Has Obama Rescued the US Economy?

With Obama's presidency ending in a couple of days, I recently read an an interesting article by Martin Wolf who argued Barack Obama did his best in rescuing the US economy and argues that Obama laid a strong foundation for the United States economy considering the Great Recession was the worst economic crisis since the 1930s and the Republican Congressmen repealed any fiscal, monetary, and financial actions taken to deal with the crisis.

Wolfe cites economic data to prove his point bringing up the fact that:

  1. Unemployment rate fallen faster than expected. (U.S. business added 15.6 M jobs).
  2. Real wage growth faster than any year since 1970's.
  3. 3Q economy growth of 11.5% is bigger than the pre-crisis peak.

However, Wolf admits that Obama was not perfect in his economic recovery plan, writing that:

  1. US economic outcomes have become exceptionally unequal.
  2. There has been a downward trend of labor force participation rate.
  3. Labor productivity has been in decline for the past eight years.

Personally, I agree mostly with Wolfe. However, he mentions in his article that Republicans in Congress were partly to blame for the ineffectiveness of Obama's economic policy, which I disagree with considering during the first two years, both the Senate and House were Democratic. Also, hasn't this economic recovery and growth been the slowest in United State's history?

I am wondering what you guys think of the effectiveness of Obama's economic policy these past eight years and how would you rate his plans.

Comments (78)

Jan 14, 2017

Haha!

8/10

    • 5
Jan 16, 2017

Another click farm post by the FAKE LIBERAL NEWS. Sad!

    • 5
Best Response
Jan 14, 2017

Obama walked into a mess, I'll give him that. I fault him for not adjusting his plans in the face of this economic disaster. He spent all his good will and angered the nation in with Obamacare and the subsequent tax increase it brought.

His stimulus was poorly implemented and his deficit spending is frankly too much. We've had a stock market recovery, but the jobs that came about are mostly low paying service gigs, labor participation is severely down and disability enrollment is nearly double.

He's been a mediocre at best economic president. In his defense, he's a social policy, Democrat and never ran on a jobs platform.

I give him a 5/10. If trump has the same results I'd score him a 2/10 simply because of the platform her ran on.

Jan 16, 2017

Agree 100%. Curious to hear your thoughts on Janet Yellen and the Fed.

Jan 19, 2017

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

    • 3
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jan 14, 2017

Its hard to compare economic recoveries across time. Globalization, automation, baby boomer retirements, technology, etc are all factors that impact the economy today that didn't necessarily impact the economy in the past. Just saying its the slowest recovery doesn't really mean much unless you discuss why.

GDP growth has been slow. Much of the reason can be attributed to structural economic shifts, deleveraging, slow global growth, and demographics. Many people/places have been rendered uncompetitive within today's economy. There have been policies to address this but they have either been unsuccessful or blocked by the GOP. The reality is slow GDP growth is probably here to stay for sometime.

Under President Obama we have seen the deficit reduced, unemployment lowered, stocks perform well, low inflation,and exports increase. We are beginning to see wages increase as well. There are ~5.4 million open jobs and a skills gap. Labor Force participation is low due in large part to the skills gap. Without getting too deep into it, the strengths/weaknesses of the economy are largely unrelated to policy excluding the deficit. Who enjoys the prosperity resulting from the economy is probably more impacted by policy. Research suggests ~47% of jobs created were high wage jobs.

Don't really understand how you disagree with Republicans not being partially responsible for lack of effectiveness. Democratic control of congress during the first two years doesn't negate the years of republican control and subsequent obstructionism. Also keep in mind the 111th congress was extremely productive and passed quite a bit of legislation (with varying effectiveness as is always the case).

    • 6
    • 3
Jan 14, 2017

If you are going to blame Republicans you should also give credit as they are the ones who helped keep the deficit under control. Stock market doing well is because of Fed policy (which in turn helps tax revenue through capital gains and dividends). GDP growth has been abysmal, especially coming from a recession. This limping GDP has been ruled by government spending and people relevering, hardly a health economy.

