Boomers are such a large group compared to previous and following generations that their numbers could increase in BOTH the number leaving the workforce AND the number staying in the work force!!!Don’t blame waves of retirement for that fact: the Census Bureau reported that, from 2005 to 2010, older Americans actually became more likely to be employed. The percentage of 65-69 year-olds remaining in the workforce jumped from 26 percent to 32 percent over a ten-year-period ending in 2012. Among those 70-74 the jump was even more startling: from 14 percent to 19.5 percent.
OK pull your pants up and go home,Iraq has long been paid for DC has more cash flowing in then ever,and when you hear the old tax cuts for the rich it is over
For only a few months!!!Democrats had 57 seats, and 2 independents (?) that caucused with them.
59
all they needed, as they did with other bills, was to bribe 1 Republican to get it passed.
They didn't even try, tho, did they?
Sorry, but he signs the spending bills..... Want to try for another fail????There is such a thing as retiring debt.-- Obama has shattered Bush's record of debt accumulation, and he has done so in less than 6.5 years. In 8 years, Bush added $4.9 trillion to the national debt (from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.6 trillion in January 2009). In only 6 years and 5 months, Obama has added $7.5 trillion to the national debt (from $10.6 trillion in January 2009 to $18.1 trillion as of last month). And it's worth noting that we would be even deeper in debt if Obama and the Democrats had gotten their way on spending.
Obama didn't add all of that debt. In fact he added very little of it.
Do you know that over 2 trillion dollars worth of spending in the last six years is interest on the debt - debt accumulated for decades?
Is that Obama's fault?
You and your New York state of mind.
Which has nothing to do with what I pointed out. Barack Obama has little or no power to simply stop government spending.
For only a few months!!!Democrats had 57 seats, and 2 independents (?) that caucused with them.
59
all they needed, as they did with other bills, was to bribe 1 Republican to get it passed.
They didn't even try, tho, did they?
If you remember, the GOP was contesting Frankin's election and no republicans had switched parties yet and Kennedy was too sick to attend.
No, just that they needed more than 1 vote to break a GOP filibuster for all but a few months.For only a few months!!!Democrats had 57 seats, and 2 independents (?) that caucused with them.
59
all they needed, as they did with other bills, was to bribe 1 Republican to get it passed.
They didn't even try, tho, did they?
If you remember, the GOP was contesting Frankin's election and no republicans had switched parties yet and Kennedy was too sick to attend.
You're claiming Democrats didn't have a clear majority during Obamas first term?
No, just that they needed more than 1 vote to break a GOP filibuster for all but a few months.For only a few months!!!Democrats had 57 seats, and 2 independents (?) that caucused with them.
59
all they needed, as they did with other bills, was to bribe 1 Republican to get it passed.
They didn't even try, tho, did they?
If you remember, the GOP was contesting Frankin's election and no republicans had switched parties yet and Kennedy was too sick to attend.
You're claiming Democrats didn't have a clear majority during Obamas first term?
DunceObama reversed the tax cuts and teh deficit is still enormous. How do you explain this?
Sure, Rabbit........One of the many problems I've had with Obama...
December 17, 2010, 5:10 PM
Obama Signs Bill To Extend Bush Tax Cuts
In a display of compromise rarely seen during his time in office, President Obama has signed into law a $858 billion tax cut bill despite the misgivings of members of both parties.
Obama Signs Bill To Extend Bush Tax Cuts - CBS News
-- Obama has shattered Bush's record of debt accumulation, and he has done so in less than 6.5 years. In 8 years, Bush added $4.9 trillion to the national debt (from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.6 trillion in January 2009). In only 6 years and 5 months, Obama has added $7.5 trillion to the national debt (from $10.6 trillion in January 2009 to $18.1 trillion as of last month). And it's worth noting that we would be even deeper in debt if Obama and the Democrats had gotten their way on spending.
Obama didn't add all of that debt. In fact he added very little of it.
Do you know that over 2 trillion dollars worth of spending in the last six years is interest on the debt - debt accumulated for decades?
Is that Obama's fault?
Obama has reduced the running deficit that he was handed....
2010 fiscal year was Obama's first budget created and signed by him, 2009 budget was President bush's fiscal budget....you cant give 9 fiscal budgets to Obama and only 7 fiscal budgets of responsibility to Bush. Bush's fiscal budget put him through September 30th 2009 and that includes what was added to the National Debt under his fiscal rule of 8 years which was 6 TRILLION DOLLARS added to the National debt from his beginning 1st year budget to his ending 8th year budget....so number fudging is what your articles have done to confuse the ill informed.
