Mission Statement: This blog reviews the news of the day in light of 242 years of American history. "Nationalism," a modern day pejorative, has been our country's politic throughout history, until 2008. Obama changed that narrative. Trump is seeking a return to our historical roots. Midknight Review supports this return to normality.
Still think Obama is not in his Season of Disconnect?
President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his 6th year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite today’s number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration.
We forecast unemployment will fall to around 5.4% by summer, 2015. A rate President Reagan was unable to achieve during his two terms.”
According to Forbes, this is not only the best private sector job growth in modern history:
“This is the best private sector jobs creation performance in American History.”
Deitrick also made it clear that President Obama has not achieved this reduction in unemployment because of a shrinking workforce, but in spite of it.
“What’s now clear is that the Obama administration policies have outperformed the Reagan administration policies for job creation and unemployment reduction. Even though Reagan had the benefit of a growing Boomer class to ignite economic growth, while Obama has been forced to deal with a retiring workforce developing special needs. During the 8 years preceding Obama there was a net reduction in jobs in America. We now are rapidly moving toward higher, sustainable jobs growth.”
As a final note, President Obama has managed to outperform Ronald Reagan in all of these areas, while at the same time, reducing the national debt. On the other hand, Reagan greatly expanded the debt, and still failed to achieve in eight years, what President Obama has achieved in only six.
\The Carter Recession was far worse than the recession of 2008. Unemployment rose to 13% and mortgage rates were close to 21%. The housing market came to a complete standstill. Before Reagan finished his term, our GDP was running between 6 and 8% - Obama is averaging 2.2% GDP. Under Reaqan, the participation rate rose to a nominal 65% while Obama's participation rate is a nominal 62%, the worst in 36 years. Obama had a 49 month run of rising GDP but 47 of those months saw more people leaving the work force than jobs created. The argument, above, coming from Forbes, would have you believe our economy is booming, when we all know that such a claim is sheer nonsense. Bush's average unemployment rate was 5.3% counting 2008 and he carried a 52 month growth in GDP, an American record. Most know that Clinton was able to oversee the best economy in decades, even better than the Bush or Reagan years. More people are out of work than at the beginning of Obama; more people are in poverty than at the beginning of Obama; twice as many people are on food stamps than at the beginning of Obama and the average American family as seen its wealth accumulation fall from an average of $88,000 to 57,000 in the six years Obama has been the most prolific golfing president since Eisenhower.
As far as cutting the debt in half, keep in mind that Obama promised he would cut the Bush debt in half, not his own debt. The annual debt incurred by Bush was around $400 million per year. The average for Obama is 1.2 trillion with last year coming in at around $900 billion, due to the fastest rising tax burden on the American people in our history.
There are probably 10 detailed reports documenting Obama's failed economic plans versus your one article in Forbes and what do you do? You cling to that report and pretend that you are the only one here, who practices "critical thinking."
Do you deny that nearly twice as many people are on food stamps than 6 years ago? Do you deny the lost of nearly $30,000 in acquired wealth since 2008? The workforce participation rate, just announced this morning (Tues the 9th). is 62.6%, the lowest such rate since the days of Jimmy Carter (1978). All economists give us these facts, except your Forbes' pro-Obama article. Did Obama cut the Bush annual deficit (around $400 billion per year) in half as promised or his own ridiculous annual spending? We all know the answer and it ain't "Bush." Obama is seen as the lest productive president since end of the 1800's and Herbert Hoover. The man can't even write a budget proposal. having three of his budgets garner ZERO VOTES (97 to NOTHING and 99 to NOTHING in two Senate votes and 414 to NOTHING in a House vote. A second attempt by your genius, got 2 votes supporting his proposal and 416 against . . . . I mean, how stupid is this guy or do I need to verify these numbers. The reader can do so, easily, if she Googles "97 to 0 vote on Obama's budget proposal."
Understand that you can't have the "greatest recovery in American history" and have doubled food stamp enrollments, produced a 62% participation rate and have more people out of work, today, than six years ago.
Food stamp enrollments are the end result of the Bush recession and his trickle-down fallacy.
The Forbes article was based on facts, the latest info and significant trends.
The economy will continue to improve, as will the ACA, as will America... much to the disappointment of Smithson. In the end, Obama will prove to be the best economic president in American history. Some say he already is.
Moron, food stamps have doubled since Bush. This administration advertises for new food stamp "clientele."
The reader should be reminded that until this week, the economy has been regarded as a disaster. Suddenly, the mental cases on the Left, think it the best in history. Want facts:
Go to http://www.ijreview.com/2014/01/109489-reagan-vs-obama-7-charts-prove-real-recovery/.
In the small town I live in, (23,000) more than 30 business have gone under since Obama. Guess what, they are still out of business.
