It's Official! President Obama is # 1 Economic President!!

This thread belongs in the humor/satire section.

#1 Economy President

Indeed.

Let's focus on President Obama shall we.

He has had 6+ years Post-Bush...nobody is running President Bush up the flagpole as an "economy" President..to infer President Obama has done better is an absolute sham.

 

Didn't even read the actual Forbes report, did you?

The Forbes report is an interview of Bob Dietrick - an obama supporter. Dietrick compares Reagan and obama in a couple of gross statistical measures such as unemployment. It does not compare obama to all Presidents, and it does not go into any detail.

For example, Dietrick says obama is better in jobs growth because under obama the BLS unemployment figure dipped to 6.1 one year before it reached 6.1 under Reagan. Dietrick doesn't mention that the economic disaster Reagan inherited from Carter was worse than the so-called "Great Recession" and unemployment peaked at nearly 1% higher.

And if measured from the time of peak unemployment, it dropped to 6.1% under Reagan 4 months faster than under obama.

But that just shows how stupid such comparisons are - people just pick their data points to get the answer they want. Its pablum for the ignorant. Just like people repeat claims about obama being so great without reading the actual sources.

 

He was the president who decided to rather than develop and domestic economic plan for the United States, go to war with a country that never attacked the United States and then illegally invade another to the cost of Six (6) Trillion Dollar$.

How much did the national debt rise since Obama took office? What? I can't hear you? Did you say the national debt was $14 Trillion before Obama, took office and is now $17 Trillion? Oh, I see. So, that means, in reality, because of Bush's idiotic decisions as president, we are actually closer to what? That's right, closer to $23 Trillion in Debt, if the real truth be told.

Then you continue to IGNORE that which was just put in your face. NFIB and Census Data for starters - and I am only just getting started on the proofs which shred the lies that have been spread about what this president has and has not actually done/

You see Inventory Managers ordering more products for their shelves? Do you UNDERSTAND what that means for the broader economy? Do you understand what that means for the Supply Chain? You can't get goods to the consumer, when those goods are not on the shelves. Suppliers cannot submit invoices to Ghost Accounts that do not exist. Manufacturers cannot fulfill manufacturing orders for contracts that do not exist. The ENTIRE Supply Chain was shut down and it was the actions taken by this current President that turned that around. The data clearly shows that.


Regarding student loan debt. I am not concluding that student loan debt is not out of control. I'm saying that a student loan debt in a vacuum means nothing. Do you know how much unfunded pension liabilities are relative national GDP in all the states in the aggregate? 18%. That's right, at least 18% of national GDP is represented by State-by-State unfunded pension liabilities. That is $3.06 Trillion in current dollars. How much are Student Loans? $1.2 Trillion.

Both of those numbers are completely out of control, but NEITHER of those numbers came into existence with Obama. Moreover, it was this president who established the Special Direct Consolidation Loan to reduce interest payments over time and the Pay As You Go program which capped total monthly payments people had to make to 10% of discretionary income. That helped a lot of people, whether the naysayers want to give Obama credit for it or not. This was his idea, remember?

 

Yes. Especially, when you counter independent Census Data and NFIB data with Right Wing Propaganda from the Heritage Foundation:



Right Wing Propaganda does not equate with Economic Data from reputable sources the entire Global Financial Community depends upon, including the entire United States Business Community, to get their jobs done each and every day.

Drop another quarter and try again, C-130.

 

I have one fact for you that makes everything you just quoted misleading and just outright dishonest Bull Crap !

We have the lowest labor force participation rate in 36 years. we had more working in 1979 then we do now even though the population has grown by over 90 million sense then

It is easy to come up with those dishonest figures if you can just eliminate people off the unemployment list not because they found jobs but because they have just given up

 

Getting back to real world Economic Data:

Again, WHERE is the destruction to the underlying economy that Obama, is supposed to have caused, people?

Core Retail Sales Month/Month:



Again, we see the dip in Core Retail Sales dip in 2008 and extend through part of 2009, before resuming a fairly nominal data pattern according to history going back to 2000. And, again, these are not the "Sexy" report names. They are not the ones you see Faux News or Cable News Not-working spewing about. If you are not tuned into Bloomberg, everyday, then these kinds of reports are sadly missed.

The source is NOT the Heritage Foundation, or some left or right wing stink tank. The source is the Census Bureau. These are the facts, people.

 

The United States has lower labor force participation rates because in 1979, we used to MANUFACTURE things in this country. Since, the election of Deity Ronald Reagan, this country has been on the destructive path of Outsourcing, Downsizing, Rightsizing, Re-engineering, Re-Dimensioning and Re-Structuring.

