Obama Wins The Gold For Worst Economic Recovery Ever

[RockX]

If mismanaging an economic recovery were an Olympic event, President Obama would be standing on the middle platform right now, accepting the gold medal.


Deep recessions are supposed to be followed by strong recoveries, but, under Obama, the worst recession since the 1930s has been followed by the slowest economic recovery in the history of the republic. In a very real sense, there has been no recovery at all—things are still getting worse.


To win the gold for economic mismanagement, Obama had to beat out some very tough competitors, including the previous Olympic record holder, George W. Bush. Let’s look at how Obama pulled it off.


For those not familiar with the sport, the Olympic “Worst First Three Years of Economic Recovery” event is a pentathlon—it’s composed of five individual trials.


The trials making up this pentathlon are as follows: 1) total employment growth; 2) unemployment rate reduction; 3) per capita GDP growth; 4) change in the Real Dow; and 5) change in real produced assets.


Because the goal is economic mismanagement, in the total employment growth event, the lowest number wins.


Obama was victorious in this trial by producing an increase in jobs during the first 36 months of his economic recovery of only 1.72%. This handily beat out Bush 43, who turned in a jobs gain of 2.93% during his recovery, and the team of Bush 41 and Bill Clinton, who delivered 3.64% more jobs during theirs. And, Obama absolutely creamed Ronald Reagan, who produced an increase in total jobs of 8.97% during the first three years of the economic recovery that he oversaw.


We should all be proud that Barack Obama has won the Olympic gold medal in the “Worst First Three Years of Economic Recovery” event, and reward him accordingly in November.


Read the rest...http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswo...ns-the-gold-for-worst-economic-recovery-ever/

 

[Bonestorm]

I get it. It's, like, an Olympics reference because, like, the Olympics are happening. And stuff.

 

[Howey]

I get it. It's, like, an Olympics reference because, like, the Olympics are happening. And stuff.

It's also wrong. The award goes to none other than Saint Ronnie:

Obama couldn't even accomplish one recession right after another one.

Prior to the current recession, the deepest post-World War II economic downturn occurred in the early 1980s. According to the accepted arbiter of the economy's ups and downs, the National Bureau for Economic Research, a brief recession in 1980 -- lasting only six months -- and a short period of growth, were followed by a sustained recession from July 1981 to November 1982. The unemployment rate hovered between 7% and 8% from the summer of 1980 to the fall of 1981, when it began to rise quickly. By March 1982 it had reached 9%, and in December of that year the unemployment rate stood at its recession peak of 10.8%. The jobless rate slowly receded over the next few years, falling to 8.3% by the end of 1983 and to 7.2% by the 1984 presidential election. The unemployment rate did not fall below 6%, however, until September 1987.

In the spring of 1981, shortly before the onset of the painful recession, most Americans were optimistic about their economic future. A Gallup survey at the time found that 48% of the public believed the financial position of their household would be better in the next 12 months. Another 35% believed it would stay the same, while only 15% thought it would get worse. The public also smiled on the newly elected president. In a May poll, nearly half of Americans said the Reagan administration's economic policies would make their family's financial situation much better (8%) or somewhat better (41%). Just 37% said Reagan's policies would make their family finances worse.

A year later, in September 1982, with the unemployment rate at 10.1%, most Americans were far from pleased with the state of the economy. A 54%-majority said Reagan's policies had made their personal financial situation worse; just 34% said the policies had made their situation better. But even as the economy reached its nadir, the public did not lose all confidence in Reagan: In an October survey, a 40%-plurality said that over the long run the president's policies would make their economic situation better, while a third said they would make things worse and 15% volunteered they would stay the same.

Even as the jobless rate remained above 10% and the public experienced added economic pain, those predicting improvement in their finances greatly outnumbered those who anticipated a further weakening. In November 1982, more said their financial situation had gotten worse (37%) than better (28%) over the last year, but Americans believed their personal financial situation would improve over the next year by a 41%-to-22% margin. In March 1983, nearly half (46%) said their personal financial situation had gotten worse in the past 12 months, but the better-to-worse margin for the year ahead remained 45% to 22%.

