So says Addicting Info. Lest one thinks this is merely leftist propaganda, they quote from Forbes, which Conservapedia includes under Conservative media.
Benghazi, IRS, Tan Suit, Benghazi.
Great. Now try to convince anyone on the right that any part of that is actually true.
So what is it? Obama is a victim of Republican obstructionists and can’t get his economic agenda through (American Jobs Act- remember this? Lol it was like a bad late night infomercial) or Obama has saved us all by delivering us from economic devastation?
For example, when the president and media were warning that not extending unemployment benefits would be the end of the world. The mean old Republican obstructionists did not budge. Unemployment went down. Therefore Obama is the “economic president” of our time. Hilarious the lengths propagandists will go.
Reagan was terrible as well, but that’s because he instituted policies that could be described as military Keynesian or more accurately, supply side Keynesian. He had great laissez faire rhetoric, but was actually terrible from a “good government” and even free market perspective.
-
He started from the lowest base since the Great Depression.
-
The economy’s best performance has come since his agenda was blocked. Despite his predictions that slightly lower levels of spending would doom the economy, we’ve done quite well with the budget flat since 2010.
$3.4 trillion spent
$3.4 trillion spent
Gee, looks like spending restraint is good for the economy! Score one for the conservatives.
If something bad happens, it’s Obama’s fault.
If something good happens, it’s all thanks to the loyal opposition.
Well, you don’t get to whine that you can’t get anything done, and then go, “Hey look how great things are while I haven’t been able to get anything done! I think I’ll take credit for it!” Especially when this is a President who claims ignorance of everything that goes wrong, or that it wasn’t his idea. When you portray yourself as a bystander in your own Presidency, that’s how people will think of you.
Cite for Obama saying he couldn’t get anything done?
'Cause the best I can remember is *others *complaining that the Republicans fought him on everything. The fact that he still got stuff done looks badly on the Republicans and favorably on the President.
So he hasn’t complained that his agenda is being obstructed? Interesting.
Not big on the whole reading comprehension thing, are you?
Make an argument. Has the President’s agenda been implemented for the most part, or blocked? If it’s been implemented, then you can plausibly argue that he deserves credit for the improving economy. If it has been blocked, then you can’t.
Some has been implemented, some has been blocked. It’s up to you to prove that the things that the Republicans stopped him from doing improved the economy, because yours is the extraordinary claim.
We aren’t the ones trying to have it both ways- you are. If the President is responsible for the failures of the economy, then he’s also responsible for the successes.
Or, as has been put perhaps more succinctly elsewhere- “What’s good for America is bad for the GOP.”
Actually, I didn’t make that claim. I only claimed that the economy has done better since the GOP wave. And that he can’t simultaneously complain about being obstructed and then turn around and take credit for things. Especially since he ducks responsibility for things so frequently.
IMO, that’s the reason the economy hasn’t lifted his polling numbers. Claim that you don’t know what’s going on enough times and eventually voters start to take that claim seriously and you don’t get credit for good things that happen. You’re either in control of your adminstration or you’re not. YOu can’t be not in control of the executive branch of the government and yet somehow in control of the US economy.
Or, if you aren’t just talking to spew soundbites, one might say that the little Obama could do has helped the economy. The GOP obstructionism only slowed that, but thankfully, their lockstep ideological march wasn’t enough to cause the damage they wanted to blame on him.
Soooo, by raising the minimum wage for federal contractors, he saved the economy! Sorry, doesn’t make up for the fact that he predicted the sequester would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and we proceeded to have the best year under his Presidency. Assuming that President can positively affect the economy means that the President has to have some idea what the hell he’s talking about.
Hey wait! I figured it out! See, the problem under past Presidents is that they paid too much attention to the federal bureaucracy. What the federal government needed was for a President to NOT pay attention so that it could run free and make wonderful things like economic growth happen. By giving the bureaucracy a permission slip to do whatever it wanted with no supervision, he created an economic boom.
BTW, this is the second time we’ve had a Democratic President and a Republican Congress and economic performance has been quite good. An argument could be made that this is the best way to run our government.
Was there a coup or something in the Senate that I’m not aware of?
Historically the economy has done better under Democratic Presidents than under Republican regardless of the makeup Congress. See e.g.,
which ranks the last 11 Presidents economically as
1 JFK/LBJ
2 Clinton
3 FDR
4 Eisenhower
5 Regan
6 Truman
7 Carter
8 H W Bush
9 Nixon/Ford
10 G Bush
11 Hoover
That’s Forbes reporting BTW not known for being left-leaning.
Everyone interprets data in such a way as portrays their own political leaders or viewpoints in the best possible light.
What you meant was “not taking into account” control of Congress.
Four of the top six Presidencies feature some control of Congress by Republicans. FDR and JFK are the exceptions. Three of the bottom five featured total control of Congress by Democrats.
This makes a lot of sense. Congress taxes and spends, which has a big effect on the economy. And Congress taxes and spends less when control is divided or the GOP is in charge. With two notable exceptions being the bottom two: Hoover’s Presidency saw massive increases in taxes and spending, and GWB’s in spending.
The hypothesis holds up: more federal spending, other than during massive economic emergencies= stagnation. Spending control= prosperity.