In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
I like how a lot of the same people that are calling Obama "weak" now were all terrified of his "tyranny" and calling him "King Obama" 2 weeks ago. -_-
On March 05 2014 01:20 aksfjh wrote: I like how a lot of the same people that are calling Obama "weak" now were all terrified of his "tyranny" and calling him "King Obama" 2 weeks ago. -_-
On March 05 2014 00:35 itsjustatank wrote: rambo was not a real person.
Really ?
On March 05 2014 00:50 oneofthem wrote: better call on american hypocrisy(while true) some more while russia and china run rampant
Just wanted to point out that I just read some french specialist on foreign affaire stating that Obama's US "threat" were efficient because Obama, unlike Bush, was against the war in Iraq since the beginning. Just because the US made bad decisions in the past (who doesn't ?) doesn't mean they are not legitimate to question Russia's actions. Actually, Ukraine history makes me think a lot about our own french history, and what we did with Alsace Lorraine / most of Africa. The drawing of frontiers and the creation of arbitrary unity in countries is something most european countries did (belgium, france, UK) something that explains a lot about Africa's current condition - exactly like in Ukraine. Almost everybody has a shady history in this.
On March 04 2014 12:56 Danglars wrote: Every new crisis is a chance to prove your leadership, or lack thereof. I'm waiting to hear Obama's next brave choice of vocabulary to condemn Putin's actions. The description to beat lately is "deeply destabilizing." ("There will be costs" and "deeply concerned" are further behind). I wonder what comes next for this tough-talk president? Each subsequent statement seems to be taken from some 90s UNSC resolutions.
This kind of talk is getting annoying.
Again, answer this question:
What the hell is the west supposed to do?
Any economic or political actions from the U.S. are either useless or not feasible. The same goes for the EU. The UN is completely useless in this matter, and military action over this would be the single dumbest thing that the U.S. could possibly do.
So go ahead. Tell us. What should Obama do to "be a strong leader"? Huh? Because there really are no meaningful or effective responses available to anyone, let alone the U.S.
Just because there aren't any terrific USA-wins moves does NOT mean you're free to project weakness and impotence. Military cutbacks, "Russian Reset" button, "red line" talk ... just don't do that crap. It's Obama himself that has telegraphed his feeble commitment to using force if necessary, and it was talked up in both his elections. You can't just reverse course and suddenly say you've changed your mind and its now OK to act like a superpower. Not when your enemies haven't also put all their eggs into the intellectual paper agreements and international condemnations.
George Bush invaded 2 different countries and raised the defense budget to almost a trillion, that didnt seem to stop Putin from invading Georgia. And the American response was what? No sanctions, no end of trade talks, no targeted visa bans. In fact, the US has done more to punish the guys who tortured and killed sergei magnitsky than who invaded Georgia.
I suppose a second 9/11 was preferable to Bush's actions. What was it you were talking about, again? Something about equating the war on terror to Russian opposition or something?
You are missing the point, intentionally. With all of Bush's aggression and military expansion, Russia still rolled into Georgia.
You argue the following:
(1) if America projects strength and does a lot of Republican things (2) then Putin will be contained
But Bush did (1), up to the max the treasury could support. Putin went ahead and invaded Georgia anyways.
PS: "preventing a second 9/11" ... are you serious? How do you think Iraq did that? Iraq almost certainly sowed the seeds for a future 9/11. It provided the training ground for the Syrian terrorists we will be dealing with over the next few years. The Iraq war also proved to all the Jihadists out there that Bin Laden was right, America is an aggressor. We won't live down that argument for a generation all thanks to Bush.
Good try, but not good enough.
1) It was Georgia who struck first, effectively cutting any support US could have provided at that time. It was also Georgia who provoked Russia in the first place with the NATO plan. 2) It happened when Bush was on his way out. Putin saw the timing and he took it.
I am by no means a fan of Bush; I feel that he was one of the worst presidents. But Obama is really trying hard to be in that same category. In fact, I think he's already there with two years left in his term. If you add up all the drama and lies that he's spitted out to the public, and you are one of the ones who voted for him (twice), then you really have to think hard about what the heck it was that you were smoking.
First, I am aware there are more layers to the South Ossetia conflict, I omitted them because they were beside the point. Putin might have been justified by the Georgians shooting first. Or he may have provoked the Georgian response by placing his troops at the border on an exercise. Blame for the conflict was dubious. But that doesn't change the truth of the assertion: "Putin invaded Georgia" because the Russian army did actually invade Georgia.