Investments by companies have been down and low, with them choosing to buy back shares and pay dividends.

Labor force participation can be half explained by the boomers retiring and the other half explained through poor job opportunities and people choosing to self select out of the labor force. You see this with the doubling of disability roles.

Obama's focus was on a kick back to insurance companies, increased regulation and ruining race relations in this country. His foreign policy has been impotent at best and he's only been able to do anything through executive order.

Mediocre at best. I'd put him alongside Carter, although I give Carter the edge as he's been able to do good works in his post-Presidential life. I imagine Obama will continue "community organizing" and being an otherwise annoying liberal hack.

Jan 14, 2017

I wasn't blaming anyone. Obstructionism is in reference to the blocking of legislation supported by President Obama. Credit/blame can't be assigned unless we start discussing actual policies and their implications. GDP growth has been slow. There are reasons why it is - almost none of which have anything to do with policy.

The US has been borrowing for prosperity for sometime. Poor job opportunities are primarily the result of a skills gap. Poor job opportunities are mostly confined to certain demographics.

Race relations have been poor in this country. How poor they are has just started becoming publicized and discussed. Anyone who didn't know this either didn't care or wasn't paying attention. Foreign policy is something I generally stay away from. Far too many variables and no win situations. I leave the talking to people far more qualified than I.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. In my opinion Barack Obama has been a very good President overall.

    • 6
    • 3
Jan 16, 2017
GritsnGravy:

Under President Obama we have seen the deficit reduced, unemployment lowered, stocks perform well, low inflation,and exports increase. We are beginning to see wages increase as well.

  1. Lowered deficits after increasing them 400%+.
  2. Unemployment was lowered at the slowest, post-recession rate in U.S. history.
  3. Almost all economists credit stock market performance to monetary, not fiscal policy.
  4. Low inflation is the product of low growth.
  5. Nothing inherently beneficial about exports increasing.
    • 5
    • 1
Jan 14, 2017

The deficit increased as a result of the financial crisis. The recovery was slow. Again there are naturally occurring reasons for that which have little to do with short-term policy. I don't argue three but President gets credit/blame. Not going to argue that. I disagree. Increased exports indicates manufacturing growth, which we have seen. Granted this is minimal but there has been some improvement.

Jan 16, 2017

Does it count as deficit reduction if it's increased to historic levels then reduced to still very high levels?

    • 1
Jan 14, 2017

One also has to realize that the stock market increasing has brought in additional revenue. I'd like to see if the budget actually shrank.

Jan 20, 2017

In Obama's America, a capture at the border is = to a deportation.

Jan 16, 2017

I'd probably argue that the stability that came from divided government for 6 years contributed to steady recovery more than the rash of things done in '09/'10

    • 1
Jan 14, 2017

Obama is a JOKE of a president.

    • 11
    • 9
Jan 15, 2017

A Democrat would generally want to raise taxes on the wealthiest people, people who's consumer spending habits have lower elasticity to tax rates. This would reduce inequality, one of the "not perfect" points you cite. It shouldn't be a partisan issue, but unfortunately this is a Democrat-specific viewpoint.

In a recession, you don't raise taxes. This is the most critical time to use deficit spending. For all the ridiculous Republican talk in times of full employment about how tax cuts will spur growth to the benefit of future tax revenues, the argument holds in those times when we're actually in a recession. If Obama had complete control, his fiscal policy decisions still would have been closer to that of Republicans over the first two years.

He also had a limited window of opportunity to get through his campaign promises -- health care reform. In some ways there were distractions in terms of what he could focus on, fighting Congress/Senate to do things that were right for the domestic economy, fighting for health care reform and other issues that formed a core of the political platform he ran on, and the wars left over from the previous administration.

Additionally, a simple majority in Congress isn't enough. To prevent a filibuster and get the ACA passed they needed 60 votes, which included two independents and convincing a Republican senator to switch sides. He never actually had 60 Democrat senators, so was never in a position to simply do as he pleased regardless of what the Republicans wanted. The Democrats + Independents holding 60 seats lasted only about a year (off and on, Ted Kennedy died).

