The New York Times is well-known to be little more than a Democrat ‘office of propaganda’ and this week, it’s working to change American’s perceptions of Obama’s “success” in saving the economy.
the U.S. economy is in much better shape than the public appreciates, especially when measured against the depths of the financial crisis and the possibility — now rarely even considered — that things could have been much, much worse…
So they are befuddled that Americans aren’t happy enough that things aren’t worse than they say things would have been if he didn’t do the things he says he did which worked because he says they did – who’d a thunk it?
The article points at a 5% unemployment rate – which is wonderful – unless you’re working a job for 60% of the pay you made under previous administrations. But, according to Obama, you should be happy with your underpaying job, because things could have been much worse…
The New York Post published an article that delves into the numbers to perhaps help the old grey lady and her President understand why people aren’t all giddy about Obama’s economy:
this March’s figure is still slightly below the $57,342 median annual income in January 2000.
Americans haven’t gotten a raise in more than 16 years.
The NYT also claims that G.D.P. is growing .. compared to what? Obama is the first president in history to never have at least one year of at least 3% GDP growth
On Thursday the Commerce Department announced that the US economy expanded at the slowest pace in two years. GDP growth rose at an anemic 0.5% rate after a paltry 1.4% fourth quarter advance.
Heck, with the soon-to-materialize revision to the Q1 number, we may be entering a recession under Obama’s leadership.
The NYT also allows the President to take credit for $1 trillion in deficit reduction without even so much as a cursory check on the numbers, but have no fear, politifact has done the math:
First, it’s important to note that the deficit swelled in 2009 (hence the steady drop). In 2008, the deficit was $458 billion, or 3.1 percent of GDP. Those deficits are smaller than the ones the country is facing today. The 2009 fiscal year represented a huge jump in the deficit, partly because of the massive stimulus program to jumpstart the cratering economy.
So… cash for clunkers, shovel-ready projects, infrastructure rebuilding all led to a massive increase in deficit spending under Obama in 2009. Now, the president is making a grand claim of reducing deficit spending from his own record levels – match last year’s deficit to 2008 and you get no such miracle.
Obama is troubled by American voter’s inability to understand and appreciate his amazing economic accomplishments. Well, realclearmarkets.com evaluated the Obama economy against all other administrations and he came in fourth from the bottom:
Assuming 2.67% RGDP growth for 2016, Obama will leave office having produced an average of 1.55% growth. This would place his presidency fourth from the bottom of the list of 39*, above only those of Herbert Hoover (-5.65%), Andrew Johnson (-0.70%) and Theodore Roosevelt (1.41%)
But just remember kids: “It could have been worse.”