•Unemployment cut in half since 2009.
•2 million jobs added in 2016.
•75 straight months in jobs gains, the best on record.
•2.9% annual wage growth, fastest since Bush recession.
•17.6 million cars sold in 2016, the most in American history.
•Housing market fully recovered.
I challenge you to give him credit for at least one of these.
Other urls found in this thread:
data.bls.gov
zerohedge.com
nationalreview.com
bizjournals.com
blogs.wsj.com
princeton.edu
louderwithcrowder.com
cnsnews.com
ballotpedia.org
twitter.com
HH.
How many people were added during those times?
>second worst recession due to keynesian policy
>only have those statistics because he managed to prolong it
>look how good of a president he is
>Employees have to get another job after hours cut due to ACA nonsense
>2.9% wage growth with 3%+ inflation
I'm trying to get some of you to acknowledge the good Obama has done during his presidency.
I'm also making it clear so that Trump can't take any of the credit.
He has done nothing good, he has made things so much worse that when they recovered despite him it made him look that much better.
trump will take the credit for saving murrica from this disaster though, you low IQ 60%er
How the fuck did clinton creat more jobs than obama? Wtf
Yes, we know you have a bias and want to confirm it. What we're pointing out is that these claims are all inflated/falsified.
>•2 million jobs added in 2016.
you mean mcdonalds jobs?
He didn't create any jobs, he took power after a recession (which was caused by fed policy).
>unemployed people goes from 93 million to 95 million
>jobs added
We know
What we're trying to make clear to you is that you are a faggot just like Obama
>all jobs are equal
>make it so businesses lose money for giving full time because of dem benefits
>creates thousands of part time "jobs"
>l-look Obama is a job creator!
Also the definition for unemployment was changed. People who are actually unemployed used to be on the chart but now if you are unemployed and stop looking for 2 months you're dropped from the list.
Uhh why didnt they put HW Bush between Regan and clinton?
Break down where this growth has come from and it has almost nothing todo with the presidency besides some subsidizes
The two pillars leading the US economic recovery are Technology and Energy. Every other market in the US is shakey at best. Technology will always continuously grow in the US because of the way our culture is set up, and I will admit obama has been useful in no hindering the entrepreneurial spirit. The reason the energy market has grown is because of the technology in a way because we now have access to more energy sources in America like Gas that we didn't before. His cut on these regulations has been helpful.
So I will give him partial credit, but laying the claim that he fixed the economy is ludicrous. If trump does nothing but continue to extrapolate on these markets he will be much the same, but if is able to prop up a new industry then I will say he accomplished something
No, I won't let this pass.
Keynesian policies worsened the recession for the US? Look at fucking Europe and see how we're handling our recession, following precious austerity measures and failing miserably.
The US comes headfirst out of this recession because it followed keynesian guidelines, look at the facts.
To people who say obama was bad for the debt - google "Budget Deficit", study what it means, and then you'll realize obama was actually better for the debt than bush
nice sources
Obama makes me pay a fine for being too poor too afford health insurance.
Thanks, Obama!
>be europe
>have much more socialist policies
>cut policies due to recession as theyre unsustainable
>come out of the recession economically
>can't reinstate unsustainable policies
>LOOK GUYS AUSTERITY FAILED
>d-dont focus on the debt goy
pretty nice copy pasta tho, shill
i like you
No, you can focus on the debt all you want. it's just that if you want to see how good or bad obama actually was for the debt, you must look at the budget deficit. let me explain:
Budget deficit = spending vs earning of the government. when the deficit is negative, the government spends more than it earns, so the debt increases. when the deficit is positive, the debt shrinks because the government earns more than it spends (this is what's called a surplus).
The deficit does not change overnight. the earning-spending ratio is something which usually changes gradually. as you can see in the graph in pic related, Obama inherited an horrid deficit because of the great recession, and throughout his presidency the deficit remained negative however he managed to cut the deficit in half, which means obama actually improved the spending/earning ratio of the government.
I hope you learned something today user
Way to show the trough of the great recession there, faglord. Shit has gotten better since 2012
Many of this graphs don't start at 0 and therefore give a false impression. but i will analyze some of them for you:
>Federal debt
I already explained why obama was actually good for the debt here . you must look at the deficit in order to judge how good he was for the debt.
