Obama economic success

[quietfan 233]

Probably not what Obama critics want to hear, but it's not like Forbes is a hotbed of liberal propaganda:

http://www.addicting...n-modern-times/

It’s Official: President Obama Is The Best Economic President In Modern Times

A new economic report, published by Forbes.com on September 6, 2014, clearly shows that President Obama is the best economic president in modern times. It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact, based on all of typical the economic indicators, including jobs, investments, growth and expansion, even the rate of inflation. In all of these areas President Obama’s record outperforms that of every other modern president, including conservative idol, Ronald Reagan.

...

http://www.forbes.co...-and-investing/

Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing

...

Articles are pretty long, so I didn't post it all. Anyone interested can follow the link(s).

...just reporting FYI. I leave the nay-saying, counter arguments, and back-&-forth debate to others this time--I'm a little busy today and a lot apathetic. For the rest of you, enjoy the fray!

[WarTim 3,456]

Not an ounce of truth....Next?

[cooltigger21 0]

Reducing the national debt? He's doubled it

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Maybe we should have gone with the austerity plan like most of Europe?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

is it April 1 already?

[quietfan 233]

Not an ounce of truth....Next?

Care to elaborate? Is that simply opinion, or do you have specific numbers and sources that disprove the numerical claims in the Forbes article? I would be most interested and open to knowing where Forbes (or the author they quote) misconstrued the data. I'm always open to, indeed desirous of, fact-checking and accuracy.

I'm sure Forbes is not 100% free of editorial bias or error--no publication is. But they tend to draw more respect that many magazines, so it would be most educational to know when and why they chose to publish an entire article of unvetted, erroneous data (or "lies") that could be easily fact-checked and refuted.

That's the thing about numbers: Because of their specificity, they are much easier to verify or refute than mere opinion or interpretation. So to paraphrase Jerry McGuire, "show me the numbers".

[TexasTiger 12,800]

Not an ounce of truth....Next?

Care to elaborate? Is that simply opinion, or do you have specific numbers and sources that disprove the numerical claims in the Forbes article? I would be most interested and open to knowing where Forbes (or the author they quote) misconstrued the data. I'm always open to, indeed desirous of, fact-checking and accuracy.

I'm sure Forbes is not 100% free of editorial bias or error--no publication is. But they tend to draw more respect that many magazines, so it would be most educational to know when and why they chose to publish an entire article of unvetted, erroneous data (or "lies") that could be easily fact-checked and refuted.

That's the thing about numbers: Because of their specificity, they are much easier to verify or refute than mere opinion or interpretation. So to paraphrase Jerry McGuire, "show me the numbers".

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that mindlessly repels facts as well as Timmy.

[homersapien 11,352]

Not an ounce of truth....Next?

Care to elaborate? Is that simply opinion, or do you have specific numbers and sources that disprove the numerical claims in the Forbes article? I would be most interested and open to knowing where Forbes (or the author they quote) misconstrued the data. I'm always open to, indeed desirous of, fact-checking and accuracy.

I'm sure Forbes is not 100% free of editorial bias or error--no publication is. But they tend to draw more respect that many magazines, so it would be most educational to know when and why they chose to publish an entire article of unvetted, erroneous data (or "lies") that could be easily fact-checked and refuted.

That's the thing about numbers: Because of their specificity, they are much easier to verify or refute than mere opinion or interpretation. So to paraphrase Jerry McGuire, "show me the numbers".

Fortunately, he's incapable of composing a response that's longer than a tweet.

[quietfan 233]

Reducing the national debt? He's doubled it

While the linked article did not even mention the national debt, you are certainly within your rights if you prefer to look at those debt figures as more indicative of economic success/failure than the statistics on which the article is based.

For comparison, the Treasury Department itself reports the following figures on national debt during the Reagan Administration:

http://www.treasuryd...debt_histo4.htm

Debt as of September 1979 (the last complete fiscal year before Reagan's presidency): $826,519,000,000.00.

Debt as of September 1988 (the last complete fiscal year under Reagan's presidency): $2,602,337,712,041.16.

...So if these Treasury Dept. figures are accurate, the national debt more than tripled under Reagan

[TexasTiger 12,800]

Reducing the national debt? He's doubled it

While the linked article did not even mention the national debt, you are certainly within your rights if you prefer to look at those debt figures as more indicative of economic success/failure than the statistics on which the article is based.

For comparison, the Treasury Department itself reports the following figures on national debt during the Reagan Administration:

http://www.treasuryd...debt_histo4.htm

Debt as of September 1979 (the last complete fiscal year before Reagan's presidency): $826,519,000,000.00.

