Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/06/02/economically-could-obama-be-americas-worst-president/

    The recession ended four years ago, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. So Obamanomics has had plenty of time to produce a solid recovery. In fact, since the American historical record is the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery, Obama should have had an easy time producing a booming recovery by now.

    Obama likes to tout that we are doing better now than at the worst of the recession. But every recovery is better than the recession, by definition. So that doesn’t mean much.

    The right measure and comparison for Obama’s record is not to compare the recovery to the recession, but to compare Obama’s recovery with other recoveries from other recessions since the Great Depression. By that measure, what is clear is that Obamanomics has produced the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression, worse than what every other President who has faced a recession has achieved since the Great Depression.

    In the 10 previous recessions since the Great Depression, prior to this last recession, the economy recovered all jobs lost during the recession after an average of 25 months after the prior jobs peak (when the recession began), according to the records kept by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. So the job effects of prior post Depression recessions have lasted an average of about 2 years. But under President Obama, by April, 2013, 64 months after the prior jobs peak, almost 5½ years, we still have not recovered all of the recession’s job losses. In April, 2013, there were an estimated 135.474 million American workers employed, still down about 2.6 million jobs from the prior peak of 138.056 million in January, 2008.

    Ronald Reagan suffered a severe recession starting in 1981, which resulted from the monetary policy that broke the back of the roaring 1970s inflation. But all the job losses of that recession were recovered after 28 months, with the recovery fueled by traditional pro-growth policies. By this point in the Reagan recovery, 64 months after the recession started, jobs had grown 9.5% higher than where they were when the recession started, representing an increase of about 10 million more jobs. By contrast, in April, 2013, jobs in the Obama recovery were still about 2% below where they were when the recession started, about 2 ½ million less, or a shortfall of about 10 million jobs if you count population growth since the recession started, as discussed below.

    Obama’s so-called recovery included the longest period since the Great Depression with unemployment above 8%, 43 months, from February, 2009, when Obama’s so-called stimulus costing nearly $1 trillion was passed, until August, 2012. It also included the longest period since the Great Depression with unemployment at 9.0% or above, 30 months, from April, 2009, until September, 2011. In fact, during the entire 65 years from January, 1948 to January, 2013, there were no months with unemployment over 8%, except for 26 months during the bitter 1981 – 1982 recession, which slayed the historic inflation of the 1970s. That is how inconsistent with the prior history of the American economy President Obama’s extended unemployment has been. That is some fundamental transformation of America.

    Moreover, that U3 unemployment rate does not count the millions who have dropped out of the labor force during the recession and President

    Obama’s worst recovery since the Great Depression, who are not counted as unemployed because they are not considered in the work force. Even though the employment age population has increased by 12 million since the recession began, only 1 million more Americans are counted as in the labor force. With normal labor force participation rates, that implies another 7.3 million missing U.S. jobs, on top of the 2 ½ million missing jobs we are still short from when the recession began, for a total of about 10 million missing jobs.

    If America enjoyed the same labor force participation rate as in 2008, the unemployment rate in December, 2012 would have been about 11%, compared to the monthly low of 4.4% in December, 2007, under President George Bush and his “failed” economic policies of the past. We will not see 4.4% unemployment again, without another fundamental transformation of America’s economic policies.

    The number of unemployed in January, 2013, at the end of President Obama’s first term, was 7.7 million. Another 7.9 million were “employed part time for economic reasons.” The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports, “These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.”

    Another 2.3 million were “marginally attached to the work force.” The BLS reports, “These individuals…wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. [But] [t]hey were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.”

    That puts the total army of the unemployed or underemployed at nearly 18 million Americans in January, 2013. They are all counted in the BLS calculation of the U6 unemployment rate, which still totaled 13.9% that month.

    But the Shadow Government Statistics website also includes in its “SGS Alternative Unemployment Rate” long term discouraged workers, those who wanted and were available for work for more than a year, and had looked for a job, but not in the prior 4 weeks. That is how the BLS U6 unemployment rate was calculated prior to the changes made in the early 1990s under the Clinton Administration. Including these workers as well raises the SGS unemployment rate for April, 2013 to 23%. That seems more consistent with how the economy still feels for the majority of Americans, despite Democrat Party controlled media cheerleading.