It has been the systematic dismantling of the American Middle Income in this country that has lead to many problems, one of them being low labor force participation. The other very important byproduct has been our nation's inability to rapidly and forcefully recover from recessionary pressures.

You cannot sustain an economy as massive as ours with wholesale fleecing and abandonment of Middle Incomes. As you do that, you erode our ability to transact our way our of economic downturns, such that each successive downturn becomes more and more difficult to shake off - until the nation ends up in a permanent or long term recessionary economy where declining wages and salaries, along with sparse job growth or no growth at all is the new norm.

None of that was created by Obama, as his job growth numbers in the midst of the worst economic bust since the Great Depression testifies.

No amount of ignoring the facts is going to change this reality.

 

s

there you go again liberals trying to rewrite history. it was you boy Clinton that signed NAFTA that sent millions of jobs to other countries. it was Clinton that raised the corporate tax rate making it more expensive to do business in the U.S. forcing companies to move over seas or not set up shop here

 

Back to the economic facts about Obama's Presidency.

The LIE is that Obama, caused unemployment to rise and did nothing to lower it. The truth is here in this US Department of Labor Statistics, Initial Jobless Claims chart from 1999 through 2014:



You can keep ignoring the facts about what this President has or has not done all you want, it won't change extant history. What is the TRUTH about Jobless Claims rising in the United States of America? The data clearly tells you what happened. After the crisis, jobless claims spiked - which is to be expected after an economic crisis. But, what else does the data tell you. It tells you that AFTER the Obama Administration's recovery measures had a chance to have some affect, weekly jobless claims plummeted almost as fast as they increased, until touching where they have been since 2000, around 320k.

So, where is this Obama Caused Joblessness in the historical record? It does NOT exist. Lies. All of them. Lies. Who is telling you these lies? Where are you hearing them repeated? Did the people telling you these lies ever check the actual historical data? The data says something completely different. The data says that something this president did, had a DRAMATIC positive impact on our economy in terms of weekly jobless claims.

Oh, you say - but labor force participation is down. That's because in the aggregate, fewer Middle Aged, Middle Income Americans have a job, because from the 1980's we've been shipping those jobs overseas. Not a fault of Obama. Under his administration, weekly jobless claims actually fell from their peak and are no higher than their historical mean to this very day.

That's called Averting a Greater Economic Crisis, folks. No matter how you slice it. The LIES have got to stop about this president. Why lie so much? The data DOES NOT agree with your LIES.

 

I'm not a Liberal. I'm an Independent's Independent. I vote for the most qualified candidate. Period.

Now, in every single post were I make a claim, I have posted data in chart form from a reputable source. No right wing or left wing sources in my posts. Where is your data proving the statement that Obama, is either the worst president since whomever, or Obama, caused whatever, or Obama, did this, or Obama, did not do that? Where is your DATA. People lie all the time, but put some data in front of me from a reputable source and I can figure things out for myself.


NAFTA, was a HORRIBLE piece of trash legislation that Congress Supported, along with PLENTY of Republicans, just like Gramm–Leach–Bliley in 1999, was a piece of Legislative Weapon of Mass Destruction levied against the American People, and was likewise supported by Clinton AND Republicans in both houses.

Outsources, began in earnest during the presidency of Deity Ronald Reagan, and no amount of spewing false rhetoric will change that. Go look at the Corporate Records - I have. Once we laid down fiber optic cables across both oceans in the 80's, we've been outsources ever since. The outsourcing that begun full speed in the 80's, was strapped with a solid rocket booster on both sides with NAFTA in the 1990's.

Again, NONE of that happened on Obama's watch. But, he was responsible for turning around what presidents before him had been doing since the 1980's. How absurd that people either don't study history, or don't care to educate themselves on the facts of history, before labeling a president as a failure.

 

the labor participation rate increased at a steady clime till Obama came into office it dropped like a rock during the recession, but unlike the last recession in 1980 which it also dropped but increased at a fast rate during that recovery Obama recovery it dropped and it never went back up

 

Back to the real economics of the Obama Administration with respect to history.

Capacity Utilization Rate. A Monthly Economic Report released by the Federal Reserve (source). The Cap Report is a leading indicator of consumer inflation - when producers are nearing full capacity they respond by raising prices, and the higher costs are usually passed on to the consumer. It measures the percentage of available resources being utilized by manufacturers, mines, and utilities.