>Money Printing
That was because Obama entered his presidency during the great recession. he had to use this method in order to save the US from the recession
>Labour force participation
>Home ownership
Both stats are changing due to the same reason: demographic changes. the ratio between young and old people in the US is changing dramatically, which changes the ratio of home ownership and labor force participation. while the great recession effect this stat, this is not just a result of economic policy.
>Median family income
>worker share of the economy
This is the only legitimate critism of obama's economic policy. the gap between the rich and the middle class increased while obama was president. that's what Bernie Sanders is talking about when he is saying the democrats were not good enough for the middle class. let me just not that the change in the median family income is actually a change from 53,000 to 51,000, your graph is misleading because it starts at 50,000.
I hope my analysis helps you.
remember most people who won a nobel prize for economics were jewish :^)
erm, correcting some typos
Many of those graphs don't start at 0 and therefore give a false impression. but i will analyze some of them for you:
>Federal debt
I already explained why obama was actually good for the debt here (You). you must look at the deficit in order to judge how good he was for the debt.
>Money Printing
That was because Obama entered his presidency during the great recession. he had to use this method in order to save the US from the recession
>Labour force participation
>Home ownership
Both stats are changing due to the same reason: demographic changes. the ratio between young and old people in the US is changing dramatically, which changes the ratio of home ownership and labor force participation. while the great recession effect this stat, this is not just a result of economic policy.
>Median family income
>worker share of the economy
This is the only legitimate critism of obama's economic policy. the gap between the rich and the middle class increased while obama was president. that's what Bernie Sanders is talking about when he is saying the democrats were not good enough for the middle class. let me just note that the change in the median family income is actually a change from 53,000 to 51,000, your graph is misleading because it starts at 50,000.
I hope my analysis helps you.
remember most people who won a nobel prize for economics were jewish :^)
...
Oh wait, Obama actually increased the median income since 2012?
That's actually better than i thought
And 2016 was another good year for wages not shown on the chart
>print money to save from recession
>value of money declines
>investments in production are unsustainable
>new recessions
>more inflation
Hey man you are not an economic expert.
What would you do if you were in the same situation? i doubt you would think of a better solution
>implying presidents create jobs
I see a direct correlation between the economy and the economic policy which is being implemented.
how surprising! no one would have guessed it works that way
there is a difference between the US printing money and other countries printing money, you should know that
I would do nothing, I'd let the recession be fixed as the orders of production adjusts by the forces of the market and then never worry about domestic recessions again as I don't destablize the market.
Democrats are better for GDP as they inflate cause artificial economic growth, which republicans then have to deal with when it crashes.
The only difference is that the US dollar has more demand to hold, that isn't permanent nor sustainable.
Look at our national debt he said he'd get rid of.
Do you know why Bill Clinton got elected?
Because the economy was terrible after 12 years of republicans handling it.
Are you going to blame democrats when the economy did poorly after 12 years of republicans? don't be a moron
Lol u don't understand either tho.
>he had to use this method
Isn't that what a bunch of second world countries did when their economies crashed?
Tell me one country in the world, who would raise their currency in comparisson to the $ in a drastic way. There is non and will never be. That's why the dollar is called key currency.
Bill Clinton got elected for one reason.
> HW Bush: No new taxes.
> Raises taxes.
Right now it is, that doesn't make it permanently so.
>decades of keynesian policy by both republicans and democrats cause stagflation
>LOOK AT HOW GREAT CLINTON IS EVIL REPUBLICANS
I'm not a republican loyalist, but they usually engage in slightly more free market policy, doesn't mean they don't have periods of fucking up.
CTR lives on I guess
>kys
>Unemployment cut in half since 2009
Pic related.
Bill Clinton's economy was SAVED by the peak of the dot com bubble, and then Bush had to deal with it in the midst of the worst terror attack on the biggest financial institution in the world.
The 11 poorest states in the US all have republican governors, including West Virginia which is 90% white so don't blame it on race.