Once we were actually on our way to recovery, once Obama finally had a little economic breathing room to do anything constructive, he didn't have a majority in the House and he could be filibustered in the Senate.

Overall, I think he did as well as he could have. If Congress listened to actual economists and scientists (instead of quacks, media pundits, and lobbyists), we would be in a much better position.

    • 12
    • 1
Jan 16, 2017

When Obama became president, the first iPhone just came out. We barely understand its significance and the privileged among us get a pretty handheld GPS.

Today we have the iPhone 7+ with two Cameras that everyone has and we live through it.

The world is a completely different place.

During the beginning time an utterly inexperienced President Obama comes in to a collapsing economy and does absolutely everything he doesn't know how to do to make sure shit doesn't fall apart.

The economy has held together just long enough, or has at least appeared to, until a competent president steps up to the plate.

For the last 8 years we've watched a man with no qualifications or experience try to "fix" the economy, meanwhile he destroys the entire cultural fabric the nation was build upon.

As a President, Barrack Obama was absolutely horrible.

This man started from being a senator with no experience to the most powerful man on the planet based on his skin color and ability to to speak. During this time the world also goes through one of its most transformational periods. Throw in a couple trigglypuffs and things get pretty messy.

As a person who should have been ruled out from the start, he should at least be credited with not completely destroying everything that we care about.

Let me hear you say, this shit is bananas, B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

    • 5
    • 10
Jan 16, 2017

How did Obama destroy the "entire cultural fabric" the nation was built upon?

    • 7
Jan 16, 2017

When people throw shit like this out you know they're low information trolls. The "cultural fabric" of the nation?... stfu bro. I don't think his skin color had anything to do with him beating HRC for the nomination, he was a better orator and that gets you far in politics, shit isn't rocket science. Look at HRC v. Trump, he is the better orator and got ppl excited to vote for him. Apply the same phenomenon to Obama. Using his blackness as the reason he became president is an attempt to delegitimize his accomplishments.

    • 10
Jan 17, 2017

Martin Wolf (you spell his name in two different ways in the same post) has been feverishly pushing a Neo-Keynesian agenda for years. Smart and well-connected guy but hardly objective when it comes to policy.

The short answer is: no, it was ZIRP that did the most to stop the recession, and a software-turned-hardware revolution (bubble?) and Obama didn't do anything to jeopardize the recovery (which is about as much as you can ask from an executive branch).

Really hard to argue in counterfactuals with things like the economy and policy. I think it's generally consensus to note that Obama inherited an awful mess and that based on the last eight years, the US is the least dirty shirt to wear. No objections here.

That said, a few observations:
- the stock market rally has very little to do with the White House. It has to do with rate policy. Just see what happens to valuations, ceteris paribus, when you lower the discount rate by 400 bps (or whatever it is).
- for those of you who weren't employed college grads in 2008, you might have a hard time remembering that the general mantra back then was "the power balance is shifting East." If that is no longer the case, it has very much to do with Silicon Valley turning out to be an unexpected positive surprise for the US, and the BRICs faltering. Russia aside, none of this has anything to do with Obama (or any counter-factual executive). These things happen and they don't ask central planning committees or Congress for permission.
- investors and capex officers love stability. Generally speaking Obama kept a steady hand, did not add much to uncertainty, and probably contributed to stability.
- people have short memories and often stick to soundbites ("Obamacare!!"). In my opinion, one of the most egregious missteps in his economic policy was trying to pick winners based on capricious policy preferences and political connectedness (teacher's pets, really) in the private sector (morally a no-no), only to watch them turn out to be losers (terrible judgment), on taxpayer money. See: Solyndra. Looks like this has quietly faded from public discourse.
- Obama was generally pragmatic and centrist with regards to most economic decisions; he certainly seemed to understand how important jobs were, and that it went beyond ideology (I didn't see him hiring millions of unemployed Americans to push elevator buttons in public buildings just to make a Neo-Keynesian point). Romney would have had a different approach to the financial sector, but outside of that I doubt he would have been very different on most economic matters.
- He was cold towards the financial sector, and gave it a few hand-wrings, but was not outright hostile. For hostile, look at Elizabeth Warren (you might have to in 2020 - shudder).
- The approach to regulations has likely concentrated risk and reduced competitiveness. This could turn out to be a gigantic problem.
- Everything to be said about the ACA has been said. I'd like to see how its results play out, but that may not happen. I think it's much more important to scrap FATCA than to scrap the ACA.

