Are Obamanomics to Blame for Worst Recovery Since the Great Depression?

Yes. A long question deserves a long answer. But my last sentence sums it up:

When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.

As a result of the Reagan tax cuts, total federal government revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s. The average annual growth rate of America's real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 1983 to 1989 was 3.8 percent per year, By the end of the Reagan years, the American economy was almost one-third larger than it had been when they began."

"From 1981 through 1989, the U.S. economy produced 17 million new jobs, or roughly 2 million new jobs each year."

We call this period, 1982-2007 [including Bill Clinton], the twenty-five year boom–the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth–assets minus liabilities–of all U.S. households and business … was $25 trillion in today’s dollars. By 2007, … net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years.

What is so striking about Obamanomics is how it so doggedly pursues the opposite of every one of these planks of Reaganomics

Worst financial turmoil because of fact the excellent melancholy.... My grandparents would disagree with you. There are childrens driving around in $30,000 autos speaking on cellular telephones and ingesting McDonalds accepted. we are no the place close to a melancholy. Bush did no longer inherit a surplus, he inherited a finances surplus. there's a distinction. a finances is what's written on paper.... no longer what replaced into truly spent. No, Bush did no longer fireplace a regulator (regardless of it truly is) who warned him approximately subprime lending. in case you paid any interest to history, subprime lending replaced into started by democrats and fanned uncontrolled by 1998. Please call those regulators and terrorist professionals that have been fired by the Bush administration. the fee of the US greenback has dropped 11% against the Euro considering the fact that 2000. 4 share factors considering the fact that January twentieth 2009. study to study a graph. Obama suggested that he's waiting on day one to take accountability. he's minting money at a fee which will extremely devalue the greenback to 50% in basic terms like his mentor Jimmy Carter did. He has spent extra in 5 months than Bush spent in six years. attempt doing some study and end listening to the liberal elitists.

If you want to debate the facts show us the raw data and what steps you did to come up with your conclusion. That is what I do. I remember I used to grab historical inflation adjusted GPS, compute the percent change per administration, and then rank each one. I showed all the data, the steps taken, and so on. You are just showing me links.

This has been a weak recovery but the strongest rate of growth has happened under liberals FDR, JFK/LBJ, and Clinton, in that order.

Seriously sad state of affairs right now in this country.

A major cleansing is needed and will happen soon.

Yes.