Obama's latest economic report card, worse since 1949

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by 1458279, Jul 31, 2016.

  1. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #1
    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016...ins-the-weakest-of-the-post-world-war-ii-era/

    "the pace of this expansion has been by far the weakest of any since 1949."

    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/07/29/economists-react-to-second-quarter-growth-very-weak/
    Economists React to Second-Quarter Growth: ‘Very Weak’

    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/07/15/needed-a-contingency-plan-for-secular-stagnation/

    Needed: A Contingency Plan for Secular Stagnation


    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/15/grading-the-obama-economy-by-the-numbers.html


    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/businesses-slash-spending-are-jobs-next-2016-07-31
    Businesses slash spending. Are jobs next?

    Looks like Obama's economy will give Trump a victory and looks like Obama will go down as the worst president ever on economic performance.

     
  2. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #2
    Ah, for the days things were cyclical as opposed to being supply-side only. Obama didn't start the problem, but he didn't fix it. Supply-side bailouts have not worked.
     
  3. DearthnVader macrumors 6502

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #3
    Wow, worse than Herbert Hoover or Martin Van Buren?

    That's a bold statement, care to back it up with some facts.
     
  4. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #4
    While I admit the following is biased and know it's not entirely accurate in blaming Obama (for example, it omits various details on the ACA and ignores a number of factors on other issues, effectively and even wrongly scapegoating Obama while overlooking the larger reasons (IMHO)), but what's your take on this?

    http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/obamas-economic-recovery-in-just-9-charts/
     
  5. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #5
    Just looking at the charts on Obama's economic performance alone pretty much make the case, however, Obama had huge advantages over presidents from long ago in that we have so many more systems in place now than before.

    Example: food stamps brought an end to soup lines, unemployment, etc... FDIC and 1st world credit, transportation and data analysis systems that weren't here in the old days.

    The recession was over when Obama's polices took hold, yet he was given ZIRP, fast growing stock market, mobile tech boom, $10 trillion in debt, ACA, QE and the biggest stim package in US history.

    No president EVER has been given more than Obama was given. Just the national debt alone, he got more than ALL other presidents COMBINED.

    No other president has ever gotten interest rates like Obama has. Kick in Quantitive Easing and the largest stim package ever and look what we got.

    Add it all up, what more could Obama have been given? Obama is the 1st president to NEVER get 3% growth.

    Obama's claim now is that he brought us out of a bad recession, yet the recession was already over before his policies took hold.

    The Fed has admitted that the gains in unemployment is because so many people simply gave up.

    95% of the gains went to the top 5%.

    Just for kicks, what do you think is so great about Obama's economy? Where's the growth? What happened to the help for working Americans? 8 years ago, Obama was going to fix everything. 4 years ago, he just needed some more time. Bill Clinton vouched for him, then things went from slow to slower. Now they're talking about going into a new recession and the Fed has no more ammo.
     
  6. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    Looks slow and steady to me...

    A seven year expansion is pretty long.
     
  7. nutjob macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
  8. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #8
    So says the die-hard Hillary/Obama supporter that desperately wants Obama economy to be a win. Obama is at the end of the line, he's introduced nothing new to help the economy in his 2nd term and it's going in the books soon.

    Obama can't change things now, it's too late, the games over.

    Yes we can, became No we didn't. All the Hope and Change was hype. Desperate is not seeing the truth while clutching to a dream that's now over.
     
  9. unlinked macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Ireland
    #9
    GDP expansion is great and all that but it should be accompanied by job growth

    [​IMG]
     
  10. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #10
    You are saying that the bailouts had zero to do with ending the recession?
     
  11. maxsix Suspended

    maxsix

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    #11
    I'm both shocked and surprised that this information was made available to the public. Facts like this are usually covered up, like Hussein and Hillary's other evil deeds.
     
  12. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #12
    I didn't saying anything about the bailouts, just looking at the recession. The recession was over in June 2009, Obama got what he wanted. The effect of any one part can be debated but so many things were done, it'll be very hard to get any consensus on any one part.

    We saw so much taxpayer money wasted, it's hard to keep track.

    The ones that did extremely well were those that donated to Obama. This give-away of taxpayers money was wasted on so many things it's hard to keep track.

    There's actually good news here in that we at least can see what didn't work. At this point in the game, there's no way for Obama to make this look good. He's trying to save face by saying he saved us for a global depression, but facts are facts.