    • 10
Jan 16, 2017

Didn't see that, thanks for the catch.

Jan 16, 2017

deficit spending has reduced under Obama? Really? Sure--that's why we were in a government shutdown--not once, but twice, and nearly a third time. No, to say he "reduced" it, is flat out wrong.
I also agree--race relations have always been a problem in certain regions, but whatever problems were already there, Obama just made it worse.
His not cracking down on and condemning violent domestic groups like Black Lives Matter (basically the new Black KKK), and his constant use of any shootings for political gains--of Blacks, in schools or otherwise, shows that he doesn't care about anything that he can't use to further his political agenda.
As far as the economic recovery--keep in mind Bush started most of what Obama had by the time he came into the White House.
TARP, and all the other programs were mostly in place.
Obama did try some things but I think those programs either added on to what was already there or otherwise were basically useless.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but his Public Works idea--creating more jobs by maintaining and creating more infrastructure appears to never have materialized.
Also half the country is on Food Stamps.
That said, keep in mind stock performance has nothing to do with who's in power as much as it does policy. A famous example of that was the alligations that developed after the ACA passed--a lot of people were saying (though that's unconfirmed as far as I know), that some of the congress people who voted for it also had investments in Healthcare, which shot up after the law passed.
United Health was one of the biggest winners after the law for quite a while, until it pulled out 1 maybe 2 years ago.
So no I don't think Obama deserves any credit for anything to do with the economy whatsoever.

    • 4
    • 7
Jan 16, 2017

Lol this dude just called BLM the new black KKK. Show me one quote or piece of literature from a BLM leader advocating violence then we can talk. This rush to demonize the group based on the actions of random ppl rather than actually assessing why the group is a thing in the 1st place is part of the problem.

P.s. how would you suggest he "crack down" on (mostly) peaceful protesters? Very curious on this

    • 5
    • 1
Jan 17, 2017

Can confirm, was literally in the middle of the Dallas shootings.

Jan 15, 2017

"deficit spending has reduced under Obama? Really? Sure--that's why we were in a government shutdown--not once, but twice, and nearly a third time. No, to say he "reduced" it, is flat out wrong."

Look it up and you'll see you've put your foot in your mouth, and by any measure you can come up with. Don't make adamant proclamations about things you haven't bothered to check.

    • 1
Jan 21, 2017

Black kkk? That's asinine and scary u really to your core think that. (Btw far from being a blm fan)

Kkk was a national organization that terrorized and murdered blacks for generations in multiple geographical areas around the us.

Black lives matter is nowhere close to the magnitude of infiltration to government and business entities to make their hateful rhetoric a fabric of America.

Have u asked one black person blm? You're literally regurgitating bs divisive media talk. It's the same as the liberals saying all white men are racist.

Both sides are just insane filled with emotion and can't validate their thinking with any actual facts. It's crazy

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jan 16, 2017
  1. Slowest economic recovery in U.S. history
  2. Took 7 years for median income to get back to where it started (i.e., 0% growth throughout the period)
  3. Doubled the national debt
  4. Labor force participation rate lowest in decades
  5. Increased systemic risk in financial system

The list goes on. So no, I don't credit him with stimulating moderate growth after 8 years. I blame him for stifling growth through taxes, regulation and out-of-control spending for 7.

