Originally posted by psmith81992
The above link is what I think TI has been talking about in terms of government growth.
Did you read that link?
Obama Dec. 2012 21,925 315,255 6.9%
GWBush Dec. 2008 22,555 306,004 7.4%
Clinton Dec. 2000 20,804 283,696 7.3%
G Bush Dec. 1992 18,878 258,413 7.3%
Reagan Dec. 1988 17,736 246,056 7.2%
Look at the number on the right. That's the percentage of government employees per capita in the US. Look at the number in the middle column, that's the number of government employees- and it's rawly lower than under GWB.
It literally says Obama has a smaller government-to-population ratio than Reagan and smaller total than George W. Bush. It says we need more government hirees, honestly, because under Obama we have not been keeping up with population growth.
Also look at Bush unemployment numbers from 2005-2008
Ok, I'll do so. And I note that it's been going down consistently under Obama once he staunched the economic bleeding.
This is a graph that combines the Bush unemployment numbers with the Obama ones, with a line with the changeover, so you can see where they go up and down:
It is from an article from 2013, so we're notably better now, but we'd clearly been going down for about three years by that point.
Here's another:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014...resident-obama/
This one says we're doing better in most areas but there's still some we lag in- including some that the op article notes we are improving in, just slowly.
Or in other words, what I've been saying.
Here are two others that I haven't fully looked at but will
They're opinion pieces which are honestly pretty dumb, and draw their conclusions by blaming Obama for the Great Recession (the thing that started before he took office). The first one tries to blame the low-growth in Obama's first term- you know, when Obama stepped in on an economy in freefall in dire need of stabilization- on his policies somhow.
The second one is basically just saying that Reagan had heathier economic growth than Obama. Which is true, but he also didn't have a worldwide financial collapse of the same scale.
Fact is while Obama has done better than W, you're being an apologist for all he got wrong.
Which is.... what?
When I asked about what you specifically mean by 'making things worse for the first five years,' you instead posted links to stuff I specifically brought up and addressed- and in some cases were just flat-out the reverse of what you and Time are saying.
The same actions that raised the debt lowered the unemployment, of which I give credit and blame on both sides. The reason welfare is high is because of the unemployment and other effects of the crash- all of which, it is noted, are something eventually solved by economic growth and jobs and wage growth, but not quickly, and as the original article of the thread points out he has been doing positively in.
Where's this 5 years of making things worse you're talking about? What things did he do that didn't help? How did he make things worse? You can't just make accusations and then when called on them try and deflect onto other topics- especially not when I've already addressed all of your deflections.
You are not saying what Obama did wrong beyond the stuff I've already talked about the pros and cons of, merely that I am apologizing for it. That's BS, Psmith.
You cannot keep up this beat-around-the-bush, accusing others of not holding Obama accountable for (mumblemumble) stuff when I specifically have talked about every single point you've brought up and responded with data, and posting stuff I've already done that with is just stalling.
And rule of thumb, posting stuff that agrees with me rarely helps if you are trying to disagree with me.