Second, where are you guys getting this "Obama is the worst president EVAR" thing? I know Republicans say it, but have you looked at the facts? Just because you don't like him doesn't change his record.
(1) GDP has only gone up, year over year, since Obama's stimulus was passed. (2) Job creation has only gone up, year over year, since Obama's stimulus was passed. (3) Healthcare inflation (and by extension health insurance inflation) has fallen to record lows since Obama's ACA was passed. (4) Financial markets completely recovered under Obama (5) The preposterous asset bubbles of the Bush era have not returned (which may be holding back employment unfortunately) (6) We are out of Iraq and Bin Laden is dead, and we will probably get a resolution on Afghanistan during Obama's term (7) The deficit has fallen every year since 2009 thanks to Budget deals Obama signed
PS: What standard are you using to judge Obama to be the worst? It is not enough to say "there are bad things happening, thus Obama bad". You need to point to something he did, or it happened on his watch and he could plausibly control it.
It's more about how much you want to explain away Obama's record on the bubble burst or maybe opposition from the Republicans. Record low home ownership rate across three administrations, 50% increase of Americans on food stamps. On jobs, lowest labor force participation since Jimmy Carter ... working age Americans that just don't have a job. Also, in 2013, 87% of those new jobs created since he took office were part time. Declines in median household income (~4k) and 53% of all American workers making less than $30k a year. It's not a pretty picture, and everybody I talk to peddle the line, "We didn't know it was going to be that bad, Obama did everything he could've."
And if I read jellojello right, it was more about the "drama and lies." If you like your health plan, you can keep it, right? Considering his current job approval numbers, maybe its his supporters that are getting the record wrong. Its all nice and fun supporting social justice and all until the ACA taxes you (redistributes your income, if you prefer) to subsidize others.
On March 05 2014 04:17 Danglars wrote: It's more about how much you want to explain away Obama's record on the bubble burst or maybe opposition from the Republicans. Record low home ownership rate across three administrations, 50% increase of Americans on food stamps. On jobs, lowest labor force participation since Jimmy Carter ... working age Americans that just don't have a job. Also, in 2013, 87% of those new jobs created since he took office were part time. Declines in median household income (~4k) and 53% of all American workers making less than $30k a year. It's not a pretty picture, and everybody I talk to peddle the line, "We didn't know it was going to be that bad, Obama did everything he could've."
And if I read jellojello right, it was more about the "drama and lies." If you like your health plan, you can keep it, right? Considering his current job approval numbers, maybe its his supporters that are getting the record wrong. Its all nice and fun supporting social justice and all until the ACA taxes you (redistributes your income, if you prefer) to subsidize others.
Where is your baseline for judging Obama? Is it 2007? Is it 2008? Is it 2009? I think the fair place to judge Obama starts when his stimulus was passed. Since then, the numbers are all up.
On March 05 2014 04:17 Danglars wrote: It's more about how much you want to explain away Obama's record on the bubble burst or maybe opposition from the Republicans. Record low home ownership rate across three administrations, 50% increase of Americans on food stamps. On jobs, lowest labor force participation since Jimmy Carter ... working age Americans that just don't have a job. Also, in 2013, 87% of those new jobs created since he took office were part time. Declines in median household income (~4k) and 53% of all American workers making less than $30k a year. It's not a pretty picture, and everybody I talk to peddle the line, "We didn't know it was going to be that bad, Obama did everything he could've."
And if I read jellojello right, it was more about the "drama and lies." If you like your health plan, you can keep it, right? Considering his current job approval numbers, maybe its his supporters that are getting the record wrong. Its all nice and fun supporting social justice and all until the ACA taxes you (redistributes your income, if you prefer) to subsidize others.
Where is your baseline for judging Obama? Is it 2007? Is it 2008? Is it 2009? I think the fair place to judge Obama starts when his stimulus was passed. Since then, the numbers are all up.
