PeterZ wrote:https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-06/how-obama-s-economic-record-stacks-up
Using Bloomberg here so not to rely on overly conservative judgements. 4th worst GDP growth rate in his tenure. At 2.1% it's below the post war average of 2.9%. That stifling. Had he generated average growth, he would have had a smaller increase in debt or aggregate annual deficits if you prefer. The stock market was impressive under Obama but given the GDP growth of his tenure, one can easily argue that monetization of the debt drove stock prices through expansion of the money supply.
You may have wanted to read that article all the way to the end before using it to support your claim.
First of all, it gave Obama a positive score.
Second of all, it states the reasons WHY his positive score was not higher and they mostly don't have a damn thing to do with economic policy but rather with global economic conditions that resulted from the fallout from the Great Recession that were a significant drag on economic performace.
Obama and the U.S. have not gotten much of a boost from the global economy, either. The global growth rate has hovered around 2 percent to 2.5 percent, well below the global growth rate during the Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.
What is the takeaway then on Obama’s economic performance? When you take the slow global growth and domestic consumers’ retrenchment on debt into account, the record emerging from his rather calm and cautious approach is one to build on, not one to be cast aside.
So you just cited an article that said Obama was pretty damn good on economic performance to try to support a claim he stifled economic performance. Nice work.