President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his 6th year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite today’s number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration.
ReplyDeleteWe forecast unemployment will fall to around 5.4% by summer, 2015. A rate President Reagan was unable to achieve during his two terms.”
According to Forbes, this is not only the best private sector job growth in modern history:
“This is the best private sector jobs creation performance in American History.”
Deitrick also made it clear that President Obama has not achieved this reduction in unemployment because of a shrinking workforce, but in spite of it.
“What’s now clear is that the Obama administration policies have outperformed the Reagan administration policies for job creation and unemployment reduction. Even though Reagan had the benefit of a growing Boomer class to ignite economic growth, while Obama has been forced to deal with a retiring workforce developing special needs. During the 8 years preceding Obama there was a net reduction in jobs in America. We now are rapidly moving toward higher, sustainable jobs growth.”
As a final note, President Obama has managed to outperform Ronald Reagan in all of these areas, while at the same time, reducing the national debt. On the other hand, Reagan greatly expanded the debt, and still failed to achieve in eight years, what President Obama has achieved in only six.
\The Carter Recession was far worse than the recession of 2008. Unemployment rose to 13% and mortgage rates were close to 21%. The housing market came to a complete standstill. Before Reagan finished his term, our GDP was running between 6 and 8% - Obama is averaging 2.2% GDP. Under Reaqan, the participation rate rose to a nominal 65% while Obama's participation rate is a nominal 62%, the worst in 36 years. Obama had a 49 month run of rising GDP but 47 of those months saw more people leaving the work force than jobs created. The argument, above, coming from Forbes, would have you believe our economy is booming, when we all know that such a claim is sheer nonsense. Bush's average unemployment rate was 5.3% counting 2008 and he carried a 52 month growth in GDP, an American record. Most know that Clinton was able to oversee the best economy in decades, even better than the Bush or Reagan years. More people are out of work than at the beginning of Obama; more people are in poverty than at the beginning of Obama; twice as many people are on food stamps than at the beginning of Obama and the average American family as seen its wealth accumulation fall from an average of $88,000 to 57,000 in the six years Obama has been the most prolific golfing president since Eisenhower.
ReplyDeleteAs far as cutting the debt in half, keep in mind that Obama promised he would cut the Bush debt in half, not his own debt. The annual debt incurred by Bush was around $400 million per year. The average for Obama is 1.2 trillion with last year coming in at around $900 billion, due to the fastest rising tax burden on the American people in our history.
Rationalizations. The data proves and Forbes, a right leaning publication, states:
ReplyDeleteObama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing
An amazing achievement considering the horrible obstruction he has faced from the GOP.
Game over. You lose, America wins.
There are probably 10 detailed reports documenting Obama's failed economic plans versus your one article in Forbes and what do you do? You cling to that report and pretend that you are the only one here, who practices "critical thinking."
ReplyDeleteDo you deny that nearly twice as many people are on food stamps than 6 years ago? Do you deny the lost of nearly $30,000 in acquired wealth since 2008? The workforce participation rate, just announced this morning (Tues the 9th). is 62.6%, the lowest such rate since the days of Jimmy Carter (1978). All economists give us these facts, except your Forbes' pro-Obama article. Did Obama cut the Bush annual deficit (around $400 billion per year) in half as promised or his own ridiculous annual spending? We all know the answer and it ain't "Bush." Obama is seen as the lest productive president since end of the 1800's and Herbert Hoover. The man can't even write a budget proposal. having three of his budgets garner ZERO VOTES (97 to NOTHING and 99 to NOTHING in two Senate votes and 414 to NOTHING in a House vote. A second attempt by your genius, got 2 votes supporting his proposal and 416 against . . . . I mean, how stupid is this guy or do I need to verify these numbers. The reader can do so, easily, if she Googles "97 to 0 vote on Obama's budget proposal."
Understand that you can't have the "greatest recovery in American history" and have doubled food stamp enrollments, produced a 62% participation rate and have more people out of work, today, than six years ago.
Food stamp enrollments are the end result of the Bush recession and his trickle-down fallacy.
ReplyDeleteThe Forbes article was based on facts, the latest info and significant trends.
The economy will continue to improve, as will the ACA, as will America... much to the disappointment of Smithson. In the end, Obama will prove to be the best economic president in American history. Some say he already is.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/06/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/
Moron, food stamps have doubled since Bush. This administration advertises for new food stamp "clientele."
DeleteThe reader should be reminded that until this week, the economy has been regarded as a disaster. Suddenly, the mental cases on the Left, think it the best in history. Want facts:
Go to http://www.ijreview.com/2014/01/109489-reagan-vs-obama-7-charts-prove-real-recovery/.
In the small town I live in, (23,000) more than 30 business have gone under since Obama. Guess what, they are still out of business.