It's pretty clear to me the democrats have a vastly superior economic policy
Most of the jobs were low paying/part time/no benefits jobs.
Your argument is literally a meme.
Keeping it all 8 year stats.
Do you have a chart on labor participation?
You are just vulnerbale to propaganda so you repeat the talking points of your party like a parrot while ignoring facts like this
>Correlation equals causation
Surely a Jew can't be THIS stupid
>be rich
>don't care about money
>vote progressive
>be poor
>realize that you have to work for money
>vote conservative
No, but it's here:
data.bls.gov
so you tell me that a currency, which is a key currency since the beginning and also the currency in which 60% of all reserves are, will be not a key currency for the next 100 years?
Do you believe what you wrote ?
What kind of jobs are those. Who they been given to.
I challenge you to describe this.
>when you arm al-qaeda and destroy libya, syria, and iraq (again), and hand islamists way more power in egypt and tunisia using your cia-controlled kike social media companies
Thanks Obama
If republicans were actually good for the economy i would not expect to see the 11 poorest states to have republican governors. but this is the current case.
Meanwhile California and New York which consistently elect democrats have blooming economies and became some of the biggest economic centers of the US
you want a list of names ?
Then how after they vote republicans the states still stay so poor?
If that currency keeps being inflated at the levels it currently is, it will stop being a key currency.
>bailed out Wall Street and ensured no bankers were sent to jail
>american perpetrators of torture not held accountable
>expanded wars to Syria, Lybia, Africa, Ukraine etc...
>drone strikes on innocent muslim families, only apologises when an American citizen was killed
>called rioters in Baltimore "criminals and thugs" and issued a pro-police statement in the wake of "police brutality"
>when Israelis killed over 2,000 Palestinians he gave them an additional $225 million in funding and kept quiet over the incident
> top 1% got nearly two-thirds of the income growth in eight years even as child poverty, especially black child poverty, remained astronomical
>closed hundreds of public schools in favour of charter schools
>"In 2009, Obama called New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg an “outstanding mayor”. Yet he overlooked the fact that more than 4 million people were stopped-and-frisked under Bloomberg’s watch."
>obamacare was a market-based solution pioneered by Romney the the Conservative Heritage Foundaiton
>"nearly 2.5 million immigrants were deported under his watch"
>couldn't be criticised because he was black
>At war every day and started new conflicts
>Total debt (including medicare/social security) in excess of 68 trillion
>Factually empowered ISIS, and didn't like Assad so he funded rebels (Literally AL-queda)
>Worsened our individual rights to the extend that the government can murder US Citizens on American soil without consequence if there was any link of "terrorism", and then deemed anyone patriotic to be a "domestic terrorist"
>Freedom of speech and right to defend yourself severely diminished, while putting us in a police state
>Constant surveillance of every call, text, email you make and presumably more. The person responsible for releasing this is heralded as a terrorist traitor
Actually, Ross Perot schlonged the Republican side
tl;dr: Feb 2008 -> 66%
Dec 2016 -> 62.7%
Niggers
Wealth is not created overnight. More free market states are seeing domestic immigration and investment.
daniel..............................
Would be nice but general info works too.
>Colluded with Hillary Clinton to rig the DNC primary against Bernie Sanders, and when this was leaked he tried to blame it on Russians and is actively worsening relations
>ABOUT TO DROP: Massive funding to a propaganda machine similar to CTR that posts on the internet to change narrative and common opinion, damage control etc. Pays news stations to run articles, and blacklists other articles from being written, and assassinations of potential political figures and celebrities
>Unemployment at an all-time low, because welfare benefits have increased so much that people don't want off them and aren't considered unemployed when that happens
>Obamacare often gives middle class white people roughly a $20k deductible, $600+ a month and will take your entire tax refund if you don't sign up for it (or any other insurance, if you even can)
>promise no nation building in middle east
>intentionally ignore all intelligence warnings
>the jihadists happens as a result of intended incompetence
>promises to avenge and attack jihadists (not the saudis, but secular iraq)
>rise in patriotistm and islamophobia
>attack iraq and engage in nation building you promised against
>setup more hate laws
>setup surveillance police state against everyone (both mustlims and antimuslims)
>punish islamophobic/racist/patriotic americans with anti-hate laws
>promote tolerance and import more muslims
>promote war against muslims
>enact more police state laws eroding further rights and effectively criminalizing patriotism
>everyone now under surveillance and considered a threat
West virginia is 90% white and it's still among the 11 poorest states.
