Let’s take a look at President Barack Obama’s economic record, for example:
Real unemployment (including “marginally displaced workers”) is 15.9 percent. Before he took office, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics: 10.5 percent. Average weeks unemployed: 40.8. Before, it was 19.8. Number of unemployed 27-plus weeks: 5.6 million. Before: 2.6 million. Number of jobs, nonfarm, seasonally adjusted: 131,900,000. Before: 134,383,000.
According to the U.S. Census: Poverty rate: 15.1 percent (46.2 million). Before: 13.2 percent (39.8 million).
According to the U.S. Treasury: National debt: $15.5 trillion. Before: $10.7 trillion.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation: Average annual insurance premium for employer-sponsored family coverage: $15,073. Before: $12,680.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Food stamp recipients: 46.3 million. Before: 31.7 million.
After three years, it’s time to admit Obama has failed. In 2008, he had no real record to run on. Now in 2012, he has a very clear record of disappointment and stagnation, not hope and change.
Jim Collier
Kansas City
This has to be one of the more foolish letters about the president's "record" in a while. This writer actually presents us with figures from "research", attempting to draw a reasonable conclusion.
Wow....
The scarier part about this, is that the conservative zombies eat this type of junk as having a valid point.
Let's just look at a few of these presented figures. First, the "real unemployment" rate is somehow something to be measured to show failure? What is the timeframe before unemployment ends again?
Another gem...healthcare costs. Hey Buck, healthcare costs increase every year. It's not rocket science.
Posted by: Uncommon sense | March 31, 2012 at 12:38 PM
As long as you really have an interest in keeping the record straight and aren’t just looking for cover for Obama’s gross overstep maybe you’d be good enough to show us the Republican sponsored legislation, with majority Republican support, for the individual mandate. I can certainly provide that for you from the Democrats. I can even find a video of House Democrats chanting “yes we can” to celebrate their unpopular overstep.
I mention this because you want to bring up Bob Dole who retired 12 years ago. Picking and choosing a few individual party members to make your point would be akin to me arguing the Democrats are really an anti abortion rights party because of the anti abortion congressional Democrats who’s votes Obama bought with his executive order to force through Obamacare.
Who was Obama referring to when commenting on individual mandates in February of 2008? “if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn't." It wasn’t the Republicans in congress, it wasn’t Bob Dole, but it was Hillary Clinton. I must have missed the period in 2008 when she switched parties.
Just a little historical perspective. C’mon, Steve, you used to be better than this.
Posted by: Smarter Than You | March 31, 2012 at 08:56 AM
STY - in an effort to keep the historical record a little straighter - The President and many democrats favored a single payer model of which the best model would be an extension of Medicare to the broader population. When it became clear that the votes were not there to pass it (a number of Democrats did not want to go that far), discussion moved to a model which incorporated the mandate. Recall that a bipartisan committe of six worked on this issue and others for months during the spring and summer of 2009. Democrats had some reason to believe this might gain some bipartisan support. Recall that Chuck Grassley, on that committee, had as a young senator joined with Dole and others in voicing support for a mandate approach in the early 90's. As we now know, that also failed to gain any Republican support despite months of negotiation even though at different times in previous years various Republicans had actually voiced support for such an approach.
Posted by: steven klein | March 30, 2012 at 09:15 PM
I find it funny that to get anything with his name on it passed Obama turned his back on his previous position that the individual mandate was not a workable solution. He must have played hooky the day Harvard Law covered the constitution.
To your point, LIT: How many republicans voted for the law as passed? I mention that because since it was an entirely Democrat production your feeble attempt to rewrite history and lay the blame for Obama's misstep at the feet of Republicans rings hollow.
Maybe you missed all of the Democrats who were against single payer. Maybe you missed all of the back room deals and proposed kickbacks Obama utilized to get the bill that passed.
I don't think you missed any of that; I just think you don't want to own it.
Posted by: Smarter Than You | March 30, 2012 at 07:37 PM
Since you brought up healthcare STY...I find it telling that the piece the Republicans are attacking, payment of the individual mandate to private companies, was one of the pieces they fought tooth and nail to have added. In the arguments on day 2 they conceded that had we simply gone singlet payer, and had the government take over the whole she-bang their wield be no question it was valid.
The moral of the story is that one shouldn't compromise with the Right, they're just negotiating in bad faith anyway.
Posted by: LawyerInTraining | March 30, 2012 at 07:10 PM
where I would disagree,JD, is that things did not entirely fall into Bush's lap; his administration played its own role On the other hand Obama (or anyone else) was up to his eyeballs in massive crisis. A good topic is to study and explain either where things went off the rails during the Bush years or, alternatively, to the extent they were already off the rails, why this was not recognized and addressed. At some point in the future I'd be happy to give you my opinion and hear your thoughts.
Posted by: steven klein | March 30, 2012 at 05:47 PM
Since the letter writer also brought up health insurance…
Did anyone else find it sublimely entertaining that the Supreme Court conversation came down to “we’ll have to overturn Obamacare to find out what was in it.”
Posted by: Smarter Than You | March 30, 2012 at 04:13 PM
I appreciate the issues involved, Steve. But as noted a delayed start FY approach would fail to account properly for Obama’s near trillion dollar stimulus and ignore the half trillion dollars of tarp funds that president-elect Obama had a Democratic congress release just before he took office.
Candidate Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. What FY do you think he was referring to?
Posted by: Smarter Than You | March 30, 2012 at 04:01 PM
I'm trying to be non-partisian.
As I've been a practioneer of international finance for over 30 years, if I knew of a set of data tools that could evaluate current policies I think I could retire. Unfortunately, unintended consequences often emerge years or decades after the implementation of a policy. Sometimes a policy starts off doing exactly what it was touted to do, and years later it implodes.
What I'm trying to show is that blaming Bush for something that fell in his lap is just wrong. Blaming Obama for not fixing the economic problems maybe more appropriate givem that he promised to fix them and stated he wouldn't deserve to serve another term if he didn;t fix it. What would be interesting... what is more responsible for the current uptick in the economy; an event initiated by Obama or the Bush Tax cut extensions? Wish I had the tool to analyze that!
Posted by: JDog | March 30, 2012 at 03:46 PM
I could respond , JD, but I really wasn't talking about Bush. My focus was on how one determines what sets of data one can constructively use to provide some analytical basis for the effectiveness of various administration economic policies. For example, in developing data on the Obama administration and unemployment and the efficacy or lack thereof of its policies, what impact, if anything, does data from Q1, 2009 have in making an analysis?
I very much agree that the implosion of the financial system in 2008/9 was the result of policies and economic problems in the general economy which had been building for many years and certainly predate Bush. Had collapse occurred in 2001/2 it would be unfair to hold his administration or leadership responsible. But it did happen at the end of an 8 yr administration and in that respect it is valid to study in what ways Bush, his administration and some of its policies may have contributed to collapse. One can make it a partisan exercise or one can approach it from the nonpartisan angle of trying to identify and learn from major missteps in order to avoid them in the future.
Posted by: steven klein | March 30, 2012 at 02:36 PM
Steve, I think we've been through this before... but...
Reagan repeaeled most anti-trust laws which allowed TBTF to evolve. Reagan believed, nad rightfully so, that "larger" would generate economies of scale and thus produce cheaper prices for all. As with most economic theories, there evolved unintended consequences.
Clinton repealed Glass-Steagal, which allowed Banks to enter into the investment banking products, and investments banks to enter into the banking products. Again, as with Reagan, the theory was competition would spur cheaper prices for the consumer. Again, unintended consequences would arise.
The actions of Reagan and Clinton fell on top of G.W. No policy GW put forth led to the financial crisis. If you disagree, please provide the policy/legislation. As a matter of fact, the W administration was warning of Freddie & Fannies demise in '05. Looking back, Bush was right!!!
Posted by: JDog | March 30, 2012 at 12:29 PM
You are all idiots! The President has no REAL power over the economy. The power of the Purse lies with the House. Congress sets the budget, Congress passes laws, and Congress is responsible. The President's budget, regardless of party, is simply a SUGGESTION!
As for jobs, sure there are a lot being created but how many of them pay enough to support a family of four? How many pay for someone to relocate? How many current job openings require 5 or 10 years experience which no one will ever give to anyone? You see the picture is so much bigger than statistics (which, by the way, can be made to say anything you wish them to).
Blame Congress not any President. Unfortunately, the President is saddled with the blame for something he has no real control over outside of making suggestions and, perhaps vetoes. Think of this small issue, who is the body responsible for NOT passing budgets on time and only giving government 60 or 90 days of funding? CONGRESS!
Posted by: Rob | March 30, 2012 at 12:18 PM
It would be interesting to have some people engage on my pretty straightforward, direct and relevant questions. Probably not going to happen.
To make it a little simpler - Much of the negative economic data which has impacted evaluations of the President's time in office occurred during the first six months he was in office. For example in the first quarter 2009 alone 2.25 mm jobs were lost. How much of that was due to the actions and policies of the President ? How much better would those numbers had been if President Bush had continued in office or McCain been elected?
Posted by: steven klein | March 30, 2012 at 12:13 PM
We need to keep encouraging the loony left (like whisper) to keep attacking Romney because he’s rich. This will fail in the long run because all of them are rich in comparison to the majority of us. The simple retort of, so a successful business man and governor is not what we want?
Posted by: WoodyKC | March 30, 2012 at 11:26 AM
steve that discussion would be impossible on a blog because there are many ways to approach topic. Like JDog I look at what they have done and what they have proposed, to lay complete blame on any one president or party is a waste of time. The best example would be the “balanced budget” under clinton. Repub congress, but it doesn’t matter because it never happened. All the CBO numbers take into account an estimated growth for the economy, typically over estimated. When the recession hit at the end of the clinton term, the CBO projections, as is usual, bcamed stuff for the parakeet cage.
The only way to discuss especially in this forum is what are the parties or individuals proposing and what will be the effect.
Posted by: WoodyKC | March 30, 2012 at 11:18 AM
A few facts,unemployment rose from 5% in jan 2008 to 7.8% when Obama was sworn in and continued rising,there have since been 24 months off job growth,not as much as we'd like but the're gains,under the bush regime the Dow lost 24% of its value,so far under Obama it has risen 60%, There were 1,095,000 million net jobs under the bush regime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms There were 10 million new jobs added under Jimmy Carter in 4 years,at that rate it would have taken bush 80 years.
Corp. profits are at a 60 year high
Posted by: fanoftravel | March 30, 2012 at 10:47 AM
Happy Birthday Affordable Health Care Act.
Posted by: SK | March 30, 2012 at 10:47 AM
Blaming Bush for the financial melt down is as stupid as blaming Obama for all of the debt.
People should only be blamed for what they promised and didn't deliver or where their actions can be directly tied to a result.
Should we blame Bush for 9/11?
Posted by: JDog | March 30, 2012 at 10:35 AM
"...whispering's intentional exaggerations..." - hajkar
ROTFLMAO. A lefty admits that WTKC exaggerates. I'll give credit where credit is due... Thanks hajkar.
Step away from the Dark Side hajkar:-) LOL
Posted by: JDog | March 30, 2012 at 10:22 AM
Don't wait for permission SK, I'll endorse any inkling of an intelligent conversation.
Posted by: JDog | March 30, 2012 at 10:19 AM