    • 6
    • 2
Jan 16, 2017

If Obama didn't use unconventional measures (monetary stimulus, zirp, deficit spending, TARP, and American exceptionalism in foreign policy) we might've required a war to get economic activity going again. We could've had a world where GDP fell by double digits. Instead, worldwide GDP fell by a laughable 1% and we delayed worldwide economic turmoil (BRICS didn't see the hit from the financial crisis until about 2014, based on deficit spending and monetary stimulus), so that the US could handle it by being economically stronger than it was when the crisis started.

Looking at the stats is useless if you don't understand the context of the whole story.

    • 1
Jan 16, 2017

U.S. is currently in two wars, not to mention current growth levels aren't indicative of that ship having sailed. Little to early to jump to the conclusions you're jumping to.

Jan 16, 2017

Two wars since Bush policies in economics and foreign policy, right? I really meant to put world war, which as you just indicated, is not outside of the realm of possibility. I'm not saying Obama rescued us but his steady hand was part of the function.

Jan 16, 2017

Smoking the good stuff hu?

PRINTING
- We printed billions of dollars that ended creating asset bubbles in everything, there isn't a category of assets I can see that are underpriced at the moment in the US.

DEBT
- The debt under Obummer has nearly DOUBLED from $10.626 trillion to $19.78 trillion - you'll also be happy to know that a big chunk of that debt needs to be refinanced at some point or another, pretty fucking great when rates are at their lowest and can only rise from here!

UNEMPLOYMENT
I quote from OP
"Unemployment rate fallen faster than expected. (U.S. business added 15.6 M jobs)."
"There has been a downward trend of labor force participation rate."
- We have never seen that many people drop out of the labor force than under Obama, the "unemployement" figures are garbage as they do not take into account the fact that a lot of people are on precarious part time employment and some simply do not even bother looking for jobs.

SOCIALIST AMERICA
- More than 50% of the nation now receives some sort of government subsidy in the good old Socialist States of America

WAR
"Might have required a war?" What do you call in 2016 alone: Cameroon, Syria, Uganda, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq? THAT"S WERE THE US IS CURRENTLY INVOLVED, directly or indirectly via drone strikes.

Obama, the Fed, his administrations have FUCKED the USA - now you can read the Huffpost and all that scummy liberal toilet paper that gets published telling us we are doing just fine. Fact of the matter is we live in la-la-land, kicking down the can and hailing appearance over substance. His "unconventional measures" as you call it have created such a massive problem for the future that it's going to take a lot of measures from president elect Trump to avert a disaster. Unconventionally borrowing and throwing money at the people without building anything is NOT a solution. There is a large chunk of America that got fucked and isn't seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.

Trump 2017 - at least his appearance is garbage, let's hope he has more substance that the clown you elected twice into office. Although I have no idea how he plans on getting jobs back except via non-stop tweeting, but at least it will be better than that scum bag of Hillary.

To OP - Obama has rescued fuck all, he has sunk the US economy. Although it's not his fault entirely, he is just a lame duck president good at golfing and smiling for the camera.

    • 7
    • 1
Jan 16, 2017

I think Trump and I have more and common than he and you. We both look at what's necessary and go for that. We both understand that Bush was shit, and that's hillary would've been a terrible leader to start creating growth again in this country.

If you look at my above post, you'll see why this rant you just posted is flawed and why I do not care to huff and puff in a pointless exercise with you.

Jan 16, 2017

Get into a total war just to drive our economic growth at the expense of whatever poor enemy whose capital stocks and economic progress we decimate as part of said war. Broken window fallacy. Disregard of just war theory. Seems legit.

    • 1
Jan 16, 2017

Worked during the Great Depression didn't it? Our economic output surged during that period due to exports to support the global war.

Jan 16, 2017
iBankedUp:

If Obama didn't use unconventional measures (monetary stimulus, zirp, deficit spending, TARP, and American exceptionalism in foreign policy) we might've required a war to get economic activity going again. We could've had a world where GDP fell by double digits. Instead, worldwide GDP fell by a laughable 1% and we delayed worldwide economic turmoil (BRICS didn't see the hit from the financial crisis until about 2014, based on deficit spending and monetary stimulus), so that the US could handle it by being economically stronger than it was when the crisis started.

