Not Bad

First I will say that I am not a fan of Obama, I thought he was an average President, however lets be factual. He became President in 2009, after the worst Financial Crash since 1929. A financial disaster that seized the world economy. So what would you expect, the economy to be roaring along again a year later! Hard to blame this one on him.

Not a year later; that would be unreasonable, and to criticize him for the slow economy during his first term would not be rational. Not that many on the right, especially mainline conservatives and republicans haven't tried to do so. It only makes them look bad, imo.

However, do you think that it Trump had been elected president in 2012, that he would have let the economy languish like it did under president Obama for another four years? Not a chance.

And the most obvious criticism I have of BHO is that he's now trying to take credit for something he said could NOT happen.

To which I reply: hey, if you're a former president, you didn't build that economy; somebody else did that.

Tell me one western economy that bounced back in a year after the financial crash, there wasn't one. I don't care for Obama or Trump, but as the saying goes, 'better to be a lucky President, than a good one'

When did the recession of 2008 actually hit? (not talking about the precursors that we know about in hindsight...) Wasn't it Sept of 2008? When was the recession officially over? Wasn't it June 2009? Isn't that ten months?

Yeah but FDR actually took steps to help those people affected by the crash, not give tons of bailout funds to Goldman Sachs to buy up more banks and make record profits in the wake of the derivative scandal. Millions lost their homes thanks to floating rates, while FDR started a govt body to help a million people refinance and keep their homes.

Yes, let's be factual and look at a calendar. Obama took office in Feb 2009 and the recession ended in June 2009. So for 99.8% of his time in office the economy was not in recession. Let's not pretend like Obama had to spend years bringing the country out of recession. That wasn't the case. And even then, with the economy out of recession, he had the worst recorded economic growth of any President on record.

If by "economic growth" you mean growth in GDP, it looks like the recession f*cked up his average. Trump isn't doing much better.. I think for 2019 his was also around 2.5%.

"99.8% of his time in office the economy was not in recession"
...i didn't actually do the math but I'm 99.8% sure that is not true.

No guy. The recession did not f**k up his average...as there was no recession for a majority of Obama's Administration.

If you count the months in Obama's presidency there were 96 months he was President. The recession ended June 2009. Which means there was only 5 months during his time that we were in recession. ( I am not counting January, as his term started Jan. 20, 2009, but I am counting all of June 2009 as a month in recession to account for that.)

so using complex math 5 divided by 96 equals .05. Take 1 minus .05 and we have 95%. So you are right, the economy was not in recession for 95% of Obama's time

GDP taking a sh*t in 2008-2009 was coincidence no doubt.. no wait actually it was because of Obama's poor presidenting skills... during that 1 year. The other 7 years being totally different was just LUCK !
:P

During the other years, he still had the weakest economic growth on record. Why do you keep avoiding that?

You pull % numbers out of your ass, I recognize it right off the bat and call you out, you prove me correct, claim I'm bad at reading data, and yet you apparently fail to read a simple bar graph.. (unless you actually meant to say "on average" idk)

"During the other years he still had the weakest economic growth on record"

If you exclude the year he got us out of the recession, you will see that 2001 & 1991 both had weaker economic growth than any of the other years during the Obama presidency.

Fact: Obama is the only President to never achieve 3% average GDP growth in any of his years as President.

Fact: The recession was not the cause of the above.

Fact: I heard that fact from Trump.

Fact: So far Trump has also not achieved 3% average GDP growth.

Fact: 0% of Trump's presidency was during a recession, so a recession is not the cause of the above.

Fact: Trump's tax cuts for the rich and deregulation were sold to the American public under the premise that we would achieve 3%.

To be fair maybe it'll happen this year..
🤞if not.. idk.. blame Obama :P

You are this dumb.

Obama had 8 years to talk sh*t about Bush for not doing something he himself had not done.... and yet...

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/obama-first-president-great-depression-not-see-3-gdp-growth

The DJIA from Jan. 2017 to today. Most of the growth was in Trump’s first year and it’s been a bumpier ride since

Worth remembering this is only the stock market, and a full picture of the health of the economy is broader than that.

84% of stocks are held by the 10% of richest households. So they’re happy, of course, but most people have benefitted from this rise to a lesser degree or not at all.

So, first year data should be excluded in your view, because... why?

I think you're the only one who could look at that graph and call it a bumper ride.

Also, just compare the first top in early 2018, which appears on your graph to be a bit past the midway point between 26K and 27K (nope, not going to waste time looking up the actual numbers... I'll use your graph.) At the time your graph was produced, the high was about the same distance past the 28K point over a two year time frame. Which means, up 2K in two years.

1K per year as a steady growth rate would not be too bad, would it?

Also, to your valid point about the stock market not being the full picture; doesn't having the lowest unemployment in history for all those little identity buckets you guys love to tick off, mean anything to you?

Or have you in the same booby trap that many of the other elites find themselves in, wanting a permanently unemployed class that has to rely on the govt in exchange for their votes?

I don’t think Trump’s first year should be “excluded.” I included it, after all. It was a great rally. Just should be contextualized. 2018 was a rough year. That dip in December was scary. 2019 was better, with some volatility.

Look, I’m not one to sit here and rail against Trump all day over the stock market. It’s one of his strong points. So is the job market.

Some qualifications: Wage growth was curiously low throughout most of the recovery but has recently picked up, from what I’ve read, so that is good. And finally represents a trickle-down to folks other than the investor class.

And I’ve said elsewhere today that while the length of the recovery is historic, the pace of the recovery has been historically slow under both Obama and Trump, and I think that remains true, for issues outside the scope of both presidents’ control.

Bottom line: I’m more apt to really criticize Trump over the other things he’s done or not done as President.

Other than a slight early dip, 2017's full year of sustained growth is just a rally in your eyes, and in need of contextualization? I just don't see it that way. I also don't think what Trump has done can be fairly characterized as an historically slow recovery. Once Trump got into office, we quickly moved beyond recovery, imo.

2018 was choppy, but was consolidating nicely to early 2018 highs, right up until it wasn't, and took a dump. I think it would have been scary if it hadn't jumped back very quickly at the end of 2018, and early 2019.

This may bore you, but here's an article that talks about the causes for the late 2018 dip: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/6-factors-that-fueled-the-stock-market-dive-in-2018

There was also an article on Forbes from 12/20/18 about the cause of the dip, with at least one paragraph I found interesting: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2018/12/20/heres-why-stocks-have-sold-off-so-steeply-in-december/#2927eccfeac2

"Gridlock in Congress, and one political crisis after the other in the U.K., Italy and—most recently—in France, are all potential headwinds to sentiment. In the U.S., policies designed to get the economy going are likely to be obstructed by the Democrats in Congress who do not want to give Trump any economic wins."

Check that last sentence. Dems will do anything to hurt Trump's reelection, which I think includes up to causing, and being happy about, going into recession. They don't care about we mere citizens. That's TDS in a nutshell, and why I don't see myself voting Dem again anytime soon.

Overall it seems like you're coming around to the view that the Trump economy is *now* (finally?) good for most Americans. Perhaps we can agree that one aspect of a healthy economy is when those not in the "investor class" you reference, see benefits as well.

and btw, I suspect we can agree that Trump is a boorish egomaniac. I wish there was a better messenger for his policies, some of which I don't like. I try to filter the noise, and pay attention to what he does and the results. Not that you should care, but it's not always easy supporting Trump here on the flip!

One last question, what economic issues do you consider to be outside the scope of a president's control? Fed hikes, like the PBS article mentions?

https://i.imgflip.com/3qacbm.jpg