The correlation between having a republican governor and having a poor state is stronger than any demographic correlation
>Meanwhile California and New York which consistently elect democrats have blooming economies
Have you ever thought that it's because they're coastal states with access to ports? Oklahoma will never be a cultural hub because it's in the middle of nowhere, so their economy will reflect that they can't import as many educated workers. Not to mention some states simply do not have the access to certain mineral resources and just aren't as populated.
11th, so a small state is number 11. There is no issue here.
Also the fact that people vote conservative does not mean that the conservative politicians enact their promises.
Me too
There's also correlation between Democratic mayors and crime. Care to explain that? By your logic Democrats caused this.
They were great jobs
Terrific jobs
The best this country's ever seen
Everybody's saying it, people know it
That should be all the explanation you need
A lot of States with low gdp per capita have lower s costs of living. Also less focus on finance to inflate GDP. Finance typically distributed wealth less than traditional industries.
Florida is coastal too, yet it's not doing as well. know why? hint: they have a republican governor
thats not the chart of the inflation...
the inflation was normal, between 5 to 0 % in the last 8 years. Thats quiete a normal and "good" inflation.
there are a million new legal immigrants each year. so 8 million new jobs are needed just to set of the immigration.
Dems run up the credit card debt then conservatives are stuck with the bill.
>unemployment
still high. most people have stopped looking
>jobs gains
Mcdonalds
>17 million cars sold
30% of all car owners currently owe more than car is worth
>housing market recovered
Housing in the cities is now only for millionaires
Now get the fuck out.
>thinking any inflation is good
>thinking price inflation does not come after real inflation
Also possibly because hurricanes roll through there every year and decimate the coast line lmao
West Virginia is tough because they had a coal industry for so long that is being strangled by regulations and decreased demand from China.
Holy shit he doubled it. This nigger is crashing the plane with no survivors.
No republican president in the past 40 years was as good for the economy as Bill Clinton and Obama.
Do whatever you want with this fact. if you want to keep swallowing republican propaganda and think they are better have fun with it
It's another bubble you fucking retard.
>Housing market fully recovered
No. The bubble was just patched. It will explode again, 3rd quarter 2017, even worse then before.
Please respond to this post.
I mean I have no loyalty to republicans, Nixon, Bush and Lincoln are solidly in the top 5 worst US presidents of all time for me.
Alright. I guess there might be a correlation.
Now respond to this
>thinks inflation is bad
okay buddy, we should stop talking about economics.
Stunned.
Nearly all of those 11 states have subsidized farm industries which slows economic growth like a bitch making them poor as fuck
Texas has a booming economy and jobs are leaving california like you wouldn't believe pal
>nationalreview.com
North Dakota actually had a booming gdp bc of oil the past year and even with prices down they are recovering steadily
>blogs.wsj.com
Also, nearly all economic growth under democrats has been entirely because of circumstance (princeton did a study on it), and even then the stock market under bush boomed due to congress making good tax and budget descisions, so thank Gingrich the neocon in part for that one
Republican policy is also one that strives for a steady growth that is better for the long term, Demoshits and their keynesian crap also lower interest rates and print out money so the next president can inherit the crash, like what trump is going to have to get now.
Princeton Study:
>princeton.edu
Obama also has successfully created the worst labor force unemployment rate in history for the US
>louderwithcrowder.com
The funny thing about this^ is that even with him changing the data to fit his legacy
>ttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-lambro-obama-hides-jobs-failure-by-not-coun/
He STILL can't fix unemployment properly...
>and stop looking for 2 months you're dropped from the list.
How could that be? You don't have a job, by definition you are not employed.
>sort by largest to lowest debt by state
>california, new york
ballotpedia.org
>thinking the value of money is not supposed to rise with the growth of the economy
>thinking that making investments less profitable doesn't make businesses unsustainable