On March 05 2014 04:17 Danglars wrote: It's more about how much you want to explain away Obama's record on the bubble burst or maybe opposition from the Republicans. Record low home ownership rate across three administrations, 50% increase of Americans on food stamps. On jobs, lowest labor force participation since Jimmy Carter ... working age Americans that just don't have a job. Also, in 2013, 87% of those new jobs created since he took office were part time. Declines in median household income (~4k) and 53% of all American workers making less than $30k a year. It's not a pretty picture, and everybody I talk to peddle the line, "We didn't know it was going to be that bad, Obama did everything he could've."
And if I read jellojello right, it was more about the "drama and lies." If you like your health plan, you can keep it, right? Considering his current job approval numbers, maybe its his supporters that are getting the record wrong. Its all nice and fun supporting social justice and all until the ACA taxes you (redistributes your income, if you prefer) to subsidize others.
Where is your baseline for judging Obama? Is it 2007? Is it 2008? Is it 2009? I think the fair place to judge Obama starts when his stimulus was passed. Since then, the numbers are all up.
It's futile to play this game with Republicans. If you point out the fact he inherited a nosediving economy with an already unbalanced budget, "Bush left office 5 years ago! When does Obama start taking responsibility?!" When you point out that Republicans in Congress have done nothing but oppose him and everything he touches (including further economic growth policies), "Obama refuses to negotiate with Republicans! He doesn't take us seriously!" When you point out that Obamacare was originally a Republican idea taken seriously, "Not a single Republican voted for it! By definition it's not 'bipartisan' or Republican in origin!" When you point out how well he did with the budget (to the ire of many Democrats), "We'll still go bankrupt in 25 years when Medicare and Social Security explode! He's done nothing to solve our long term problems!"
Obama can do nothing right in the eyes of 30-40% of the US. Using "facts" to support any claim otherwise just causes them to double down on something else, or change the subject to such diversions as Benghazi or the IRS 501(c)4 inquiries.
On March 04 2014 12:56 Danglars wrote: Every new crisis is a chance to prove your leadership, or lack thereof. I'm waiting to hear Obama's next brave choice of vocabulary to condemn Putin's actions. The description to beat lately is "deeply destabilizing." ("There will be costs" and "deeply concerned" are further behind). I wonder what comes next for this tough-talk president? Each subsequent statement seems to be taken from some 90s UNSC resolutions.
This kind of talk is getting annoying.
Again, answer this question:
What the hell is the west supposed to do?
Any economic or political actions from the U.S. are either useless or not feasible. The same goes for the EU. The UN is completely useless in this matter, and military action over this would be the single dumbest thing that the U.S. could possibly do.
So go ahead. Tell us. What should Obama do to "be a strong leader"? Huh? Because there really are no meaningful or effective responses available to anyone, let alone the U.S.
Just because there aren't any terrific USA-wins moves does NOT mean you're free to project weakness and impotence. Military cutbacks, "Russian Reset" button, "red line" talk ... just don't do that crap. It's Obama himself that has telegraphed his feeble commitment to using force if necessary, and it was talked up in both his elections. You can't just reverse course and suddenly say you've changed your mind and its now OK to act like a superpower. Not when your enemies haven't also put all their eggs into the intellectual paper agreements and international condemnations.
George Bush invaded 2 different countries and raised the defense budget to almost a trillion, that didnt seem to stop Putin from invading Georgia. And the American response was what? No sanctions, no end of trade talks, no targeted visa bans. In fact, the US has done more to punish the guys who tortured and killed sergei magnitsky than who invaded Georgia.
I suppose a second 9/11 was preferable to Bush's actions. What was it you were talking about, again? Something about equating the war on terror to Russian opposition or something?
You are missing the point, intentionally. With all of Bush's aggression and military expansion, Russia still rolled into Georgia.
You argue the following:
(1) if America projects strength and does a lot of Republican things (2) then Putin will be contained
But Bush did (1), up to the max the treasury could support. Putin went ahead and invaded Georgia anyways.
PS: "preventing a second 9/11" ... are you serious? How do you think Iraq did that? Iraq almost certainly sowed the seeds for a future 9/11. It provided the training ground for the Syrian terrorists we will be dealing with over the next few years. The Iraq war also proved to all the Jihadists out there that Bin Laden was right, America is an aggressor. We won't live down that argument for a generation all thanks to Bush.
Good try, but not good enough.
1) It was Georgia who struck first, effectively cutting any support US could have provided at that time. It was also Georgia who provoked Russia in the first place with the NATO plan. 2) It happened when Bush was on his way out. Putin saw the timing and he took it.
I am by no means a fan of Bush; I feel that he was one of the worst presidents. But Obama is really trying hard to be in that same category. In fact, I think he's already there with two years left in his term. If you add up all the drama and lies that he's spitted out to the public, and you are one of the ones who voted for him (twice), then you really have to think hard about what the heck it was that you were smoking.
First, I am aware there are more layers to the South Ossetia conflict, I omitted them because they were beside the point. Putin might have been justified by the Georgians shooting first. Or he may have provoked the Georgian response by placing his troops at the border on an exercise. Blame for the conflict was dubious. But that doesn't change the truth of the assertion: "Putin invaded Georgia" because the Russian army did actually invade Georgia.
Second, where are you guys getting this "Obama is the worst president EVAR" thing? I know Republicans say it, but have you looked at the facts? Just because you don't like him doesn't change his record.
(1) GDP has only gone up, year over year, since Obama's stimulus was passed. (2) Job creation has only gone up, year over year, since Obama's stimulus was passed. (3) Healthcare inflation (and by extension health insurance inflation) has fallen to record lows since Obama's ACA was passed. (4) Financial markets completely recovered under Obama (5) The preposterous asset bubbles of the Bush era have not returned (which may be holding back employment unfortunately) (6) We are out of Iraq and Bin Laden is dead, and we will probably get a resolution on Afghanistan during Obama's term (7) The deficit has fallen every year since 2009 thanks to Budget deals Obama signed
PS: What standard are you using to judge Obama to be the worst? It is not enough to say "there are bad things happening, thus Obama bad". You need to point to something he did, or it happened on his watch and he could plausibly control it.
On March 05 2014 04:17 Danglars wrote: It's more about how much you want to explain away Obama's record on the bubble burst or maybe opposition from the Republicans. Record low home ownership rate across three administrations, 50% increase of Americans on food stamps. On jobs, lowest labor force participation since Jimmy Carter ... working age Americans that just don't have a job. Also, in 2013, 87% of those new jobs created since he took office were part time. Declines in median household income (~4k) and 53% of all American workers making less than $30k a year. It's not a pretty picture, and everybody I talk to peddle the line, "We didn't know it was going to be that bad, Obama did everything he could've."
And if I read jellojello right, it was more about the "drama and lies." If you like your health plan, you can keep it, right? Considering his current job approval numbers, maybe its his supporters that are getting the record wrong. Its all nice and fun supporting social justice and all until the ACA taxes you (redistributes your income, if you prefer) to subsidize others.
Where is your baseline for judging Obama? Is it 2007? Is it 2008? Is it 2009? I think the fair place to judge Obama starts when his stimulus was passed. Since then, the numbers are all up.
You are right. The numbers are up. In Disapproval rating! If you think Obama's policy has fixed the economic trouble, think again. With all the resources and foundation that US has, it really takes someone special to hold and undercut the economic growth of US for this long.
With fourth-quarter GDP growth downgraded in the latest government report, President Obama's anemic economy stretches on. If this had been only an average recovery, we'd be $1.31 trillion richer.
Remember all that talk at the beginning of last year about how prosperity was — finally — just around the corner? In February 2013, for example, Reuters reported "signs are emerging that a more robust recovery is around the bend."
The same month, Bloomberg told its readers that "most Fed policymakers expect growth of 2.3% to 3%."
At the start of last year, the Obama administration projected growth in 2013 would be 2.3%. The Blue Chip consensus forecast was slightly higher.
None of those projections was stellar. But with the Bureau of Economic Analysis' sharp downward revision of Q4 growth — from 3.2% to 2.4% — each turned out to be overly optimistic. Actual gross domestic product growth for 2013 came in at a pathetic 1.9%.
That means annual growth during Obama's "recovery" has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years.
On March 05 2014 04:17 Danglars wrote: It's more about how much you want to explain away Obama's record on the bubble burst or maybe opposition from the Republicans. Record low home ownership rate across three administrations, 50% increase of Americans on food stamps. On jobs, lowest labor force participation since Jimmy Carter ... working age Americans that just don't have a job. Also, in 2013, 87% of those new jobs created since he took office were part time. Declines in median household income (~4k) and 53% of all American workers making less than $30k a year. It's not a pretty picture, and everybody I talk to peddle the line, "We didn't know it was going to be that bad, Obama did everything he could've."
And if I read jellojello right, it was more about the "drama and lies." If you like your health plan, you can keep it, right? Considering his current job approval numbers, maybe its his supporters that are getting the record wrong. Its all nice and fun supporting social justice and all until the ACA taxes you (redistributes your income, if you prefer) to subsidize others.
Where is your baseline for judging Obama? Is it 2007? Is it 2008? Is it 2009? I think the fair place to judge Obama starts when his stimulus was passed. Since then, the numbers are all up.
It's futile to play this game with Republicans. If you point out the fact he inherited a nosediving economy with an already unbalanced budget, "Bush left office 5 years ago! When does Obama start taking responsibility?!" When you point out that Republicans in Congress have done nothing but oppose him and everything he touches (including further economic growth policies), "Obama refuses to negotiate with Republicans! He doesn't take us seriously!" When you point out that Obamacare was originally a Republican idea taken seriously, "Not a single Republican voted for it! By definition it's not 'bipartisan' or Republican in origin!" When you point out how well he did with the budget (to the ire of many Democrats), "We'll still go bankrupt in 25 years when Medicare and Social Security explode! He's done nothing to solve our long term problems!"
Obama can do nothing right in the eyes of 30-40% of the US. Using "facts" to support any claim otherwise just causes them to double down on something else, or change the subject to such diversions as Benghazi or the IRS 501(c)4 inquiries.
LOL, I love this argument of how nothing gets done in the Hill and it's all because of Republicans opposing Obama and Democrats.
On March 05 2014 04:17 Danglars wrote: It's more about how much you want to explain away Obama's record on the bubble burst or maybe opposition from the Republicans. Record low home ownership rate across three administrations, 50% increase of Americans on food stamps. On jobs, lowest labor force participation since Jimmy Carter ... working age Americans that just don't have a job. Also, in 2013, 87% of those new jobs created since he took office were part time. Declines in median household income (~4k) and 53% of all American workers making less than $30k a year. It's not a pretty picture, and everybody I talk to peddle the line, "We didn't know it was going to be that bad, Obama did everything he could've."
And if I read jellojello right, it was more about the "drama and lies." If you like your health plan, you can keep it, right? Considering his current job approval numbers, maybe its his supporters that are getting the record wrong. Its all nice and fun supporting social justice and all until the ACA taxes you (redistributes your income, if you prefer) to subsidize others.
Where is your baseline for judging Obama? Is it 2007? Is it 2008? Is it 2009? I think the fair place to judge Obama starts when his stimulus was passed. Since then, the numbers are all up.
Yeah, they're up... by a pathetic amount.
Don't worry!
Obama's budget has GDP growing at 4.5% average for the next 10 years!
And revenues to the Treasury increasing 7% average for the next 10 years!
On March 05 2014 04:17 Danglars wrote: It's more about how much you want to explain away Obama's record on the bubble burst or maybe opposition from the Republicans. Record low home ownership rate across three administrations, 50% increase of Americans on food stamps. On jobs, lowest labor force participation since Jimmy Carter ... working age Americans that just don't have a job. Also, in 2013, 87% of those new jobs created since he took office were part time. Declines in median household income (~4k) and 53% of all American workers making less than $30k a year. It's not a pretty picture, and everybody I talk to peddle the line, "We didn't know it was going to be that bad, Obama did everything he could've."
And if I read jellojello right, it was more about the "drama and lies." If you like your health plan, you can keep it, right? Considering his current job approval numbers, maybe its his supporters that are getting the record wrong. Its all nice and fun supporting social justice and all until the ACA taxes you (redistributes your income, if you prefer) to subsidize others.
Where is your baseline for judging Obama? Is it 2007? Is it 2008? Is it 2009? I think the fair place to judge Obama starts when his stimulus was passed. Since then, the numbers are all up.
It's futile to play this game with Republicans. If you point out the fact he inherited a nosediving economy with an already unbalanced budget, "Bush left office 5 years ago! When does Obama start taking responsibility?!" When you point out that Republicans in Congress have done nothing but oppose him and everything he touches (including further economic growth policies), "Obama refuses to negotiate with Republicans! He doesn't take us seriously!" When you point out that Obamacare was originally a Republican idea taken seriously, "Not a single Republican voted for it! By definition it's not 'bipartisan' or Republican in origin!" When you point out how well he did with the budget (to the ire of many Democrats), "We'll still go bankrupt in 25 years when Medicare and Social Security explode! He's done nothing to solve our long term problems!"