    You can't change the fundamentals of economics to suit a game plan, no more than you can change physics to suit the design of your airplane.
     
  13. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #13
    Meanwhile, in the real world...

    Obama approval now at 54% in Gallup

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #14
    What sbout retirement?
     
  15. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #15
    It's for replicants.
     
  16. 1458279, Aug 1, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2016

    1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #16
    Obama's Economic Recovery Is Now $2.2 Trillion Below Average

    http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obamas-economic-growth-gap-now-tops-2-2-trillion/
    --- Post Merged, Aug 1, 2016 ---
    And this proves what about the economy?

    Are you disputing the economic numbers?

    Are you suggesting the economics is NOT the "real world"?

    Can you explain why BOTH parties are talking about better jobs and fixing the economy when Obama's approval is so high?

    Can you explain why 77% of America says we're on the wrong path and most Americans want a change?

    Heck, even Bill and Hillary are pushing change.

    --- Post Merged, Aug 1, 2016 ---
    The typical American couple has only $5,000 saved for retirement

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...has-only-5000-saved-for-retirement-2016-04-28

    Doesn't look like most Americans will be able to retire.
     
  17. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #17
    Jimmy Carter is happy, he wont be considered the worst US President anymore.
     
  18. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #18
  19. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #19
    Did you leave out the /sarcasm/ tag?
     
  20. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    So if you have an average annual salary of $50,000 and were born in July 1955 you will get $21,500 from Social Security per year - that isn't bad.
     
  21. samiwas macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #21
    The stock market was fast-growing when he became president? In just 15 months prior to his inauguration, the DJI had lost some 6000 points , and lost another 2000 over the next two months.

    Funny, when it comes to GDP, you want to talk percentages, but when it comes to debt, you want to talk absolute numbers. Since Obama took office, debt is up about 80% as of the end of last fiscal year. Bush had raised it by about 58% at this time in his Presidency, but did NOT have the recession-related debt counted against him. Reagan was up more than 150% by this time.

    So, this is funny, too. You say none of Obama's policies had yet taken effect, but you count the debt from 2009 towards him, when it was incurred at the same time as these policies which were supposedly Bush's. Again, you can't have it both ways.

    Oh, and you say he was handed a $10 trillion debt, and it's right at $19 trillion. It was actually about $11 trillion when he came into office. That would make an $8 trillion difference. Since 8 is less than 11, then "he added as much as all others combined" is patently false, especially since the bulk of it was added within the first year, when you claim his policies hadn't really taken effect. Yet again, were these his policies, or not?

    Yet, last year his debt growth was just 1.83%. Only Clinton has had a lower percentage debt growth in the last 45 years. His last three years average a 4.17% growth per year (after the recession settled down). GWB was seeing 7-8% debt growth through most of his Presidency. Reagan and Bush 1 were seeing 12-16% growth in debt.

    So, you mean the debt growth incurred during this period doesn't count either, right?

    If you can, just one time, point out where I said that, I will answer you. But, since you can't, since it's made up in your head, I will continue to ignore it.
     
  22. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #22
    Do us a favour. List us the economic advancements of President William Harrison.

    Be very detailed with your findings.

    BL.
     
  23. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #23
    When Obama leaves office, he would have nearly doubled the national debt. Doesn't matter if you use a percentage of fixed numbers, what is your point?

    What does the debt have to do with the recession? The recession was over in June 2009, Obama's policies wouldn't have had an effect until after that. Look at the trend lines of the recession, we were well on our way out already and Obama caught the tail end. He now uses it as an excuse for his failed socialist spending programs.

    Rounding up and down to shave the numbers doesn't change the facts. Obama isn't done yet, we'll be about 20 trillion and he was handed about 10 trillion. Being a percent up or down, doesn't change the fact that he added about as much as all other presidents combined. Nobody added as much has Obama did.

    Stock market growth was because of cheap fed money. It doesn't reflect how middle America is doing.

    Splitting hairs doesn't change the story. Obama has the worst recovery since 1949. Not much to gain by splitting hairs to try and make it look better than it is.
     
  24. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #24

    Seeing that the DJIA has doubled since the day he took office, I'd have to say that your statement is an absolute crock.

    BL.
     
  25. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #25
    Given he was in Office for what 32 days, it's hard to think he screwed up worse than Obama.
     

Share This Page