Why is that important? Because, if the president is "killing jobs and the economy," like you've been hearing for the past six (6) years from Republican Steakhouse Operatives, then the Cap Rate would remain low. Is that what the historical proves? No. Absolutely, not. It shows that the Republican Steakhouse Operatives have been LYING to you for the past six (6) years! That should make you angry - angry enough to want to EDUCATE yourself BEFORE making posts claiming this president to have wronged the American People by trashing our economy with his "Obama Care."

Here is it. Read it and be humbled by it:


Now, how do you explain all the lying that's been going on? This data shows that the Capacity Utilization Rate (not a "Sexy" report) took a nose dive after the bad economic reality had time to sink in. Cap Rate will always lag bad news because entire organizations, often times with global operations, will have to make decisions about slowing down their net output because they fear narrow economic times ahead.

But, what happens after Obama, takes office and these same organizations SEE what's being done by the administration? That's right. They kick their Cap Rates in gear and get their operations up and running again. But, how can this be you say? You watched Faux News and CN Not News every single night and saw one after the other Pundit tell you that Obama, was not doing what was necessary to stimulate the economy, right? Wrong. This data I am presenting you with is historical and accurate. That means SOMEBODY was lying to you in the Media, or you failed to study this internal economic data on your own.

The truth sucks when you are caught LYING.

 

Really? You are going to try to pass a chart off on a guy who is covered in Economic Charts every day of his life as a career choice - really? Stop perpetrating a LIE. Look at your "chart" again:




MOD EDIT - Rule 3

The chart clearly shows that the decline began with Bush 43, not Obama 44. The apex of the growth took place right near 2000, not 2008, after Obama, was elected. So, the slowdown and growth BEGAN with Bush 43 and the acceleration to the downside BEGAN with Bush 43. The momentum from the turn to the downside ran through the election of Obama, and through his Presidency.

Furthermore, don't miss the broader point about the 1980's. Labor Force Participation rates won't be immediately reflected when jobs get outsourced. They will be reflected when people have had enough and stop looking. We started outsourcing jobs in the 80s. We perfected the art and science of outsources in the 90's. However, during the Clinton presidency we put on another 18 million jobs, which deferred (at best) the inevitable that was to come later. Many of the people who were displaced from all the outsources in the 80s, were able to remain confident during the 90s because of the economic tech boom that was supportive of economies around the world, not just here at home. So, that stayed the Labor Force Participation rate to a large degree and thank goodness for it.

However, we had no such economic boom during Bush 43, and we had no domestic plan or reversing the outsources that had taken place for two decades prior. When the economy went south during the Bush 43 recession (2003) and people lost their jobs back then, this time, there was no backstop, no cushion. And, that condition continued through the next recession, which happened to be the biggest since 1929/1932.

That was the straw that finally broke the camel's back. We lost our Middle Income support and that did not enable us to pull out of the last recession without serious government spending to initiate it.

 

I appreciate the homework you've done and how you presented it. I learned quite a bit from your posts this evening. Thanks.

 

I have tons more economic reports that demonstrate the lies having been told about this current president, but I think I've exposed the lie for what it is - a bald face lie.

The hate you have for a man is not justification for hating history and the facts that it holds. You might hate the facts, but the facts love daylight. And, as long as I am on this forum, when it comes to this president, there will be daylight.

- Slam him for not doing something more about Gitmo.
- Slam him for not burning the Patriot Act to the ground.

But, whatever you do, STOP LYING on the man. This president, under the circumstances (and there were tremendously grave to this country - economic depression/recession and two wars) has done a lot of good things that you need to take the time to study for yourself. The Media is not telling you everything this man has done that is good for the country, so you need to look it up for yourself.

But, the lies that have been told in this de facto mentality of deny anything he does good and augment anything he does that's bad, has got to stop. This is NOT the president who brought you 911. This is not the man who brought you Afghanistan. This is not the man who brought you Iraq.

In stark contrast. This is the man who ended U.S. Troop deaths in Iraq. This is the man who ended U.S. Troops deaths in Afghanistan. This is the man who got Osama. This is the man who got Gaddafi. This is the man who got Mubarak. This is the administration that China to un-peg its currency. This is the man who got what every modern president has tried to get but failed, National Healthcare. And, those accomplishments are just the tip of the iceberg when you look at his full record of accomplishments as president.

That would be an entire Legacy for any other President in our time, but not for this one. Oh, no. Because, he's Black, he's going to have to nail down World Peace and Good Will Towards All Mankind, before you allow him one shred of credit to his name.

