• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Worst. Recovery. Ever.

And let's not forget that Obama promised to help the poor/middle class - he failed at that miserably.

FT_14.12.16_wealthInequality.png


America?s wealth gap between middle-income and upper-income families is widest on record | Pew Research Center
 
More proof of the lousy job Obama did with the 'recovery'.

SNAP (food stamps).

From the CBO:

'Participation
Between 2007 and 2011, both the number of people
eligible for SNAP and the rate at which eligible people
claimed benefits increased. Labor market conditions
deteriorated dramatically between 2007 and 2009 and
have been slow to recover: The unemployment rate
jumped from 4.6 percent in 2007 to 9.6 percent in 2010
and was still at 8.5 percent at the end of 2011. The number
of people eligible for the program increased by an
estimated 20 percent from 2007 to 2009 (the latest year
for which such data are available) and probably at an even
faster rate from 2009 to 2011.8
Moreover, in 2009, 72 percent of people estimated to be
eligible for SNAP received benefits, up from 69 percent
in 2007.9
Again, the percentage in 2011 was probably
greater. The increase in the rate at which eligible people
received SNAP benefits between 2007 and 2011 was
probably a result of two factors: the poor economy
(which reduced people’s income and caused longer periods
of need, prompting more people who were already
eligible for the program to apply) and changes in the
program’s administration, such as greater use of online
applications, mail-in renewals, and phone interviews
(which have made it easier for people to apply for and
continue receiving benefits).'

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/04-19-SNAP.pdf Page 4 under the header 'Participation'.

So the first highlighted section states that the number applying for SNAP actually INCREASED after Obama took office and after the 'Great Recession' was officially over.

The second highlighted part shows that this nonsense OBAMAbots state that the reason food stamps shot up was mostly/entirely due to easing of eligibility requirements; is wrong. That the economy was at least as much of the blame. And the CBO lists it first.


Obama was supposed to be the POTUS for the poor. He must of been, because under his guidance, they increased in number more so than under any other POTUS in history.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
'As the champagne glasses clink in Washington over a record-breaking streak of job growth on record (as the percent of the population employed slumped), and the fastest wage growth since the start of the recovery (for managers), we just wanted to remind a few blinkered media types that Obama's "recovery" has officially been the worst recovery in US history (despite adding almost $10 trillion to the national debt)...

When 'fake news' and 'peddling fiction' meet fact...'

20170106_recovery.jpg

Source: JPMorgan

'Not quite as rosy an economic handover to Trump as The White House would like everyone to believe.'

Worst. Recovery. Ever. | Zero Hedge


Thoughts?
Click to expand...

There ARE some things out of the POTUS' realm of control. Such as the age of the population. Over 1/3 of the labor force are baby boomers. They are on the back end of their spending wave. Consumer spending accounts for approximately 70% of the GDP. Considering that they are on the other side of their peak spending wave at a near identical time as the crisis hit, I can hardly blame Obama for the lack of a strong rebound.

With or without the many factors in the Great Recession, we were inevitably going to hit a growth slowdown at just about the same time.
 
fredmertzz said:
There ARE some things out of the POTUS' realm of control. Such as the age of the population. Over 1/3 of the labor force are baby boomers. They are on the back end of their spending wave. Consumer spending accounts for approximately 70% of the GDP. Considering that they are on the other side of their peak spending wave at a near identical time as the crisis hit, I can hardly blame Obama for the lack of a strong rebound.

With or without the many factors in the Great Recession, we were inevitably going to hit a growth slowdown at just about the same time.
Click to expand...

Did he sign ObamaCare and raise taxes ?
Did he push for Stimulus and then ignored all the corruption and croney capitalism that resulted from it ??

Did his administration continue to push base propaganda that showed the economy was improving marketdly instea of taking steps to repair the damage that he and the Democrat party were responsible for ?

Obama is a big govt, anti-free-market Progresive and its no wonder that 8 years later his economy still has to be propped up with Fed zero interest rate polices
 
Fenton said:
Did he sign ObamaCare and raise taxes ?
Did he push for Stimulus and then ignored all the corruption and croney capitalism that resulted from it ??

Did his administration continue to push base propaganda that showed the economy was improving marketdly instea of taking steps to repair the damage that he and the Democrat party were responsible for ?

Obama is a big govt, anti-free-market Progresive and its no wonder that 8 years later his economy still has to be propped up with Fed zero interest rate polices
Click to expand...

You didn't respond to anything I said. I simply said that the generational spending waves and the percentage of the "spenders" in that population was a much larger "cause" in the lack of a bounce back than the POTUS could have possibly helped. And in fact, that even under the best case scenario, the POTUS could not have prevented our lackluster GDP growth.

I'm not sure what points you were trying to make to debate or add to what I said, because it seems like a completely set of points. Did you mean to respond to me, or were you just making points to the general topic? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.
 
DA60 said:
'As the champagne glasses clink in Washington over a record-breaking streak of job growth on record (as the percent of the population employed slumped), and the fastest wage growth since the start of the recovery (for managers), we just wanted to remind a few blinkered media types that Obama's "recovery" has officially been the worst recovery in US history (despite adding almost $10 trillion to the national debt)...

When 'fake news' and 'peddling fiction' meet fact...'