Looking at the stats is useless if you don't understand the context of the whole story.

Except the 'context' that you're referring to is entirely made up in your own mind.

You also ignore:

  1. The aforementioned 'unconventional measures' were mostly conducted by the central bank, not by the Obama admin;
  2. Deficit spending took the form of failed stimulus packages, paying people not to work and paying them to destroy their cars. This led to more rapid economic deterioration, both in output and in employment;
  3. We've been in 3 wars since 2001 and it hasn't boosted economic growth a bit, nor should it.
Jan 16, 2017

The context of how devastating the Great Depression was to world stability, which this recent crash was compared to, is made up in my mind? God bless you, you're literally a retard. History is a very easy subject to: A. pay attention to; B. comprehend. What's so hard about, "in the 1930s..."

And, please my man:

  1. The Obama admin conducted fiscal stimulus, and had the fortitude to ignore the Fed hacks--see "End the Fed" by Ron Paul. Yes, Ron Paul wrote an entire book just as monetary stimulus began. I'm sure he would've preferred European style austerity.
  2. Deficit spending was very liberal idealism, can't argue too much with this.
  3. Being in three wars isn't the same thing as supporting a global war with our exports. If you look at the severity of the crisis that began with the American market crash in 1929, it is pretty startling to think about going through that again. America's isolationism allowed us to benefit economically, while the preexisting restlessness around the world was erupting. The world just didn't experience the fallout at the same time in this event because banks and consumers were rescued.
    • 1
Jan 20, 2017
iBankedUp:

If Obama didn't use unconventional measures (monetary stimulus, zirp, deficit spending, TARP, and American exceptionalism in foreign policy) we might've required a war to get economic activity going again. We could've had a world where GDP fell by double digits. Instead, worldwide GDP fell by a laughable 1% and we delayed worldwide economic turmoil (BRICS didn't see the hit from the financial crisis until about 2014, based on deficit spending and monetary stimulus), so that the US could handle it by being economically stronger than it was when the crisis started.

Looking at the stats is useless if you don't understand the context of the whole story.

Obama had nothing to do with TARP (Bush) or monetary stimulus (the Federal Reserve).

Jan 16, 2017

Just like FEMA rescued those in need in New Orleans after Katrina.

    • 1
Jan 16, 2017

The West is almost growing reliably above inflation. Obama's a god! /s

Jan 16, 2017

Rather than all of us cherry picking ex-post metrics to judge him by, why don't we do this right - what would Obama had to have achieved ex-ante to meet the standard of 'saving' the economy?

For my part, I don't think the results pass the sniff test. To be fair, this depends on two assumptions: 1) I take the Fed at it's word when it says it's independent (especially since Obama didn't appoint Bernake) and 2) I happen to think redefining success to meet the current conditions (see Obama's new normal comments) is total bullshit.

TLDR: I don't think Obama's economic record is anything to write home about.

    • 2
Jan 16, 2017

Obama has rescued the economy by completing his term and getting the hell out of dodge. Now is the Don's turn to rule.

Jan 18, 2017

It only took like 3 years, but a political discussion is back on WSO. OMG. That said, Obama did not "rescue" the American economy any more than Trump has brought back jobs to America right now. Yes, some companies have stated that they are going to retain or build up their american factory presence, but this is the result of a long term trend that they have talked about for months if not years. No company decided in a month to add a 10,000 worker factory. Same with Obama. He came in near the climax of the recession. Therefore, he was working from the bottom. He has presided over the most anemic recovery in American history, a HUGE portion of the workforce is not even searching for jobs anymore. On some level the U-6 unemployment number does have the issue that more baby boomers are starting to fall into the "not looking" cuz old category, but at the same time near record youth and minority unemployment and mass underemployment is rampant. It works well-ish for us- the educated and those in the service industry. He has no legacy anywhere. Obama's foreign policy is horrific and he stabbed one of our staunchest allies in the back at the end just to fuck them over. For all his griping about Russia, he had Hillary hand them a PHYSICAL "reset button" for our relations and let them build up to this point again by removing sanctions and other political barriers. He let ISIS grow, Syria suffer, with his inaction leading to a migrant crisis and increased terrorism across the globe. If this is what a "recovery" looks like, we have a lot of reckoning to do for the future.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 16, 2017