That's unfair BS and I will not tolerate it on my watch.

So, if you want to debate what this president has actually done - fine, lets debate. But, please don't post right wing or left wing propaganda, because all I am going to post is DATA from reputable sources, just as I have in this thread.

Now, start telling the truth about this president for once.

 

takes longer to clean up the republicans mess then it did for them to make it... that is for sure

 

it went from the high of 67 down to 66 under bush it went from 66 to 63 under Obama so your trying to make a comparison of 1 point to 3 point it is you who is being dishonest

and you don't get to blame Bush for Obamas numbers then say Bushes number's are not caused by Clinton
why is it Obama is allowed to blame everything on previous presidents, but no other president can do the same they have to own up to what went on during their time in office, but Obama gets a free pass from the likes of you
more dishonest crap from a liberal and yes you are a liberal. if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it is a duck and you are pulling the same dishonest crap just like any other liberal does

 

Forbes is not "mainstream media," and it certainly isn't a media source that panders to the left.

 

You are very welcome.

This is not a bad man. He actually ran on an economic development platform for adding new energy technology as a core driver of our economic model. That was permanent tabled with the "surprise" (I say surprise, but it really was no surprise to me - I can explain that in another thread - it is a big topic) economic blast that came late in 2008, just before he took office. So, many of the things he got elected to do, got sidelined by years of having to deal with the economy.

There was going to be a National Consortium formed composed of both Private and Public Sector components, as well as investment from both sides and an agenda established to bring about the creation of new energy technologies as normal, everyday components of the economy. If you think the last tech boom created lots of jobs, this would have dwarfed that by comparison because such kinds of technology would have systemic relevance and impact on the world economy, not just our own. This is what Obama, ran on and wanted to do. Healthcare, was supposed to be his other big accomplishment.

Energy, Healthcare and Education - that was this president's big goal list on the domestic front, because the nation knew that no one had been paying attention to anything domestic in the eight years prior. But, he got his October Surprise in the form of a whopper of an economy in November.

 

Who are you trying to convince. The apex is seen almost taking place right at 2000. The decline BEGINS there. I don't need to try to make a comparison, the chart is sitting directly in front of you. The drop lines on the chart show you where the decline begins and where the acceleration initiates. And, you are still here arguing a losing point? Why? The chart does not speak loud enough for you?

Maybe you should spend some time figuring out the definition of Momentum, rather than duck hunting. Dishonest is when somebody posts a chart and then writes something that their own chart does not agree with and/or support. Find me one person (other than yourself) who is honestly looking at this chart, who will agree with you that somehow, the decline in Labor Participation either began with Obama, or dropped off like a rock under Obama. The tapering began under Bush 43, and that is exactly what the chart shows.

Now, if you are blind, then maybe posting charts is not something you should be trying to do. And, you little political labels don't bother me. An Independent is suppose to vigorously defend the truth, wherever that truth may lead. If it leads left, then that is the truth. If it leads right, then that is the truth. If it leads in the middle, that the middle is the truth. Wherever the truth resides, that is exactly where you are going to find me every single time.

You completely ignored my complaints against this president, and you foolishly harp on a chart that everybody can see as not supporting your false claims.

- This president drew a "Red Line" in the sand. No president should ever do that. Just state or re-state United States Policy on a particular matter and then either decide to take action or decide to not take action, but no president should ever draw lines in the sand. That's wrong. But, does this "fail" his entire presidency? Hardly. The record, which you clearly know nothing about clearly demonstrates otherwise.

I should not have to do your homework for you. You should know the man's record and you should know the difference between that and the Political Operatives Lies being spewed about his record.

I stand on truth and DATA that is backed up by reputable sources. Where do you stand? Because, when you come in here perpetrating a fraud with a chart that clearly shows an apex taking place in 2000, not 2008, and an acceleration with both angle and degree to the downside initiating BEFORE 2008, by a whopping 7-8 years, you clearly are smoking something.

 

Steakhouse Political Operatives Hell Bent on Destroying Obama's Presidency Regardless of the Facts. A video you need to see.

This is how certain politicians play the game. Below the belt and with no honor, whatsoever. Dignity, integrity and character don't matter to these people.

 

Next I suppose you're going to tell us that he's the greatest commander in chief in American history?

 

Actually it doesnt. Recessions are corrections. They clean up themselves. This one was over 6 months into Obamas Presidency, before doing anything of substance. Obama has only prolonged the recovery.

 

Neither Forbes nor corporations nor any real patriots think so.