20170106_recovery.jpg

Source: JPMorgan

'Not quite as rosy an economic handover to Trump as The White House would like everyone to believe.'

Worst. Recovery. Ever. | Zero Hedge


Thoughts?
Click to expand...

It was a complete recovery and boom for the 1%., Not thoughts! reality. We need another OCCUPY with more participation and not infiltrated by the Police. Let the banks crash and we will all get through together, and if the banks don't make it, tough noogies.

/
 
DaveFagan said:
It was a complete recovery and boom for the 1%., Not thoughts! reality. We need another OCCUPY with more participation and not infiltrated by the Police. Let the banks crash and we will all get through together, and if the banks don't make it, tough noogies.

/
Click to expand...

this implies that the top 1% is a fixed group of people who keep getting richer while everybody else stays still.
That's not the case . There's a lot of turnover.
 
Moot said:
Our economy seems to be doing quite well...compared to Russia.

Speaking of fake news...Zero Hedge is not a reliable source....so anything they say should be taken with a pint of Russian vodka...or antifreeze, body lotion, etc.


"...Zero Hedge's content is conspiratorial, anti-establishment, and economically pessimistic,[3] and has been criticized for presenting extreme and sometimes pro-Russian views.[1][4][5]

Dr. Craig Pirrong, professor at the Bauer College of Business writes that "I have frequently written that Zero Hedge has the MO of a Soviet agitprop operation, that it reliably peddles Russian propaganda: my first post on this, almost exactly three years ago, noted the parallels between Zero Hedge and Russia Today."[18][19]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge​
Click to expand...

and why should I listen to Dr. Craig Pirrong?
Zero hedge is an interesting site.

Here's what's on there right now. Tell us what we should ignore?
Zero Hedge | On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
 
Moot said:
Who is "Tyler Durden"? Sometimes Zero Hedge has little gems but mostly they're pessimistic on US and pro Russian.
Click to expand...

A character from Fight Club movie.
 
That's what happens when one party makes obstruction their policy. Just imagine what could have been accomplished if Conservatives actually cared about the economy.
 
Incisor said:
That's what happens when one party makes obstruction their policy. Just imagine what could have been accomplished if Conservatives actually cared about the economy.
Click to expand...

Oh ffs, who was the Senate majority leader for 6 years ?

How many GOP jobs bills did Ried allow a vote on ?

Obama's a narcisitic man child, a ideologue, not a leader. EVERY President has had to work with oppostional Congresses.

Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 and Clinton. They were leaders, Obama's a legend in his own mind.
 
DA60 said:
A character from Fight Club movie.
Click to expand...

Ya...he's a fictional character.....and Zero Hedge is fictional news website.
 
Fenton said:
Oh ffs, who was the Senate majority leader for 6 years ?

How many GOP jobs bills did Ried allow a vote on ?

Obama's a narcisitic man child, a ideologue, not a leader. EVERY President has had to work with oppostional Congresses.

Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 and Clinton. They were leaders, Obama's a legend in his own mind.
Click to expand...


When was the last time the Republicans passed a balanced budget bill?
 
Moot said:
When was the last time the Republicans passed a balanced budget bill?
Click to expand...

I think a better question will be "when's the next time they'll try". My psychic powers say it wont be for another 4 years. Wait, I'm getting a message from the beyond. They wont even mention it for 4 years.
 
Moot said:
When was the last time the Republicans passed a balanced budget bill?
Click to expand...

While Obama was President and Harry Reid refused to allow any GOP bill tp the floor for a vote ?

Really ??
 
Vern said:
I think a better question will be "when's the next time they'll try". My psychic powers say it wont be for another 4 years. Wait, I'm getting a message from the beyond. They wont even mention it for 4 years.
Click to expand...

Of course they won't....they weren't elected to make the government work...they were elected to destroy it so they can say that government doesn't work.

I have a funny feeling they're going to trash the economy again and leave the mess for the democrats to clean up...again.
 
Fenton said:
While Obama was President and Harry Reid refused to allow any GOP bill tp the floor for a vote ?

Really ??
Click to expand...
Really? So how come Republicans couldn't pass a balanced budget when they controlled all three branches of government under Bush?

The only time the GOP controlled congress passed a balanced budget bill was once under Clinton and once under Obama.

I think the budget bill has to start in the House...not the Senate. Reid didn't prevent the House from voting on a bill.
 
DA60 said:
....
Worst. Recovery. Ever. | Zero Hedge
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Yes. More Zero Hedge/Credibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge

Zero Hedge is an English-language financial blog that aggregates news and presents editorial opinions from original and outside sources. The news portion of the site is written by a group of editors who collectively write under the Pseudonym "Tyler Durden" (a character from the novel and film Fight Club).

Critics assert that Zero Hedge's content is Conspiratorial, Anti-establishment, and Economically Pessimistic,[3] and has been criticized for presenting Extreme and sometimes pro-Russian views.[1][4][5]
[......]
In 2009, shortly after the blog was founded, news reports identified Daniel Ivandjiiski, a Bulgarian-born former hedge-fund analyst who was Barred from the industry for Insider Trading by FINRA in 2008, as the Founder of the site, and reported that "Durden" was a Pseudonym for Ivandjiisk..."
​

More in link.
slash/trash
"Thoughts"?

Yes, your last 6 OPs here "Zero Hedge" and "Thoughts".
Zero
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom