It’s a Wappo article. Yawn.
Is anyone seriously questioning the federal debt going up under Obama, one of his first acts being the bone-headed “stimulus” of throwing almost $1 trillion of OUR money down a rat hole “to help the economy.”
So everything sucked before Barry was Immaculated to FIX it, but instead it got Worse, and shows NO IMPROVEMENT ANYWHERE. But, because the type is too small and it doesn’t cover the period preceding the Immaculation, somehow it is Irrelevant?? Did I get That Right??
Actually, it didn't. This is a classic lie: stimulus spending enacted immediately after Obama took office in 2009 was attributed to Bush, because it was in the last fiscal year that BEGAN under Bush.
Bush did initiate TARP, but that was mostly paid back in full with interest, reducing the deficit in later years. However, about $10B stolen from TARP and given to GM was never paid back.
The WaPo writer didn’t note that after 7.5 years, Obama has not reversed any trends.
The U.S. economy only added 38,000 jobs in May, according to the Labor Department. It was the worst monthly job gain since 2010. The false picture of low unemployment at 4.7%, does not describe the unemployed who stopped looking for a job and are not tracked by statistics. As Trump would say, Obama’s economy is a disaster.
I don’t believe anything coming from Philip Bump.
the editorial quality of the WashPost has sunk to the lowest levels ever!
they even show their BIAS in their article’s very first sentence... indeed they REVEL in their bias (you’d think the editor would at least be careful to NOT show the bias, and especially not right at the very top of their articles)
Dear WashPost, your bias belongs in any editorial you may wish to print, NOT in the rest of the paper.
what a worthless, stinking propaganda rag!
If you look at the stats and filter out the crap this guy throws in, except for the money supply measure (M1), everything Trumpt said is absolutely true. You can quibble about start and end points and the rates of change, but they are non-the-less true.
Seems his go to excuse is, It started under Bush..... as though 8 years of Obama has no liability for things...
Its garbage excuses like always.
You have to take into consideration that Pelosi took over in 2006.
Surprised?
The author says the provenance of the charts is unclear yet he lists the source under every graph. Mostly the Federal Reserve. Does he not know what ‘provenance’ means?
so-called “fact checking” from liberal churnalists is generally total propaganda for the left
So, what you're saying is that Philip Bump of the Washington ComPost volunteered for the tail end of the Hillary Clinton Human Centipede...
Oh, BTW: "Throughout the tenure of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, there was no permanent inspector general at the State Department. Moreover, President Barack Obama did not nominate anyone for that position while she was Secretary." - from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_General_of_the_Department_of_State#Vacancy_during_Clinton_tenure)
It takes the writer 3 pages to “explain” the 9 tiny little charts. Turns out (1) not everything is improving (Obama’s lie), (2) Obama didn’t much fix the problems he inherited, some things got worse, other things got better or at least didn’t become worse. So, if you grade Obama on a curve, he gets a C. That’s the progressive’s story. Things could be worse.
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME: latest figures are down, not up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Real_Household_Median_Income_thru_2014.png
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, narrow and broad, has not returned to pre-2008 level:
http://www.economonitor.com/dolanecon/files/2012/12/P121207-4a1.png
Regarding Quantitative Easing (rise in Fed assets)
This is an indicator of how soft the economy has been. It’s not really a criticism of the Fed.
LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION:
Had been falling because of aging of labor force. Now it’s falling both because of aging AND frustration with finding work.
The Wapo beat National Review on line to this cesspool.
Zero Hedge counters the author - decisively.