Debt as of September 1988 (the last complete fiscal year under Reagan's presidency): $2,602,337,712,041.16.

...So if these Treasury Dept. figures are accurate, the national debt more than tripled under Reagan

Like most Republicans, CT doesn't know the difference in debt and deficit.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Reducing the national debt? He's doubled it

While the linked article did not even mention the national debt, you are certainly within your rights if you prefer to look at those debt figures as more indicative of economic success/failure than the statistics on which the article is based.

For comparison, the Treasury Department itself reports the following figures on national debt during the Reagan Administration:

http://www.treasuryd...debt_histo4.htm

Debt as of September 1979 (the last complete fiscal year before Reagan's presidency): $826,519,000,000.00.

Debt as of September 1988 (the last complete fiscal year under Reagan's presidency): $2,602,337,712,041.16.

...So if these Treasury Dept. figures are accurate, the national debt more than tripled under Reagan

Don't tax and spend. The worst plan in the history of planning.

[quietfan 233]

Reducing the national debt? He's doubled it

While the linked article did not even mention the national debt, you are certainly within your rights if you prefer to look at those debt figures as more indicative of economic success/failure than the statistics on which the article is based.

For comparison, the Treasury Department itself reports the following figures on national debt during the Reagan Administration:

http://www.treasuryd...debt_histo4.htm

Debt as of September 1979 (the last complete fiscal year before Reagan's presidency): $826,519,000,000.00.

Debt as of September 1988 (the last complete fiscal year under Reagan's presidency): $2,602,337,712,041.16.

...So if these Treasury Dept. figures are accurate, the national debt more than tripled under Reagan

Long day...just now getting back to elaborate on the debt figures:

First of all, a correction (calendar error on my part): Obviously, Reagan was not inaugurated until January 1981, so September 1979 was not the end of the last full fiscal year before he took office, but rather September of 1980. Corrected below...

Going back to the Treasury Department figures, I've put together the following summary for all the Presidents since him:

http://www.treasuryd...bt/histdebt.htm

National debt by President:

Entering office

¹

:.....................Leaving office

²

:.....................% increase

Reagan---- $907,701,000,000.00.........$2,602,337,712,041.16.............187%

Bush I------ $2,602,337,712,041.16......$4,064,620,655,521.66..............56%

Clinton----- $4,064,620,655,521.66......$5,674,178,209,886.86..............40%

Bush II----- $5,674,178,209,886.86......$10,024,724,896,912.40..............77%

Obama----- $10,024,724,896,912.40....$16,066,241,407,385.80..............60%

¹

Sept before inauguration

²

Sept of last full year in office (or Sept 2012 for Obama--last year available on link. Also, Bush I was only in office for 4 years. Eight year increases for Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II)

[cooltigger21 0]

We are 5 1/2 years into this presidency and the economy is, at best, treading water, with no signs of any real improvement. We have a record number, nearly 100 million, people out of work. We have a record number on some kind of public assistance. Obamacare has yet to fully have it's effect. The taxes don't hit until he leaves office. Even the CBO can't calculate the full effect on the national debt that will have. It is going to increase it dramatically. What jobs we have are at 30 hours a week or less. Income is down. He still has 2 + years in office. I'm betting the debt hits close to 20 trillion by then. If unemployment was calculated correctly it would be at around 12%. They don't count you once you just give up and stop looking for work because there is no work. Now he wants to bring in even more people via amnesty when we don't have enough jobs for the people that are here now. So what happens to them? they go on public assistance as well.

[WarTim 3,456]

Yawn...

[homersapien 11,352]

Yawn...

Now that would look great on your car. Appropriate too.

[quietfan 233]

Yawn...

Now that would look great on your car. Appropriate too.

Actually, I only partake in these debates for fun. If I find myself getting frustrated, angry, or perturbed rather than entertained, I actively try to channel the "yawn" reflex rather than let my blood pressure rise. I recommend the same to everyone under similar circumstances.

[homersapien 11,352]

Yawn...

Now that would look great on your car. Appropriate too.

Actually, I only partake in these debates for fun. If I find myself getting frustrated, angry, or perturbed rather than entertained, I actively try to channel the "yawn" reflex rather than let my blood pressure rise. I recommend the same to everyone under similar circumstances.

I'll stick with drugs.

[quietfan 233]

Yawn...

Now that would look great on your car. Appropriate too.

Actually, I only partake in these debates for fun. If I find myself getting frustrated, angry, or perturbed rather than entertained, I actively try to channel the "yawn" reflex rather than let my blood pressure rise. I recommend the same to everyone under similar circumstances.

I'll stick with drugs.

To each his own, but the yawn reflex is a natural side effect of some drugs!