K.C.Journey Fan wrote:President Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009. In the first quarter of 2009, GDP declined at an annual rate of -5.4 percent...blah, blah, blah
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-06/how-obama-s-economic-record-stacks-up(Of the 12 postwar presidents) "Obama comes in eighth out of the 12 (in terms of presidential economic records), but still records a positive score, indicating a roughly average performance. That is based on six full years of his record, from 2010 to 2016. (This analysis leaves two years to go, because I allowed one year for the effects from the previous administration to subside -- more on that later.)
That is not a stunning performance, but it is a major improvement over that of his predecessor, George W. Bush, whose economic score was significantly lower than even Jimmy Carter’s. Rest assured, in this analysis a president’s score takes into account what he inherited and what he left behind. That’s one reality that both benefited and hampered Ronald Reagan’s and Obama’s scores."
Oh, and what does he say about GDP growth? "In fact, at
2.1 percent, it is the fourth-lowest growth rate of any president’s and below the postwar average of 2.9 percent."
That's the same figure I quoted before, after which I was accused of "lying."
The article sums up: "What is the takeaway then on Obama’s economic performance? When you take the slow global growth and domestic consumers’ retrenchment on debt into account, the record emerging from his rather calm and cautious approach is
one to build on, not one to be cast aside."
In other words, plenty to be critical about, but exponentially better than Drump and his cronies portray it as.
