The Facts About Obama's Economic Record

[thereisnospoon]

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

please don't credit the GOP governors please don't credit Mitch McConnell or John Boehner please don't credit George W Bush for Barack Hussein Obama's economic recovery. if you want to give some credit give some to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi

Credit? For doing WHAT?......
Delusional....

 

[thereisnospoon]

The S&P 500 and private sector job growth were both negative over the 8 years of W's presidency. This was historically weak and led to the decline in labor market participation. There were even anemic if you exclude the last 18 months of his presidency.

Let's not forget the atrocious economic policy under Bush that gave us Medicare Drug, a nearly $100 billion/year program passed by a GOP Congress that costs the Treasury more than Obamacare. Sarbanes-Oxley, which created unnecessary regulation on startups. An exploding budget that grew nearly 3x as fast as Clinton's, and a reliance on DHS and Federal expansion to cover for private sector job losses. How the hell was that conservative or supportive of free markets?

Obama's worst instincts have been checked by a GOP Congress, and we're much better off than when Bush and the GOP Congress which trying to be compassionate conservatives, and avenge his daddy's enemy Saddam. The Republicans in Congress who only seem to have a pair when there's a Democrat in the White House. You can grab at whatever straws you want, but no sane person thinks the Bush economy was better than what we have now.

That's actually a distortion. Take out the last quarter and Bush's economy is something Obama would kill to have.

Yeah, take out the last inning of a baseball game and quite often the outcome would change.

Genius....That's why we play the ENTIRE game....

 

[sealybobo]

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

please don't credit the GOP governors please don't credit Mitch McConnell or John Boehner please don't credit George W Bush for Barack Hussein Obama's economic recovery. if you want to give some credit give some to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi

Credit? For doing WHAT?......
Delusional....

for doing the exact opposite of what the GOP would have done. for putting back regulations the Republicans deregulated for not allowing the Republicans to continue doing what they were doing on George Bush's watch. don't forget when this country was bleeding 700,000 jobs a month at the end of GW Sturm you guys were saying the economy was great. it was not. now you wish the economy was worse so you could say obama sucks but just like Bill Clinton Barack Hussein Obama rules

 

[asaratis]

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.

Here we go again with the often repeated liberal lie that Bill Clinton left surpluses. He did not. He simply used different methods of accounting to "generate" surpluses for the record.

When will the deceiving liberals stop using this LIE?!?

Debunking The Clinton Budget Surplus Myth - California Political Review

How much surplus did the US have when Clinton left office

Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.

Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.

How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.

For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary
Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).

If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.


the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration.

 

[edthecynic]

Here we go again with the often repeated liberal lie that Bill Clinton left surpluses. He did not. He simply used different methods of accounting to "generate" surpluses for the record.

It is the same"lie" the Right uses to claim that Bush had only a $161 billion deficit in 2007, with Bush using the exact same accounting methods. Bush borrowed $340 billion from SS and the same trust funds on top of the 161 deficit so Bush's real deficit was half a trillion dollars. You can't have it both ways, though the Right always tries.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

We have less net income and everything costs more, all a result of obama energy policy. That sums it all up.

cost more is right. food shopping prices. through the roof. gas finally dropped but was over $3-$3.50 a gallon for the first six years he was in office. We were going broke just trying to purchase those two things for a month

Our household of three lost an estimated $10k annually due to Obama energy policy. That is $10k in disposable income, net income, spending money. That's why our cars are all from the previous century.

 

[nat4900]

Our household of three lost an estimated $10k annually due to Obama energy policy. That is $10k in disposable income, net income, spending money. That's why our cars are all from the previous century.

Your cars, then, must run on coal?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Our household of three lost an estimated $10k annually due to Obama energy policy. That is $10k in disposable income, net income, spending money. That's why our cars are all from the previous century.

Your cars, then, must run on coal?

No, they had gasoline back in the 20th century.

 

[Care4all]

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.

Here we go again with the often repeated liberal lie that Bill Clinton left surpluses. He did not. He simply used different methods of accounting to "generate" surpluses for the record.

When will the deceiving liberals stop using this LIE?!?

Debunking The Clinton Budget Surplus Myth - California Political Review

How much surplus did the US have when Clinton left office

Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.

Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.

How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.

For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary
Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).

If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.


the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration.

the National Debt did not go down on the whole under Clinton, though he did pay down the debt we owed other Nations, our public debt to Social security did go up.

He did run surpluses on the Nation's budget...for 3 years... there is no ands, ifs, or buts about it. The definition of budget deficits or budget surpluses are not the same as the National Debt.

 

[Faun]

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.

Here we go again with the often repeated liberal lie that Bill Clinton left surpluses. He did not. He simply used different methods of accounting to "generate" surpluses for the record.

When will the deceiving liberals stop using this LIE?!?

