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

what power? where? he's gutting the military, our economy is far from stable......there's no "power" left in America except by a puppet dictator, and he's losing that as well.....
admit it, you just love the discontent he's causing...............

 

I imagine Mr. Obama is very grateful to McDonalds.





​

 

We're not last. Yet.




​

 

actually it does, republicans trashed the economy, and it will take a long time to clean that mess up

 

The debt was created by "fiscal conservative" presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.

As soon as some politician starts harping on the debt (blaming Obama) you know that they are either too ignorant to have decision making capacity or disingenuous liars.

These folks are most often not stupid so that makes them disingenuous liars. This is part of the reason why I turned my back on the republican party. It is not that I don't expect politicians to stretch the truth and tell the occasional fib but, when these clowns continue to knowingly spew lies (because they know the story sounds good and the raging masses in general will not know better) and they know these lies are damaging the country in a big way but tell them anyway due to extreme partisanship, then I get pissed off.

It is deficits that are responsible for the debt. Bush II was handed a near balanced budget and handed Obama a 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit.

Reducing this debt to zero (say in the first fiscal year of a new President) would have catastrophic consequences to the economy. Things just don't work that way and every politician who has ever administered a budget knows it. These things take time.

This is why the measuring stick is the increase or decrease in the deficit. Comparing Bush II to Obama. Bush went from zero(0) to 1.4 trillion. Obama has gone from 1.4 trillion down to roughly 500 billion.

 

Yes....

 

Keynesian economics has failed over 200% and has a 100% failure rate. Dropping another quarter wont work any longer ,its the new penny.

 

Yeah, Randa is a real right winger all right.

Randa Morris has been a freelance writer for over ten years. Her articles have been featured on prominent sites such as yahoo, MSN, E-How, Livestrong and other popular websites. She is a community activist who strongly supports economic and environmental justice, as well as human rights issues.

 

Its simple to understand why this is happening really. You are currently financing a military establishment around three times larger than any existential threat it could ever face and that now represents 44% of the entire global defence expenditure. The US now has a defence budget equivalent to that of the next 13 nations combined and far higher as a proportion of GDP today than it ever was at any time during the Cold War.

This is unsustainable as your spiralling debt burden clearly indicates

 

Downward Notch in Unemployment Rate Reflected Further Loss of Labor Force, Not the Unemployed Gaining Employment

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmi...ma-fans-reagan-did-better-on-jobs-and-growth/
Boy Forbes seems to be all over the map today.
Don't you just love the US MSM?

"Sorry, Obama Fans: Reagan Did Better on Jobs and Growth


Supporters of President Barack Obama, such as one of his campaign donors Robert Deitrick, an Ohio financial advisor often quoted in Forbes and elsewhere, insist that the Obama economy has been much more robust than Ronald Reagan’s. Are they right?

Let’s look at some numbers. President Reagan entered office in a period of high inflation which was stamped out by high interest rates that in turn led to the 1982 recession. His job-creation record after that may fairly be termed outstanding: nearly 20 million more Americans were employed when he left office than when the recession ended. Overall, including the recession on his watch, Reagan’s net job growth over eight years was 16.1 million.


Barack Obama entered office in different circumstances: He inherited a recession that was already well underway, which ended much earlier in his presidency than did the Reagan recession. If you think of the economic cycle like a bouncing ball, Obama entered office just as the ball was about to strike the pavement. The bounce, though, has proceeded in agonizingly slow motion. Some eight million jobs have been created under Obama since the mid-2009 end of the recession, with a net gain of about five million. Charting Obama and Reagan’s job-creation against overall U.S. population increases makes the picture look even worse for Obama, and the Reagan-era U.S. had a much smaller population. At any rate, more people have been added to the food-stamp rolls than the job rolls under Obama.

It’s misleading to compare employment rates during the two presidencies. Imagine 90 out of 100 people are employed, and because the economy looks like it’s picking up more steam 10 more people enter the workforce. If nine out of ten of them find jobs, the unemployment rate doesn’t go down at all, yet ten percent more people are employed.

Reagan’s economy was so strong that, for the last three-quarters of his administration, Americans were flooding into the workforce. Under Obama, the opposite has happened, and those who have given up on working aren’t counted as unemployed. Even today, more than five years into the tepid recovery, labor-force participation remains at its lowest level since 1978. Don’t blame waves of retirement for that fact: the Census Bureau reported that, from 2005 to 2010, older Americans actually became more likely to be employed. The percentage of 65-69 year-olds remaining in the workforce jumped from 26 percent to 32 percent over a ten-year-period ending in 2012. Among those 70-74 the jump was even more startling: from 14 percent to 19.5 percent. Meanwhile workers in the prime of their lives have simply left the playing field.

How about overall growth? GDP under Reagan was turbocharged compared to the Obama years. The Reagan years brought annual real GDP growth of 3.5 percent – 4.9 percent after the recession. In inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars, GDP jumped from 6.5 trillion at the end of 1980 to 8.61 trillion at the end of 1988. That’s a 32 percent bump. As Peter Ferrara pointed out on Forbes, it was the equivalent of adding the West German economy to the U.S. one.

Under Obama, GDP up to June 30, 2014 has grown an anemic 9.6 percent, total . Reagan-era growth was far more than double the Obama rate.

