Lousy Obama Performance

From the liberal Boston Globe:

The economy. Obama took office during a painful recession and (with Congress’s help) made it even worse. Historically, the deeper a recession, the more robust the recovery that follows, but the economy’s rebound under Obama was the worst in seven decades. Annual GDP growth since the recession ended has averaged a feeble 2.1 percent, by far the puniest economic performance of any president since World War II. Obama spent more public funds on “stimulus” than all previous stimulus programs combined, with wretched, counterproductive results. On his watch, millions of additional Americans fell below the poverty line. The number of food stamp recipients soared. The national debt doubled to an incredible $20 trillion. According to the Pew Research Center, the share of young adults (18- to 34-year-olds) living in their parents’ homes is the highest it has been since the Great Depression.

In 2008, when Obama was first elected president, 63 percent of Americans considered themselves middle class. Seven years later, only 51 percent still felt the same way. Obama argues energetically that his economic policies have delivered prosperity and employment. Countless people disagree — including many who aren’t Republican. “Millions and millions and millions and millions of people look at that pretty picture of America he painted,” said Bill Clinton after Obama extolled the recovery in his last State of the Union speech, “and they cannot find themselves in it to save their lives.”

Note that under Bush the national debt went from 5 to 10 trillion. Under Clinton it went from 2.5 to 5. Under Bush the elder it went from a little over 1 to 2.5. See a trend. I suspect that under Trump it will go to 45 or 50 trillion

Note that under Bush .... Originally Posted by BigLouie

Well, those were just White guys~! What do you expect?

And he holds a ceremony last week to give himself the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service from the Secretary of Defense.

And he holds a ceremony last week to give himself the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service from the Secretary of Defense. Originally Posted by Zhivago52

Gee....do ya think replicas of said medal will be available on EBay for any and all Libs to bid on? SC will surely be the first in line should that be the case...

Note that under Bush the national debt went from 5 to 10 trillion. Under Clinton it went from 2.5 to 5. Under Bush the elder it went from a little over 1 to 2.5. See a trend. I suspect that under Trump it will go to 45 or 50 trillion Originally Posted by BigLouie

Under Obama it went from 10-20 Trillion. Under Trump it will go from 20-40 Trillion. You have to take in account the Wall at least Trump will have something to show for his spending.


Jim

And holds a ceremony last week to give himself the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service from the Secretary of Defense. Originally Posted by Zhivago52

I guess that is his "participation trophy".

It's really amazing that the United States has done as well as it has under this over regulating, over taxing Regime.

I truly hope that President Trump orders all of the over regulating Federal Bureaucracies to stand down and get the fuck out of people's lives, let productivity flourish, and allow America to be great again.

Note that under Bush the national debt went from 5 to 10 trillion. Under Clinton it went from 2.5 to 5. Under Bush the elder it went from a little over 1 to 2.5. See a trend. I suspect that under Trump it will go to 45 or 50 trillion Originally Posted by BigLouie

When will that huge debt ever come back to haunt us, as long as every other government except Switzerland pulls the same trick?

Under Obama it went from 10-20 Trillion. Under Trump it will go from 20-40 Trillion. You have to take in account the Wall at least Trump will have something to show for his spending.


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Someone will have to school Trump on the concept of "noncollateralized" recourse loans being booked at a future value based on anticipated inflation that diminishes the ability to pay with increased compounded interest rates added into the foreseeable future.

Someone will have to school Trump on the concept of "noncollateralized" recourse loans being booked at a future value based on anticipated inflation that diminishes the ability to pay with increased compounded interest rates added into the foreseeable future. Originally Posted by LexusLover

He might already know about all that.


Jim

Someone will have to school Trump on the concept of "noncollateralized" recourse loans being booked at a future value based on anticipated inflation that diminishes the ability to pay with increased compounded interest rates added into the foreseeable future. Originally Posted by LexusLover

When the collateral is the "full faith and credit" of the United States government, no one should worry, should they?

Since it's the playoff season ....

.. the only team struggling to score points at the end is the one losing!

The WINNER takes a "knee"!

Since it's the playoff season ....

.. the only team struggling to score points at the end is the one losing!

The WINNER takes a "knee"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Assup thinks he is winning when he takes a wienee!!

He might already know about all that.


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

He might, but I doubt he ever signed one.

When the collateral is the "full faith and credit" of the United States government, no one should worry, should they? Originally Posted by DSK

Very few "jumbo" loans are made based on the "value" of the collateral provided to support the loan,* but are made on the strength of the borrower to repay the loan over the LIFE of the loan as it is written initially. I will give you an example:

I once had a commercial lending officer tell me that he knew a borrower wasn't going to pay back the loan when the borrower did not ask him what the interest rate was going to be, or attempt to negotiate a lower interest than the rate offered.

It didn't matter to the borrower. He wasn't going to pay it.

*The amount of collateral to borrowed funds ratio might be relevant to the lending decision simply because of internal or external regulations applicable to the particular lender... but that doesn't go to the decision to loan the money.