Debunking The Clinton Budget Surplus Myth - California Political Review

How much surplus did the US have when Clinton left office

Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.

Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.

How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.

For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary
Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).

If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.


the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration.

And Bush turned that $17b deficit into a $1017b deficit.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The excuses, falsehoods, and distortions that liberals are floating in this thread are both sad and astounding. Let’s review them:

-- The huge jump in FY 2009 spending was Bush’s fault, not Obama’s.

Wrong. Obama signed all but a handful of the FY 2009 spending measures, because Reid and Pelosi stalled them so they could hike spending and have Obama sign them. This is a matter of verifiable fact. (See the links in my OP and in my reply to Rex Nutting’s discredited nonsense.)

And, what about the spending bills in FY 2010 and 2011, both of which ran trillion-plus deficits? Who signed those? How about the spending bills in FY 2012, 2013, and 2014, which, thanks to the Republicans, were not as reckless as earlier ones but which still included massive deficits? Who signed those? That would be Barack Obama.

-- Part of the big jump in FY 2009 included the federal bailout and takeover of Freddie and Fannie.

Uh, yeah, and that bailout would have been avoided if the Democrats, including Barack Obama, had not repeatedly blocked Republican efforts to rein in Freddie and Fannie’s disastrous intervention in the housing market. Anyone can go on YouTube and see footage of the lying and demagoguery that Democrats employed to block GOP efforts to impose tougher regulations on Freddie and Fannie. Bush even warned about Freddie and Fannie’s irresponsible intervention in one of his State of the Union addresses.

And Freddie and Fannie catastrophic meddling in the housing market was the main cause of the Great Recession. There would have been far, far fewer bad home loans to bundle into "toxic assets" if Freddie and Fannie had not funded/secured trillions of dollars’ worth of unwise home loans.

-- But what about the Social Security cost of living increase? Surely that was not Obama’s fault, right?

Oh, and SS cost of living increases never happen! They happen at least every few years and sometimes every year. So that’s a pretty lame excuse for Obama’s reckless spending. Plus, that cost of living increase accounted for a rather small fraction of the $7.5 trillion that Obama has added to the debt since January 2009.


--

 

[g5000]

-- 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.

Ahhhh...fun with numbers.

I see you ignore how many people are in the workforce compared to 2009.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

We see on January 2008, the number of jobs was 138,365,000.

The trough of the crash was March 2010 at 129,810,000 jobs.

The number of jobs for May 2015 is 141,679,000.

141,679,000 - 129,810,000 = 11,869,000 jobs created since March 2010, which works out to an average of 191,435 jobs created per month.


So now we have a fuller picture.


What was Bush's average job creation per month?

Oh. Yeah. Look how the Labor Force Participation Rate did under Bush. The dramatic plunge in LFPR began under Bush. That plunge has been halted for over a year now.

I grant that Obama sucks at recovery, but don't sit there and pretend the GOP was any better.


And remember, YOU were the one who started the comparison to Bush.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Here's an astounding chart that most RW'ers either won't understand,

or will pretend they don't:

I'm guessing you have no clue how badly you have embarrassed yourself. Do you know what the monthly BLS employment situation report is? You might go check it for January 2009 and May 2015 and see the huge increase in the number of people who have left the labor force (and, as I document in the OP, you can't blame that on a huge wave of new retirees).

Any comparison that ignores the staggering number of Americans who have left the labor force since January 2009 is either based on ignorance or a desire to deceive.

You know, you guys can dance and duck and dodge all day, but rational people aren't gonna buy your flimsy excuses. The facts are there for all to see, and no amount of pitiful denialism will change them.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Some YouTube links on the fact that Democrats repeatedly blocked GOP efforts to rein and Freddie and Fannie and the Republicans warned that disaster would result of something wasn't done:


Barney Frank’s Denialism About the Housing Bubble


Bush and McCain Warned Democrats of Housing Crisis and Financial Meltdown


Democrats Covering Up Fannie and Freddie Scandal


Democrats Blocked Reform of Freddie and Fannie

 

[mikegriffith1]

-- 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.

Ahhhh...fun with numbers.

I see you ignore how many people are in the workforce compared to 2009.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

We see on January 2008, the number of jobs was 138,365,000.

The trough of the crash was March 2010 at 129,810,000 jobs.

The number of jobs for May 2015 is 141,679,000.

141,679,000 - 129,810,000 = 11,869,000 jobs created since March 2010, which works out to an average of 191,435 jobs created per month.


So now we have a fuller picture.


What was Bush's average job creation per month?

Oh. Yeah. Look how the Labor Force Participation Rate did under Bush. The dramatic plunge in LFPR began under Bush. That plunge has been halted for over a year now.

I grant that Obama sucks at recovery, but don't sit there and pretend the GOP was any better.


And remember, YOU were the one who started the comparison to Bush.