Ah, but did all of that Reagan bounty trickle down to ordinary Americans, though? Yes. Real (inflation-adjusted) median household income shot up some ten percent in the Reagan years. It has flatlined under Obama."

 

It's official - Obama worshippers will believe and say anything.

Meanwhile, back here on terra firma...

[video=youtube;axfTmFdPpP0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axfTmFdPpP0[/video]

 

The thread is pre-election propaganda.

here is the reality of Obama's economy..

Falling Incomes


Fewer Worker Participattion


Food Stamp Usage


Job Growth by President (compare Reagan to Obama)


Obama = Best economic President in modern history?

Goebbels would be proud of that propaganda piece.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

Best economic president ever, yet we're 17 trillion dollars in debt and there is still no plan on how we're going to pay that off. Whoever our next president is, he/she will have a tough time with every blaming them for our future financial problems when obama himself created this gigantic bubble that is about to pop. I still will never understand how being 17 trillions in debt= great economic leader.

 

You are correct... Total Military spending is now in excess of 1 Trillion annually on an income of roughly 2.8 Trillion.

This is retarded beyond retarded. In 2000 Total military spending was roughly 350 Billion and the US was still the dominant power by a long stretch.

In reality the only "existential" threat we currently face is from rag tag bands of extremists. Maintain our nukes and in reality after this 50 Billion would do it ... call it 100 Billion and we are still spending way more than most countries.

Take the other 900 Billion a year and what could be accomplished ? Massive things.

The truth is that the US is run by the Oligopolies and the Military is a big part of this Oligopoly. (Along with being the biggest civil and corporate welfare program on the planet)

 

The best "economic" president was Clinton..........and I say this as someone who votes Republican all the time at least at the national level. The only reason I don't think Reagan is the best is simply because we ended up with an increased deficit regardless of whether you blame him or the Congress.

That was nothing more than an incredibly sloppy hit piece done by one of their contributors and the fact that he had to title his piece "It's Official" speaks volumes about the work. For example the Deitrich guy that he quoted as a source said that the labor unemployment rate is more affected by long term trends like "women working these days". The labor participation rate has NEVER taken into account men versus women. It only looks at the total labor pool of people over a certain age who have held jobs or are looking. And even if you did use that assumption there should be a higher labor participation rate today because more women work today than they did in the 1980s. This is about as amateurish a piece as you can get.

 

Not sure where you get your information from but you are wrong.

Data for 2013

 

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter"

this according to Republican D1ck Cheney - funny how Republican keep going back to the deficit issue but always ignored it when one from their party was in the White House



The reality remains that corporate profits are at their highest since 1900 and job expansion has been created under President Obama who ended Bush's Great Recession.

 

Clinton didn't end with a surplus nor did he have a surplus any year he was in office. It was creative bean counting using social security funds.
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 That is a democrat myth.
Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:



Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

 

Yes this president is the worst president ever for corporate cronyism that is for sure. Corporate profits are at their highest level in at least 85 years. Employee compensation is at the lowest level in 65 years and the participating Labor force hasn't been this low for many decades.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...-at-36-year-low-even-as-more-jobs-beckon.html

 

All the more reason to strengthen union power and to end corporate tax loopholes.

 

the top one percent of wage-earning households in the US were reaping in around $1,264,065 in 2012 — or around 41-times as much as the average income for all wage-earners, who pulled in a comparable meager mean income of $30,997 that year.

The greatest demonstration of inequality is most evident in the income generated by not the top one percent, though, but by the sliver of the US population that makes more than 99.9 percent of the country. According to the firm’s research, the top 0.1 percent of Americans earned around $6,373,782 during that same 12-month span — or around 206 times what the average family in the US earned.

“The ‘top one percent’ might be the primary target of the masses' ire and envy, but it's actually the top 0.1 percent who are grabbing a bigger slice of wealth,” Matt Krantz wrote for USA Today this week.

Of course, even that small chunk of the population has an even more exclusive group to be jealous of: according to the group’s report, the top 0.01 percent of the nation’s top-earning households brought in more than $30 million apiece in 2012 — or around one thousand times what the average American earned.
The markets are up only because the corps are buying their own stocks to keep them a float. Actual market VOLUME (which is what you need to look at as far as health of the markets) is at an all time low.
If you say that the markets are at an all time high then what you are actually witnessing is the devaluation of the dollar through real inflation. The PPI continues to drop while wages decrease or remain stagnate. The middle class is being eliminated. What is there to celebrate?

 

The unions have no leverage to make demands and are simply trying to hold on to their jobs.
"When US corporations send jobs offshore, the GDP, consumer income, tax base, and careers associated with the jobs go abroad with the jobs. Corporations gain the additional profits at large costs to the economy in terms of less employment, less economic growth, reduced state, local and federal tax revenues, wider deficits, and impairments of social services.
When policymakers permitted banks to become independent of market discipline, they made the banks an unresolved burden on the economy. Authorities have provided no honest report on the condition of the banks. It remains to be seen if the Federal Reserve can create enough money to monetize enough debt to rescue the banks without collapsing the US dollar. It would have been far cheaper to let the banks fail and be reorganized."
PCR.