 

[Don Quixote]

actually the repub congress critters win that award

 

[cawacko]

It's also wrong. The award goes to none other than
Saint Ronnie:

You're using public polling numbers instead of economic numbers for your argument? And you're not even comparing polling numbers for the two time periods being discussed. And to compare economic numbers you would be looking at 1984 for Reagan and 2012 for Obama (their fourth year in office).

 

[Howey]

You're using public polling numbers instead of economic numbers for your argument? And you're not even comparing polling numbers for the two time periods being discussed. And to compare economic numbers you would be looking at 1984 for Reagan and 2012 for Obama (their fourth year in office).

No. I'm using numbers from the National Bureau of Economic Research. Reagan had two recessions within his presidency, the second a year later. Obama inherited his and with the help of the stimulus it ended after he took office.

 

[Crashk]

It takes time to fix 30 yrs of failed conservative ideology. Did these problems surface in the last 4 yrs? No they (the problems) are a result of the corporate take over of our legislative process. Just like the 20 or so yrs before the First Great Republican Depression. Harding, Coolidge and Hoover all followed the same corporate ideology that has the country on it's knees again today.

You should study history not written by the junkie limbaugh, or man coulter.

 

[cawacko]

No. I'm using numbers from the National Bureau of Economic Research. Reagan had two recessions within his presidency, the second a year later. Obama inherited his and with the help of the stimulus it ended after he took office.

Where are you getting that he had two recessions within his Presidency?

 

[Howey]

Where are you getting that he had two recessions within his Presidency?

The article?????????????

 

[cawacko]

The article?????????????

Maybe I'm reading a different article. Which one?

Edit: The article I see posted shows a recession under Reagan from July '81 to Sept '82. Where is the second recession?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's also wrong. The award goes to none other than Saint Ronnie:

LMAO... wrong... Reagan had a far better recovery than Obama. Volcker's fed policy, that Reagan supported, killed the double digit inflation that was crushing the average person. Reagan, unlike Obama, was willing to take the pain of a recession in order to create a long term solution. The economy then began to grow rapidly:

1981 12.1 2.5
1982 4.0 -1.9
1983 8.7 4.5
1984 11.2 7.2
1985 7.3 4.1
1986 5.8 3.5
1987 6.2 3.2
1988 7.7 4.1
1989 7.5 3.6


Obama has had very anemic GDP growth.

2009 -2.2 -3.1
2010 3.8 2.4
2011 4.0 1.8

Unemployment, Reagan was also better:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8
1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3
1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3
1985 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.0
1986 6.7 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.6
1987 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.0 5.8 5.7
1988 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.3
1989 5.4

compared to Obama:

2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010 9.7 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4
2011 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.0 8.9 8.7 8.5
2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2

By this time in Reagans first term unemployment was back down to 7.2% and the economy was booming. Obama is at 8.2% and the economy is about to head off a cliff again.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No. I'm using numbers from the National Bureau of Economic Research. Reagan had two recessions within his presidency, the second a year later. Obama inherited his and with the help of the stimulus it ended after he took office.

Reagan had two recessions? Wrong again Howey... he had the one from 1981-1982... that was it... and he did that to kill the double digit inflation he inherited from Carter. He also inherited a 7.5% unemployment rate from Carter, similar to the 7.9% unemployment rate Obama got from Bush.

 

[Don Quixote]

Reagan had two recessions? Wrong again Howey... he had the one from 1981-1982... that was it... and he did that to kill the double digit inflation he inherited from Carter. He also inherited a 7.5% unemployment rate from Carter, similar to the 7.9% unemployment rate Obama got from Bush.

i do not care about comparing reagan to obama, what i do care about is blaming obama for the rep do nothing congress critters that have consistently blocked obama's policies

 

[cawacko]

i do not care about comparing reagan to obama, what i do care about is blaming obama for the rep do nothing congress critters that have consistently blocked obama's policies

DQ, how was Reagan able to work with a Democratic Congress for eight years and accomplish things? Do you think the Democrats in Congress then were in love with Reagan's policies and wanted to go along with everything he did?

Edit: How was Clinton able to work with a Republican Congress during the '90's to accomplish things?

