The Best And Worst US Presidents For GDP Growth. Check the below link, Obama’s average annual real per capita GDP Growth is ** - 0.4%**
This is the worst since Truman, and one of the worst all times.
Obama’s economy sucked. As I pointed out to those who listen and accepts facts, his labor rate also hit a low mark despite a record bail out which saw the weakest recovery since the great depression. Those are the facts.
By contrast Trump economy is doing well, tracking near 4% of the quarter, which is very impressive. I’ll use a left leaning source that says so
Are you capable of reading or do you just ignore anything in contradiction to whatever you already believe? Nevermind, I already know the answer to that because your are capable of reading.
"As for President Obama? He had the misfortune of serving “in what many regard as the worst downturn since the Great Depression.”
Ooh, Silver Lining, I’m cringing for you. This has GOT to be embarrassing. I was going to send you a PM, but I didn’t see a link to send you one*. So I’ll address it here.
That link you offered? That’s to an article from 2012, and it addresses the first three years of Obama’s presidency, not the full thing. I know you’re really concerned with honesty and with having a reputation for integrity, so there’s no way you deliberately only cited figures for the first three years of his presidency, which was highly affected by the Great Recession that W. started; there’s no reason you would’ve elided the years of Obama’s presidency when the GDP grew, sometimes more than 5% a quarter.
Really, man, I’m cringing for you. We’re all ready to accept your abject apology for such an unintentionally misleading post.
In the same spirit of due diligence you evinced, I didn’t bother looking for one.
There’s nothing wrong with the link. From 2008-2012 this was Obama’s record on the economy. He never passed 3% on GDP did he? And with a record bail out amount, the performance was underwhelming.
If you want to compare Obama’s economy to Trump’s start a thread on it Left hand. Just a quick preview, it won’t work out well for you.
Also, that second link you offered? Wooh, dude. You may not realize that “annual GDP” and “quarterly GDP” are different measures.
Helpful way to remember it: four quarters make a dollar, and four quarters make a year. “Annual” means “year.”
If you look at the chart, you’ll see that the economy exceeded 4% QUARTERLY growth twice during Obama’s presidency–and the chart doesn’t show his entire presidency, eliding a couple more examples of very high quarterly GDP.
Oh, man. Talk about egg on your face! If you need tips on how to give an effective apology, lemme know; this is a supportive, caring environment, and we’ll help you recover even from a gaffe this egregious.
Uh, no. Obama wasn’t president in 2008. And the link doesn’t cover 2012. Did you read the chart? Do you know how presidential terms work here in the United States?
He was elected in November 2008, and article was written in Q3 2012. You just have a soft spot for Barack O doing so poorly. As I stated before his economy slide backward on the labor rate, and this is during his tenure as President. That’s a fact.
Yes, I read the article, it says it helps serving in a time of war. Obama was busy with military action too.
Well, this graph cannot be right. Trump’s 2017 numbers are only a little than Obama’s 2016 numbers. It is almost like the economy was in a particular state and Trump barely changed it at all! Plus some of them are lower than Obama’s numbers. So Fake News!
My sister is in North Dakota, deep in Trump country. And right now he’s holding his base.
But last year a friend of hers - a small soybean farmer - took out a $100k planting loan - but soybean prices were low so he - and many other farmers - stored their crop for this year and didn’t pay off the loan. This year he took out another $100k loan to cover planting - and soybean prices are currently in the toilet. Right now, the tariffs are a game of chicken they think Trump will win - but if he doesn’t, next Spring the bank won’t give them a loan, they’ll have two years of soybeans stored at below cost, and Trump had better figure out a way to blame Obama. Soybeans are usually harvested the end of October. Reality may dawn when they go to pay storage fees on crop #2.
And it isn’t any better if you farm corn - ethanol isn’t nearly as in demand as it was and corn prices are tanking.
That’s easy all he has to do is tweet “Low soybean prices are Obama’s fault. Sad!” and his base will believe it. They’re not known for being particularly good at thinking critically.
Median income went up by ~15.6% during that period, in nominal terms. But the CPI went up by 11.7%. Real median wages went up by only 3.5%. Over a 7-year period.
Still not a good cutoff point. It takes most of the first year in office for a new President even to submit his first budget. Any effect on the economy doesn’t occur until substantially later than that.
So, to recap:
-You claim that “Obama’s average annual real per capita GDP Growth is - 0.4%”, and to support this incorrect claim, cite an article about the per capita GDP growth from 09-11.
-When called on this incorrect claim, instead of admitting error, you double down, incorrectly claiming it’s a cite for 08-12.
-When it’s pointed out that Obama didn’t take office until 09, and that the cite doesn’t go through 12, you point out that Obama was elected in 08 (as though he magically took the reins of the economy on election night, despite having no executive power for another two months), and that the article was published in 12 (as though the publication date overrides the explicit parameters of the data in the article itself).
-You compare his GDP rate to Trump’s rate of “near 4% of the quarter.”
-When it’s pointed out to you that this quarterly rate can’t be compared to Obama’s annual rate, you claim “I’m talking annually,” even though you’d specifically used the word “quarter” in your previous post.
-Throughout, when you’re challenged on your egregiously incorrect numbers, you double down on them, and then counterjab with speculation about why I’d dare to challenge such twaddle, deciding it must be a personal sentimentality.
At this point, I think two things are clear:
You’re not interested, in this thread, in a rigorous discussion based on facts, and so there’s not much point in continuing the discussion with you; and
Anyone following along has enough information to evaluate your claims, both in this thread and elsewhere, and knows whether you represent cites accurately.
So I think my participation in the thread, at least as regards your posts, is done, although you may of course wish to impugn my motives one more time, perhaps by suggesting that January 2018 had an extra forty days in it, or that Trump’s name numerologically translates to YHVH, or that basic arithmetic is a communist plot anyway. Have at it.
The democrats passed genuine middle class tax cuts in 2009.
The stimulus cut the social security employee contribution from 6.2% down to 4.2%. Which means for every $10,000 a year in income you made until the social security cap, you paid $200 less in taxes.
If two people made 100k in household income, taxes went down by $2000 a year.
That was a genuine middle class tax cut. Not a tax cut for the rich being passed off as a middle class tax cut like the gop is doing.
And the democrats still lost hard in 2010.
So if genuine middle class tax cuts can’t help the dems stay in power, why will tax cuts for the rich that are being incorrectly spun as Middle class tax cuts help the gop stay in power?
Oh they can be bought. But the payoff has to first be big enough to notice.
As for wage growth …
Most of the tax cut went to the wealthiest, most of the profits are not trickling down to wage growth. Tump’s kneecapping of Obamacare has increased premiums for many, costs of goods are likely to rise due to tariffs … the middle class is the most unhappy with Trump of all. See for example this recent poll: strong disapprove to strong approve is 41 to 24% in the middle income bracket, much worse than lower or higher income ones.
He indeed won by winning many of the middle class communities that had gone to Obama before. And they are the ones most strongly disapproving of his job now.