I am assuming your "stabbing them in the back" comment relates to Israel. Israel has been illegally occupying the west bank for years, against U.S. wishes and in violation of international law. Israel has been using the U.S. as its shield in the U.N. security council to block the world from punishing it for its actions. On top of all this, Netanyahu's party is slowly being hijacked by individuals that want to INCREASE the pace of the expansion and eventually annex the west bank, making a two state solution impossible. Instead of the United States bending over, a president finally had the balls to say enough. I commend him for it. Don't even get me started on operation protective edge resulting in 2000+ Palestinian deaths, most of them being civilians with 500+ being children.

    • 3
    • 1
Jan 21, 2017

You are terribly misinformed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/autos-bailout-study...
"The federal bailout of General Motors Co, Chrysler and parts suppliers in 2009 saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs and preserved $105.3 billion in personal and social insurance tax collections, according to a study released on Monday.

The Bush and Obama administrations loaned the auto industry, including GM and Chrysler, which is now controlled by Italy's Fiat, $80 billion to avoid the collapse of the industry that they felt would result in the loss of millions of U.S. jobs."

What is sad is how intelligent people can be so misinformed.

So yes, Bush and Obama rescued auto jobs from the GFC. I will not position myself on other industries since i"m not going to bother to gather facts and write about that.

    • 3
Jan 20, 2017

Fed Res. policies have the greatest effect on the economy, however, the Obama admin.'s continued infusion of stimulus, will have a disastrous effect during the next 8 years.

President Trump will be holding the bag, but he is known to come out on top during times of crises or scandal.

Greed is but a word jealous men inflict upon the ambitious.

Jan 21, 2017

IMHO Obama and GW Bush were the worst presidents of the history. Therefore, Obama found a terrible situation. We have now low unemployment rate but the quality of the work is shameful

    • 1
Jan 20, 2017

Obama and Bush were both terrible presidents, but it's hard to say they were the two worst. We've had a lot of bad presidents. But it's been rare to have two utterly incompetent administrations in a row, both soundly re-elected, especially in the last century.

Human behavior is interesting. I look at Venezuela as an example. Maduro is massively unpopular--hated by an overwhelming number of people--but I was listening to an interview and an anti-Maduro protester was saying that he opposed Maduro and his policies, but was a huge fan of Chavez, that Venezuela needs a great leader again like Chavez. This guy is completely unaware that Maduro's policies are Chavez's policies. That is the common kind of ignorance that democratic nations have to suffer through. It's the kind of idiocy that our founding fathers were afraid of.

Jan 22, 2017

Democrats seem to forget that it was Bush not Obama who inherited a shitty situation. Obama had the advantage of hindsight whereas Bush had to ad-lib dealing with planes being flown into the World Trade towers... There is not a situation in our short modern history that even compares to what Bush had to deal with regardless of if he was competent or not. There is a much stronger argument that the multiple failed assassination attempts on Bin Laden by Mr. Clinton put Bush in a shitty situation but that wouldn't fit the narrative.

    • 2
    • 1
Jan 16, 2017

Obama increased the most economically unfriendly regulations in history and attempted to price negative externalities in the middle of one of the worst economies in the last century, and people say he saved us? We are recovering in spite of him, not because of him. Trump will look like a hero.

Jan 21, 2017

And I thought we had rational ppl visiting this site.

Jan 21, 2017

What will be the economic impact on the US since they maintained ZIRP for so long and are now starting to increase the Fed Int Rate? Are we going to see a repeat of what happened pre-2008 but on a much more massive scale?

Jan 22, 2017

Nice try... Aren't you supposed to be protesting somewhere...