Are we suppose to sit here and shed tears for Obama? 'Poor President Obama, those mean Republicans in the House wouldn't do everything he wanted so he shouldn't be blamed for anything. He's the first President in this country's history to have to deal with a hostile Congress'. (Not trying to make this comment personal towards you I'm just making a general comment)

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

i do not care about comparing reagan to obama, what i do care about is blaming obama for the rep do nothing congress critters that have consistently blocked obama's policies

Well then, it is a good thing I was addressing HOWIE and HOWIE's comment rather than yours.

 

[Don Quixote]

DQ, how was Reagan able to work with a Democratic Congress for eight years and accomplish things? Do you think the Democrats in Congress then were in love with Reagan's policies and wanted to go along with everything he did?

the nation and congress was not as split then as it is now

the repugs have declared that their single most important goal is to limit obama to one term and done the best that they can to block all of obama's policies

 

[cawacko]

the nation and congress was not as split then as it is now

the repugs have declared that their single most important goal is to limit obama to one term and done the best that they can to block all of obama's policies

I was young but my recollection was many Democrats hated Reagan. Not sure how that doesn't qualify as being split. I just finished reading Robert Caro's forth book on LBJ and it spoke of the Democratic controlled Congress in the early '60's under JFK and LBJ and how split that was and how difficult it was to get things done. You are just making excuses. This country has been plenty divided in its past.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

LMAO... wrong... Reagan had a far better recovery than Obama. Volcker's fed policy, that Reagan supported, killed the double digit inflation that was crushing the average person. Reagan, unlike Obama, was willing to take the pain of a recession in order to create a long term solution. The economy then began to grow rapidly:

1981 12.1 2.5
1982 4.0 -1.9
1983 8.7 4.5
1984 11.2 7.2
1985 7.3 4.1
1986 5.8 3.5
1987 6.2 3.2
1988 7.7 4.1
1989 7.5 3.6


Obama has had very anemic GDP growth.

2009 -2.2 -3.1
2010 3.8 2.4
2011 4.0 1.8

Unemployment, Reagan was also better:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8
1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3
1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3
1985 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.0
1986 6.7 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.6
1987 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.0 5.8 5.7
1988 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.3
1989 5.4

compared to Obama:

2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010 9.7 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4
2011 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.0 8.9 8.7 8.5
2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2

By this time in Reagans first term unemployment was back down to 7.2% and the economy was booming. Obama is at 8.2% and the economy is about to head off a cliff again.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

does howie ever get anything right?

 

[Don Quixote]

I was young but my recollection was many Democrats hated Reagan. Not sure how that doesn't qualify as being split. I just finished reading Robert Caro's forth book on LBJ and it spoke of the Democratic controlled Congress in the early '60's under JFK and LBJ and how split that was and how difficult it was to get things done. You are just making excuses. This country has been plenty divided in its past.

there have always been differences, but the congress critters were still able to work with each other despite them

i notice that you did not address the statement that the repugs single most important thing to accomplish is limiting obama to a single term to the detriment of all other items of business...like taking care of the nation's business

 

[cawacko]

there have always been differences, but the congress critters were still able to work with each other despite them

i notice that you did not address the statement that the repugs single most important thing to accomplish is limiting obama to a single term to the detriment of all other items of business...like taking care of the nation's business

McConnell's statement was shocking because a politician actually spoke the truth. For example when Bush Jr. became President in '01 do you think the Democrats and the DNC got together and said 'let's work to make Bush a two-term President?' Of course not. They're also not as dumb as McConnell to state so publicly. But the Republicans deciding they don't want to 'work with' Obama in no way guarantees that he will not win re-election or that Republicans in Congress will hold onto their seats. If voters like Obama's agenda he will get re-elected and Republicans in Congress will lose seats this fall.

I will say 'taking care of the nation's business' means more than just passing what Obama proposes. And in reality when has Obama ever shown he can work in a 'bi-partisan fashion'? Admittedly I'm not all that familiar with his time in the Ill state legislature so if someone wants to show me bi-partisan work he did there I'm open. His time in the Senate? Any major bi-partisan work there?

Clinton showed he could pass bi-partisan legislation. Reagan worked with a Democratic legislature in California while Governor as well as while President. He never had a majority Republican Congress to work with like Obama did his first two years. Nothing is all Obama's fault but he is not a poor victim here.