A Graphic About President Obama. Can You Dispute These Figures?

The unemployment figure is easily disputed.

The DOW and S&P mean absolutely nothing to me.

And I challenge you, seebell, to give me verifiable proof of why I should attribute these statistics to Obama anyway.

Worst. Socialist. Ever.

The economy will naturally expand if it is allowed to. The occasional recesion is normal and healthy; the economy then bounces back stronger than ever. What we have had is a government-caused severe recession followed by government-caused near-stagnation.

I (and others) said at the time of Obama's central planning of the recovery that we would not have an economic boom, but probably a decade of low growth. Well, that's what we've had so far. So, while Obama can try to take credit for our stagnate/slow growth economy, he should only be applauded if you have an "everyone gets a participation trophy" mentality. What Obama has done is deprive us of an economic boom, which was easily predicted.

Catfish said:

Worst. Socialist. Ever.

Click to expand...

this is what the slow destruction of our country looks like

Bodhisattva said:

The economy will naturally expand if it is allowed to. The occasional recesion is normal and healthy; the economy then bounces back stronger than ever. What we have had is a government-caused severe recession followed by government-caused near-stagnation.

I (and others) said at the time of Obama's central planning of the recovery that we would not have an economic boom, but probably a decade of low growth. Well, that's what we've had so far. So, while Obama can try to take credit for our stagnate/slow growth economy, he should only be applauded if you have an "everyone gets a participation trophy" mentality. What Obama has done is deprive us of an economic boom, which was easily predicted.

Click to expand...

*** Well-said ***

I dont dispute any of it but IMO, the stimulus, which was responsible for much of this, could have been much better executed.

Labor participation rate January 2009 - April 2015
Jan 2009: 66.7%
April 2015: 62.5%.
Much of the drop in unemployment is simply people who gave up looking for work, and, after two years are no longer counted among the unemployed.

Tidewater said:

Labor participation rate January 2009 - April 2015
Jan 2009: 66.7%
April 2015: 62.5%.
Much of the drop in unemployment is simply people who gave up looking for work, and, after two years are no longer counted among the unemployed.

Click to expand...

there is also the underemployed. just because you have a job doesn't mean it is a good job that you are qualified to do. I know of many people with architecture degrees that aren't doing that right now.

and we will have another recession. my boss says it will happen in 2019.

I disagree also with the Unemployment total. Do these people count people on welfare as employed?

Where is the National Debt statistic?

Thanks for your post Tidewater.

OMG, Really? How many of these "employed" are the messiah's stooges in all his tax payer supported 'jobs'? Where is the national debt numbers this idiot has rung up to record levels?

Bodhisattva said:

I (and others) said at the time of Obama's central planning of the recovery that we would not have an economic boom, but probably a decade of low growth. Well, that's what we've had so far. So, while Obama can try to take credit for our stagnate/slow growth economy, he should only be applauded if you have an "everyone gets a participation trophy" mentality. What Obama has done is deprive us of an economic boom, which was easily predicted.

Click to expand...

Well, as long as we're playing the idle speculation card, if Obama's policies have prevented a boom economy, it should also be noted that his polices--specifically the stimulus (poorly conceived as it was) and auto bailout--prevented a much severe recession, if not depression. So it balances out.

jthomas666 said:

Well, as long as we're playing the idle speculation card, if Obama's policies have prevented a boom economy, it should also be noted that his polices--specifically the stimulus (poorly conceived as it was) and auto bailout--prevented a much severe recession, if not depression. So it balances out.

Click to expand...

Lol

Grasping for straws. The labor participation rate and underemployment trump those numbers alone along with the 2 trillion dollars of American money sitting in foreign accounts. Talk about the middle class. What middle class?

jthomas666 said:

Well, as long as we're playing the idle speculation card, if Obama's policies have prevented a boom economy, it should also be noted that his polices--specifically the stimulus (poorly conceived as it was) and auto bailout--prevented a much severe recession, if not depression. So it balances out.

Click to expand...

I’ve also said that the stimulus probably did shorten the recession, but that the cost far exceeded the gains.

Recessions typically last about 18 months, maybe two years. The following economic boom is generally twice as long. That’s one reason why the government shouldn’t step in to play economic manager during recessions. They are natural and pave the way for better things to come by getting rid of failing companies so that better ones can take their place.

The stimulus may have shortened the recession, but at what cost? We should be in about year four of an economic boom. There is no massive economic expansion and all the jobs and wealth and innovation that comes with it. That opportunity is gone forever. Exchanging a year or so less of recession for four years or more of an economic boom is not a good trade.

Government spending is largely waste. The stimulus was waste on an unprecedented scale. The bailout also rewarded failure and crowded out the entry/expansion of better businesses. To overlook the definition of government spending to claim that it is somehow a good thing is some strong religion. The government caused the recession. The government solution has deprived us of the benefits of the post-recession and given us something only slightly better than stagnation. And there is no economic boom in sight. Maybe it’s better if the government stopped putting such a heavy hand on the economy. It does just fine without the government’s “help.”

To paraphrase Calvin Coolidge, it is better for government to get rid of a bad policy than to try to create another good one. There is benefit to doing the former; the latter just turns out to be another bad policy.

CBO estimates Federal debt to rise from $10.1 trillion to $19.1 trillion under Urkel's reign.
You cannot take "credit," such as it is, for the stimulus without accepting responsibility for the debt that paid for it.

The guy is an unmitigated disaster.

I think giving whoever is in charge "credit" for some things is utterly absurd. One guy cannot control the spending of 300-plus million people. However, if Obama gets all the credit for that stuff then he also gets the blame for the rise in food prices over the last couple of years.

These types of stats are like a wax nose and anyone can make them fit any way they wish. Do any of these same Democrats (for example) want to compare the unemployment rate under FDR before and AFTER the 1937 Recession? It's just not as simple as "party X got elected, therefore this happened." There was one on Facebook in the 2012 election showing the price of gas had skyrocketed from $1.39 a gallon to over $3 under Obama - never mind that six months earlier it was the same $3 and plummeted as a consequence of the Meltdown (er, supply and demand).

I recall my Dad, the mostly economic conservative, telling me at the 2012 Texas Speedway race that if Obama would have just left well enough alone the economy would have recovered better than it did - AND - that he hoped Romney lost because the moment the other party got in there they were going to do their experimental economics and further delay things......when if they'd just let it cycle through, it would take care of itself.

He lost something like about $80,000 in his 401K. But he kept plugging along and noted that within two years, he had it all back and it was expanding. Just remember that you're posting a propagandist argument that selectively edits out any inconvenient information. One could argue under the "are you better off than four years ago" argument that I'm taking home the exact same pay as I was seven years ago despite making $6 an hour more than I was then - and it doesn't go as far. So my own experience on this is that I'm (upper) middle class and worse off than before, but......I'm wary of putting everything credit or blame on any one person other than myself.

Dad's experience? "I did fine when the Republicans were in and I did fine when the Democrats were in."

So who can really say?

And there's this:
Number of hours worked is at a 50-year low under Urkle.

the average number of hours worked per week dropped from a peak of 38.8 under President Johnson to a 50 year low of 33.9 hours per week under President Obama

Click to expand...

Now, why would the number of hours a worker actually works drop like that?

Tidewater said:

And there's this:
Number of hours worked is at a 50-year low under Urkle.



Now, why would the number of hours a worker actually works drop like that?

Click to expand...

I have no idea what the numbers are but rather than comparing from LBJ to BO, many many years that BO had nothing to do with, how about some figures from when Dubya left to now?