Obama can do nothing right in the eyes of 30-40% of the US. Using "facts" to support any claim otherwise just causes them to double down on something else, or change the subject to such diversions as Benghazi or the IRS 501(c)4 inquiries.
LOL, I love this argument of how nothing gets done in the Hill and it's all because of Republicans opposing Obama and Democrats.
The president isn't a king who can rule by decree it requires the sides to work together and since barring extraordinary circumstance the speaker of house wont put a bill forward in the house without a majority of his parties support and a majority of the party will not work with president on anything you basically will get nothing done at all. That is why it always amuses me when the news at the start of the year tries to say that "this year will be different" because it wont because the house wont do anything and if they did you still need 60 votes in the senate.
On March 05 2014 04:17 Danglars wrote: It's more about how much you want to explain away Obama's record on the bubble burst or maybe opposition from the Republicans. Record low home ownership rate across three administrations, 50% increase of Americans on food stamps. On jobs, lowest labor force participation since Jimmy Carter ... working age Americans that just don't have a job. Also, in 2013, 87% of those new jobs created since he took office were part time. Declines in median household income (~4k) and 53% of all American workers making less than $30k a year. It's not a pretty picture, and everybody I talk to peddle the line, "We didn't know it was going to be that bad, Obama did everything he could've."
And if I read jellojello right, it was more about the "drama and lies." If you like your health plan, you can keep it, right? Considering his current job approval numbers, maybe its his supporters that are getting the record wrong. Its all nice and fun supporting social justice and all until the ACA taxes you (redistributes your income, if you prefer) to subsidize others.
Where is your baseline for judging Obama? Is it 2007? Is it 2008? Is it 2009? I think the fair place to judge Obama starts when his stimulus was passed. Since then, the numbers are all up.
Yeah, they're up... by a pathetic amount.
Don't worry!
Obama's budget has GDP growing at 4.5% average for the next 10 years!
And revenues to the Treasury increasing 7% average for the next 10 years!
On March 05 2014 04:17 Danglars wrote: It's more about how much you want to explain away Obama's record on the bubble burst or maybe opposition from the Republicans. Record low home ownership rate across three administrations, 50% increase of Americans on food stamps. On jobs, lowest labor force participation since Jimmy Carter ... working age Americans that just don't have a job. Also, in 2013, 87% of those new jobs created since he took office were part time. Declines in median household income (~4k) and 53% of all American workers making less than $30k a year. It's not a pretty picture, and everybody I talk to peddle the line, "We didn't know it was going to be that bad, Obama did everything he could've."
And if I read jellojello right, it was more about the "drama and lies." If you like your health plan, you can keep it, right? Considering his current job approval numbers, maybe its his supporters that are getting the record wrong. Its all nice and fun supporting social justice and all until the ACA taxes you (redistributes your income, if you prefer) to subsidize others.
Where is your baseline for judging Obama? Is it 2007? Is it 2008? Is it 2009? I think the fair place to judge Obama starts when his stimulus was passed. Since then, the numbers are all up.
You are right. The numbers are up. In Disapproval rating! If you think Obama's policy has fixed the economic trouble, think again. With all the resources and foundation that US has, it really takes someone special to hold and undercut the economic growth of US for this long.
With fourth-quarter GDP growth downgraded in the latest government report, President Obama's anemic economy stretches on. If this had been only an average recovery, we'd be $1.31 trillion richer.
Remember all that talk at the beginning of last year about how prosperity was — finally — just around the corner? In February 2013, for example, Reuters reported "signs are emerging that a more robust recovery is around the bend."
The same month, Bloomberg told its readers that "most Fed policymakers expect growth of 2.3% to 3%."
At the start of last year, the Obama administration projected growth in 2013 would be 2.3%. The Blue Chip consensus forecast was slightly higher.
None of those projections was stellar. But with the Bureau of Economic Analysis' sharp downward revision of Q4 growth — from 3.2% to 2.4% — each turned out to be overly optimistic. Actual gross domestic product growth for 2013 came in at a pathetic 1.9%.
That means annual growth during Obama's "recovery" has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years.
That bolded part is a joke. Ready yourself for decades of economic stagnation, because there's nothing anyone can do about it.
EPT