Oh, my goodness! This is hilarious. Fun with numbers indeed! So you take the lowest level of employment and subtract that from the number of jobs created since March 2010?! Really? Now, think about that. This is as laughable as Obama's deceptive claim in the 2012 election that he had created 5 million jobs--what he failed to mention is that we had also lost right around 5 million jobs!

How does your math deal with the fact that as February 2009 there were 80.7 million Americans out of the workforce but that as of last month there were 92.9 million Americans out of the workforce? 92.9 million is more than 80.7 million, right? Right? You see, that's a number that you can't fiddle with. 92.9 million minus 80.7 million is 12.2 million. That's 12.2 million more people out of the workforce in the last 6 years and 5 months.

 

[edthecynic]

Some YouTube links on the fact that Democrats repeatedly blocked GOP efforts to rein and Freddie and Fannie and the Republicans warned that disaster would result of something wasn't done:


Barney Frank’s Denialism About the Housing Bubble


Bush and McCain Warned Democrats of Housing Crisis and Financial Meltdown

I love it, a POWERLESS minority congressman Frank is more powerful than a Republican president, a Republican majority House and a Republican majority Senate COMBINED!

 

[edthecynic]

The excuses, falsehoods, and distortions that liberals are floating in this thread are both sad and astounding. Let’s review them:

Repeating your discredited lies does not make them any less a lie.

 

[edthecynic]

How does your math deal with the fact that as February 2009 there were 80.7 million Americans out of the workforce but that as of last month there were 92.9 million Americans out of the workforce? 92.9 million is more than 80.7 million, right? Right? You see, that's a number that you can't fiddle with. 92.9 million minus 80.7 million is 12.2 million. That's 12.2 million more people out of the workforce in the last 6 years and 5 months.

Damn those Boomers for retiring! Don't they know that they are required to work until they drop dead on the job?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

-- 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?

Yes, the national debt has risen to nearly 100% of GDP during his tenure. Take away the $2,000,000,000,000 and you still have $5,500,000,000,000 in new debt which is more debt in 6 years than Bush accumulated in 8.

 

[Faun]

The excuses, falsehoods, and distortions that liberals are floating in this thread are both sad and astounding. Let’s review them:

-- The huge jump in FY 2009 spending was Bush’s fault, not Obama’s.

Wrong. Obama signed all but a handful of the FY 2009 spending measures, because Reid and Pelosi stalled them so they could hike spending and have Obama sign them. This is a matter of verifiable fact. (See the links in my OP and in my reply to Rex Nutting’s discredited nonsense.)

And, what about the spending bills in FY 2010 and 2011, both of which ran trillion-plus deficits? Who signed those? How about the spending bills in FY 2012, 2013, and 2014, which, thanks to the Republicans, were not as reckless as earlier ones but which still included massive deficits? Who signed those? That would be Barack Obama.

-- Part of the big jump in FY 2009 included the federal bailout and takeover of Freddie and Fannie.

Uh, yeah, and that bailout would have been avoided if the Democrats, including Barack Obama, had not repeatedly blocked Republican efforts to rein in Freddie and Fannie’s disastrous intervention in the housing market. Anyone can go on YouTube and see footage of the lying and demagoguery that Democrats employed to block GOP efforts to impose tougher regulations on Freddie and Fannie. Bush even warned about Freddie and Fannie’s irresponsible intervention in one of his State of the Union addresses.

And Freddie and Fannie catastrophic meddling in the housing market was the main cause of the Great Recession. There would have been far, far fewer bad home loans to bundle into "toxic assets" if Freddie and Fannie had not funded/secured trillions of dollars’ worth of unwise home loans.

-- But what about the Social Security cost of living increase? Surely that was not Obama’s fault, right?

Oh, and SS cost of living increases never happen! They happen at least every few years and sometimes every year. So that’s a pretty lame excuse for Obama’s reckless spending. Plus, that cost of living increase accounted for a rather small fraction of the $7.5 trillion that Obama has added to the debt since January 2009.


--

That's as fucked up as anything I've read here. The Democrats did not block "Republican efforts to rein in Freddie and Fannie’s disastrous intervention in the housing market."

That is complete rightie bullshit.

It is true Democrats didn't recognize the problem and it is true that some, like Barney Frank are on record as being against any reform -- but don't let any rightwing nuts convince anyone that Democrats blocked the majority party Republicans. They didn't.

Blocking majority party Republicans could only have been accomplished had the minority party Democrats filibustered any of the related Republican bills. They didn't.

Not a single GSE reform bill got past Republican leadership in the Senate.

Not one.

One House bill passed only to have Bush shit all over it as ineffective. That bill too died in the Senate as Republican leadership refused to put it on the Senate's legislative calendar.

Democrats work wrong on the issue. Dead wrong. But Republicans were in charge, not Democrats. And the majority party Republicans failed to pass reform which could have averted the financial meltdown.