    This utterly failed jobs record of Obamanomics reflects the more basic reality that the economy has not been growing under President Obama. In the 10 post depression recessions before President Obama, the economy recovered the lost GDP during the recession within an average of 4.5 quarters after the recession started. But it took Obama’s recovery 16 quarters, or 4 years, to reach that point. Today, 21 quarters, or 5 plus years, after the recession started, the economy (real GDP) has grown just 3.2% above where it was when the recession started. By sharp contrast, at this point in the Reagan recovery, the economy had boomed by 18.6%, almost one fifth.

    Obama’s economic performance has even been much worse than Bush’s. Jeffrey H. Anderson, a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, writes in Investors Business Daily on January 13, “Prior to Obama, the second term of President Bush featured the weakest gains in the gross domestic product in some time, with average annual (inflation-adjusted) GDP growth of just 1.9%, [according to the official stats at the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)]” But average annual real GDP growth during Obama’s entire first term was less than half as much at a pitiful 0.8%, according to the same official source.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    In response to Beach-Spider's comment:


    Waddaya think ...

    The GOP ran the national budget into the dirt!

    And now they are obsessed with anti-Obama crap

    and won't hardly do anything in Congress.

    Sheeesh ....



    Dems controlled congress the last 2 years of the Bush era.

    The dems control the executive bramch and half the legislative branch (the half that decides what gets through) yet they blame republicans.

    humm them republicans must be savvy rascals to befuddle the dems at every turn!

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.


     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.


     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    The FDR administration was the worst with their misuse of the commerce clause, their targeting of  everyone from chicken farmers to Andrew Carnegie, and Roosevelt's constant and inconsistent tinkering with the economy that never allowed the private sector to recover. Obama is too inept to do the kind of damage that Roosevelt was able to inflict, so far anyway.

    -

    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.


    What did that large group of people called the College Republican National Committee say in their report ..... that most students hold positions closer to the Democrats on issues than that do to the Republicans positions ...... I guess those people are stupid also .

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    Facts are facts, cant be disputed by sistersledge's goofy left wing cartoons.Obama presided over the absolute worst recovery from a recession. Obama is in his 5th year as President, his economic policies have failed abysmally.

    Obama was reelected, is Concerned Citizens response. 

    Hey, Concerned, Bush was reelected too, does that by definition make him a good President?

    Bush didnt double food stamps and give away free cell phones to get reelected, either.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    Br'er Crankup ..... i't time to hang up your hat !

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.


     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    And yet many more think he's doing a great job...hence his re-election.

    Can't argue facts.



    So he got re-elected because he's doing a great job? I guess many more thought Bush was doing a great job...hence his re-election : )

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    The recovery is slow because there was/is too much debt. It has to be paid off before the consumer driven economy can really go.

    Obama's biggest fault is the power he has handed to the regulators and the IRS. It is stifling business,  innovation and proper risk taking. He has turned the bureaucracy into a political machine to be used against political enemies. 

    Sen Cruz from TX is right - the IRS and the tax code have to go

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    He has turned the bureaucracy into a political machine to be used against political enemies.

    Ya think?

     

    -

    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    And yet many more think he's doing a great job...hence his re-election.

    Can't argue facts.

     



    So he got re-elected because he's doing a great job? I guess many more thought Bush was doing a great job...hence his re-election : )

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, but many of those voters have since passed away.  And a different kind of voter has taken their place.  You would say low-information, but we'll have to wait and see how history compares Obama to Bush.  I'm guessing favorably.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    Every recession since and including FDR has been combated the same way - massive government spending and slashing of federal interest rates.  When Obama took office, interest rates were at zero, and every government dollar spent was met with five dooshbags dressed like Paul Revere carrying a musket to a town-hall meeting.  If the recovery is too slow for you, and you don't want to do what we've always done to stimulate recovery, then just shut up about it.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Economically, many think this is the worst administration in history.

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    And yet many more think he's doing a great job...hence his re-election.

    Can't argue facts.

     

     



    So he got re-elected because he's doing a great job? I guess many more thought Bush was doing a great job...hence his re-election : )

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, but many of those voters have since passed away.  

    Really? Based on what evidence?

     

    And a different kind of voter has taken their place.  You would say low-information,

    Except I've never used the "low-information" phrase...so there's that

     

    but we'll have to wait and see how history compares Obama to Bush.  I'm guessing favorably.

    Maybe so...but what does that have to do with the original point?

    [/QUOTE]


     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share