Originally posted by Bardock42I have never heard you mention anything negative about him. I've given him proper credit and proper blame, while the blame usually is Bush's fault.
I think he's done a lot wrong, and I wish he'd achieved more. But he's been good for the economy, and he has some decent achievements under his presidency.
Originally posted by RobtardLol I guess we're also pretending that when he made the recession worse, it was Bush's fault but when we began slowly getting out of it 6 years later, all Obama! Alright then.
So we're pretending that Obama was handed a recession and poor economy when he took office. Alright then.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Lol I guess we're also pretending that when he made the recession worse, it was Bush's fault but when we began slowly getting out of it 6 years later, all Obama! Alright then.
When did he make it worse?
I mean, it was getting worse when Obama first took office before he did anything, but it stopped getting worse almost exactly when the stimulus hit, and once it started climbing it has not stopped improving since.
Like the article says, 59 straight months of job gains averaging 3 million jobs a year. It has been very steady from when Obama's policies took effect, with only small blips that were never enough to deflect us from a gradually upward path.
When did this 'make it worse' period even happen?
Originally posted by psmith81992
Unfortunately, claiming the recovery is real without reaching is the same ad nauseum point.If you ignore the first 5 years, sure.
In the first five years he'd already drastically dropped unemployment from it's height.
Originally posted by psmith81992
I have never heard you mention anything negative about him. I've given him proper credit and proper blame, while the blame usually is Bush's fault.
The complaint seems to be your 'proper blame' looks to include things that, by the numbers, did not actually happen.
Look, this is a post about the numbers. The first post in this thread is about the numbers and precisely where we are.
Now you're claiming a completely different thing happened other than an average job growth of three miliion a year? Remember, the reason this job report was considered critical is because the Fed is considering the question of have we improved so much that we should raise interest rates.
Where are you getting your impression of what happened? Because it does not seem to fit what the standard economic measures say, which all seem to indicate that we've been improving for the last five years straight.
Your 'bad for the first five years' statement doesn't seem to come out of anywhere- We leveled off around one year into his administration (which was *entirely* expected, considering the scale of the problem), and by a year after that real improvement had begun and hasn't stopped since.
To hit some prior points by Time and Psmith:
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Agree to disagree, if you really believe Obama is responsible for jobs gained, that's a lol. Of coarse I could say he added thousands of government jobs, which is just more strain on our economy.
Well, considering he started major policies that have been linked to job growth, and opposing policies that'd harm it, yes, yes I do. He did major famous actions to encourage this.
The Fed's stimulus actions certainly play a large role.
Here's a question: Why do you think 'people paid to do work' doesn't count if it's government? It's still people being paid, and they in turn use money to other companies and such. It works entirely like other jobs.
Not that this is where jobs are coming from- the public center job grown under Obama has been minimal.
"Public sector employment is now (2012 -Q) down 608,000 workers since January 2009, a 2.7 percent decline. At the same point in President Bush’s term, public sector employment was up 3.7 percent. "
Originally posted by psmith81992
If he gets credit for stopping the crisis or at least slowing it down, he gets the blame for ballooning the national debt, increasing the number of people on welfare, etc. We've been over this repeatedly. He's not going to get credit for one thing and not get blame for another.
Note that the welfare one- that is entirely caused by the crisis, for entirely obvious reasons of people losing their jobs, savings, etc.. And as unemployment goes down and people continue to recover, so will the welfare rate. It's one plus one stuff.
Also, on national debt, certainly! Obama entirely gets the blame on spending 800 million on a stimulus to fight the crisis. 100% blame there, no doubt whatsoever. It's not something I find too horrible, to be sure, but it's caused by his actions.
I will note that austerity when used in other countries in crisis also raises debt, but without getting economic recoveries. Such methods are where Japan's lost decade came from, and why we recovered faster than the UK even though we were hit harder.
Another number Obama's dropped is the medically uninsured rate, which is also falling. Short term this raises the debt- though not as much as expect it came in under budget- but long term it slows the rising costs of healthcare. So he takes the blame/credit for that on both sides.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jun/01/scorecard-economy-obama/
Note that the welfare one- that is entirely caused by the crisis, for entirely obvious reasons of people losing their jobs, savings, etc.. And as unemployment goes down and people continue to recover, so will the welfare rate. It's one plus one stuff.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2013/01/24/the-growth-of-the-federal-government-1980-to-2012/
The above link is what I think TI has been talking about in terms of government growth.
Also look at Bush unemployment numbers from 2005-2008
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Here's another:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/08/04/have-most-economic-indicators-improved-under-president-obama/
Here are two others that I haven't fully looked at but will
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/07/facts-are-facts-obama-owns-worst-economic-numbers-in-80-years-since-1932/
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/04/obama-vs-reagan-big-government-socialism-proves-to-be-as-disastrous-as-expected/
Fact is while Obama has done better than W, you're being an apologist for all he got wrong.
And finally this:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/obamas-numbers-july-2015-update/
Q99 has said that the welfare has been increasing.
The link about government growth you provided also pointed out that the government has been shrinking under Obama
Your link on Bush's unemployment numbers shows as well how unemployment now is much lower than what Bush left.
Your last link has this summary:
"The economy has added nearly 7.9 million jobs, and the unemployment rate is now lower than the historical median.Business establishment start-ups have increased by 20 percent, and the number of job openings is the highest in more than 14 years.
The purchasing power of weekly paychecks is up 2.6 percent, despite some recent slippage.Nevertheless, the number of people receiving food stamps is still 43 percent higher than when Obama was first sworn in, despite recent declines.
And the home ownership rate has continued to decline, to the lowest point in over a quarter century.
U.S. oil production is up 94 percent. Wind and solar power are up 252 percent. U.S. dependency on oil imports is down to the lowest point since the 1970s.
The percentage of foreigners who say they approve of the U.S. is up in most countries including France, Britain, Japan, Mexico, Turkey, Pakistan and even Israel, where it stands at 81 percent of those polled this year. One of the few exceptions is Russia, where U.S. favorability has plunged to 15 percent."
So there's two things in the summary that they hold as negatives, the home ownership is at a 25 year low (after a housing bubble)
And food stamps are up. But, Obama is a president who thinks social programmes needs to be extended. His standpoint would be that food stamps before were too low, and excluded too many people in need. So that's only a negative if you subscribe to a conservative worldview.
idk, I used to be hard on Obama in the beginning, thinking he should have been stronger, but as his presidency develops, it's starting to look very much like he'll be one of the best presidents, despite the Republican obstructionism. One of his main negative points in my opinion is the government surveillance and increases in drone strikes. Economically he has done extremely well, as your sources agree.