Obama's First Term Accomplishments

[duane1969]

The "He spent more money than every other president combined" if a pretty flawed argument. I'm not sure about early U.S. government budgets, but the with inflation and the increased volume of the U.S. population and services that they provide of course any current president is going to spend ay more than a bunch of our early U.S. presidents. It's like comparing movie box office numbers from now to movies of the past. You can't do it because movies cost so much more these days. I do agree that spending has to be reigned in but this comparison is a faulty comparison simply because of inflation and population size.

I agree, using the national debt from 100 years ago is unfair.

However, the value of the dollar has not increased to the point that comparing recent history is unfair.

*In 8 years under Bill Clinton the national debt increased from $4.535 trillion to $5.662 trillion. A yearly average of $140 billion and a total increase of 24% or 3% per year.
*In 8 years under George W. the national debt increased from $5.662 to $10.669 trillion. A yearly increase of $625 billion and a total increase of 88% or 11% per year.
*In 3 years under Obama the national debt has increased from $10.669 to $15.227 trillion. A yearly increase of $1.5 trillion and a total increase of 42% or 14% per year.

If Obama wins another 4 year term it is projected that the national debt will be $24.039 trillion by 2015, which represents a yearly increase of $1.67 trillion and a total increase of 125% or 15.6% per year.

Another telling factor.
*Under Clinton the yearly national debt total represented 57-68% of the GDP.
*Under George W. the yearly national debt total represented 57-74% of the GDP.
*Under Obama the yearly national debt has represented 86-99% of the GDP.

What does this mean? Under Clinton and W. the national debt increase and GDP growth were nearly identical. Under Obama the national debt has increased at a much higher rate than the GDP is increasing.

[pghin08]

I agree, using the national debt from 100 years ago is unfair.

However, the value of the dollar has not increased to the point that comparing recent history is unfair.

*In 8 years under Bill Clinton the national debt increased from $4.535 trillion to $5.662 trillion. A yearly average of $140 billion and a total increase of 24% or 3% per year.
*In 8 years under George W. the national debt increased from $5.662 to $10.669 trillion. A yearly increase of $625 billion and a total increase of 88% or 11% per year.
*In 3 years under Obama the national debt has increased from $10.669 to $15.227 trillion. A yearly increase of $1.5 trillion and a total increase of 42% or 14% per year.

If Obama wins another 4 year term it is projected that the national debt will be $24.039 trillion by 2015, which represents a yearly increase of $1.67 trillion and a total increase of 125% or 15.6% per year.

Another telling factor.
*Under Clinton the yearly national debt total represented 57-68% of the GDP.
*Under George W. the yearly national debt total represented 57-74% of the GDP.
*Under Obama the yearly national debt has represented 86-99% of the GDP.

What does this mean? Under Clinton and W. the national debt increase and GDP growth were nearly identical. Under Obama the national debt has increased at a much higher rate than the GDP is increasing.

But what happens to Obama's numbers if you take out the stimulus packages (which, by the way, every Keynesian economist wanted, and would have happened REGARDLESS of who was elected). It's utterly amazing to me how everyone just blatantly disregards the fact that Obama took office in the middle of the biggest financial crisis in 75+ years.

[habsheaven]

But what happens to Obama's numbers if you take out the stimulus packages (which, by the way, every Keynesian economist wanted, and would have happened REGARDLESS of who was elected). It's utterly amazing to me how everyone just blatantly disregards the fact that Obama took office in the middle of the biggest financial crisis in 75+ years.

They will not acknowledge that. You are just going to be accused of BLAMING BUSH, even though you are not.

[Lynco Cards]

But what happens to Obama's numbers if you take out the stimulus packages (which, by the way, every Keynesian economist wanted, and would have happened REGARDLESS of who was elected). It's utterly amazing to me how everyone just blatantly disregards the fact that Obama took office in the middle of the biggest financial crisis in 75+ years.

Yes he took office when the economy was not in the best of shape. But when are you going to look at the WASTEFUL spending that is not helping create jobs but just making the government bigger. How much more will he run us into debt?