When Bush inherited the economy from Clinton we were running fiscal SURPLUSES, when Bush handed it over to Obama, the running deficit was $1.4 TRILLION.
You can't say the deficits were Obama's starting the day he was hired, it is simply ridiculous and NOT how the economy or History works... no new CEO is criticized the day they start for the CRAPOLA they were handed by the actions of the previous management, they have at least 1-3 year's grace period to overcome what a previous, lousy CEO did.
Obama's spending increases are the lowest increases in spending from what he inherited, than any other President in my entire lifetime....
We are at the lowest level of taxes collected as a percentage of the overall GDP in my lifetime as well.
there are some HUGE deficits coming from the Medicare Pill Bill that the republicans passed in the wee hours of the morning, (through cheating) without FUNDING the new entitlement, that Obama is having to pay for out of his budgets, and a huge huge huge interest on the National Debt under President bush that he has to pay for as well....out of his budgets....
I can't imagine what a wonderful job Obama would have done if he had inherited a SURPLUS in the budget as pres bush did... (And squandered).
President Obama INHERITED the Tarp bail outs, and the Auto Industry bail out, and the Fannie and Freddie bail outs....all were instituted by the Bush admin in 2 parts.
Actually it was your Heritage BS that was refuted and discredited, but you knew that already.Some liberals are resurrecting Rex Nutting's refuted, discredited claim that FY 2009 spending was Bush's fault
For only a few months!!!
If you remember, the GOP was contesting Frankin's election and no republicans had switched parties yet and Kennedy was too sick to attend.
Actually it was your Heritage BS that was refuted and discredited, but you knew that already.Some liberals are resurrecting Rex Nutting's refuted, discredited claim that FY 2009 spending was Bush's fault
Obama s Spending Inferno or Not
How Much Did Obama Add?
- Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008. That was before Obama was elected, and nearly four months before he took office on Jan. 20, 2009.
- President Bush signed the massive spending bill under which the government was operating when Obama took office. That was Sept. 30, 2008. As The Associated Press noted, it combined “a record Pentagon budget with aid for automakers and natural disaster victims, and increased health care funding for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.”
- Bush also signed, on Oct. 3, 2008, a bank bailout bill that authorized another $700 billionto avert a looming financial collapse (though not all of that would end up being spent in fiscal 2009, and Obama later signed a measure reducing total authorized bailout spending to $475 billion).
- On Jan. 7, 2009 — two weeks before Obama took office — the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its regular budget outlook, stating: “CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion.”
- CBO attributed the rapid rise in spending to the bank bailout and the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — plus rising costs for unemployment insurance and other factors driven by the collapsing economy (which shed 818,000 jobs in January alone).
- Another factor beyond Obama’s control was an automatic 5.8 percent cost of living increase announced in October 2008 and given to Social Security beneficiaries in January 2009. It was the largest since 1982. Social Security spending alone rose $66 billion in fiscal 2009, and Medicare spending, driven by rising medical costs, rose $39 billion.
But it’s also true that Obama signed a number of appropriations bills, plus other legislation and executive orders, that raised spending for the remainder of fiscal 2009 even above the path set by Bush. By our calculations, Obama can be fairly assigned responsibility for a maximum of $203 billion in additional spending for that year.
It can be argued that the total should be lower. Economist Daniel J. Mitchell of the libertarian CATO Institute — who once served on the Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee — has put the figure at $140 billion.
DunceObama reversed the tax cuts and teh deficit is still enormous. How do you explain this?
Sure, Rabbit........One of the many problems I've had with Obama...
December 17, 2010, 5:10 PM
Obama Signs Bill To Extend Bush Tax Cuts
In a display of compromise rarely seen during his time in office, President Obama has signed into law a $858 billion tax cut bill despite the misgivings of members of both parties.
Obama Signs Bill To Extend Bush Tax Cuts - CBS News
The Bush tax cuts have expired and no law has replaced it
Yeah, I also remembering the GOP pretending to work with Obama on the bill when all they wanted to do was make it smaller and DELAY it so the economy would continue to decline. When Obama cooperated with the phony GOP requests and lowered the amount and also made 1/3 of it further tax cuts while keeping all the Bush tax cuts in place, the GOP still voted against it. The GOP had successfully delayed it enough that the UE rate was already over 8% before the bill was signed.Do you remember the Obama non-stimulus "stimulus bill," the one that cost nearly $800 billion, the one that was foisted upon us with the urgent scream that it was needed to keep unemployment from going over 8%? What happened? Unemployment rose to over 10% after it was passed, federal spending sky-rocketed, interest paid on the debt rose dramatically (naturally), and people soon started to give up on finding a job and left the workforce.