[duane1969]

But what happens to Obama's numbers if you take out the stimulus packages (which, by the way, every Keynesian economist wanted, and would have happened REGARDLESS of who was elected). It's utterly amazing to me how everyone just blatantly disregards the fact that Obama took office in the middle of the biggest financial crisis in 75+ years.

Probably the same thing if you take out the stimulus package and tax breaks that Bush put through.

But I agree, Obama should get a free pass. So should Bush. If you look at the long-term economic numbers the downturn started in the final quarter of Clinton's presidency. So I guess W. and Obama get a free pass and Clinton gets the blame...

In the end Obama is the biggest failure as a president in the history of America. He is not responsible for anything he has done and he has done nothing that he said he would.

[pghin08]

Probably the same thing if you take out the stimulus package and tax breaks that Bush put through.

But I agree, Obama should get a free pass. So should Bush. If you look at the long-term economic numbers the downturn started in the final quarter of Clinton's presidency. So I guess W. and Obama get a free pass and Clinton gets the blame...

In the end Obama is the biggest failure as a president in the history of America. He is not responsible for anything he has done and he has done nothing that he said he would.

I totally agree with you on Bush. I think it's unfair to him too. He did what he had to do at the end of his term.

As for your last comment, I'm going to say the same thing that I said to the people who thought that about George W, it is WAY too soon to tell.

[duane1969]

I totally agree with you on Bush. I think it's unfair to him too. He did what he had to do at the end of his term.

As for your last comment, I'm going to say the same thing that I said to the people who thought that about George W, it is WAY too soon to tell.

I was being a bit of a smartypants on that last part, but if the current process of not owning his own reality continues and he continues to disappoint on campaign promises, then that is how I think history will see him.

[OnePimpTiger]

1. Would have happened no matter who the Prez was. But +1 Obama anyway.

2. Deceptive number as this is based on those who are applying for unemployment benefits and are seeking work, not those who are actually unemployed. Many have run out of benefits and are no longer counted but are still unemployed. This number also does not reflect those who lost full-time jobs and took part-time jobs just to have some income.

3. Would like to know where this number comes from. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, since Obama took office there has been a loss of 4,303,000 jobs and a gain of 2,654,000 jobs. I am no math guru but my calculator comes up with a net loss of 1,649,000 jobs.

4. Deceptive data. For 22 months, yes. Since he took office, no. 5 of the first 6 quarters of Obama's presidency were economic decline including the biggest economic decline in years during the first quarter of 2009.

5. Again. Would have happened with any president. But +1 Obama.

6. +1 Obama

7. Deceptive wording. Tax hikes? No. Elimination of tax breaks? Yes. Net result is an increase in certain tax areas.

8. +1 Obama. Not exactly a presidential accomplishment tho. Clinton proved that fidelity is not a presidential requirement.

9. Even tho the numbers from #3 are deceptive, this is funny. Obama claims to have created 1.6 million jobs total and 1.5 million were in the auto industry? So if one believes the Dem numbers, he only created 100,000 non-auto industry jobs?

10. +1 Obama

11. Sorry. This was a joke. Not a +1 for him since he did nothing to earn or deserve it. Other presidents received it after they left office because they received it for their accomplishments as president. Obama getting it right after he took office was nothing more than a PR stunt.

12. Mortgage mod doesn't work. Most mortgage companies don't do them and the few that do only do it for long-term homeowners, not new homeowners, which is the ones who were losing their homes from the Fannie/Freddie lending fiasco.

13. I am neutral. I am middle class and will pay more in taxes this year than ever. Perhaps I am the wrong middle-class.

14. Yes, he reformed health care, in spite of 2/3rds of America opposing it, he reformed it. -1 Obama

15. I am unaware of him reforming the financial system. Could someone explain?

Thank you...I thought I was the only one who read that list and was laughing out loud. After reading that list, I guess you really can polish any turd.

Conveniently that list doesn't mention his promise to close Guantanamo, initially sending more troops to the Middle East, increasing unemployment to over 10% before the decrease to "just" 8.5%, the fact that millions more jobs were lost than created, creating record deficits, creating record debt increases, allowing Iran to gain nuclear capability, giving administration jobs to major donors after a campaign promise to end that practice. If you put super spin on only positive things someone does, you can make anyone sound like they've done a good job.