Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

Trump faces difficulties at home. His approval rating is the lowest of any president at eight months in office in polling back 71 years. The public by 66-28 percent says he’s done more to divide than to unite the country.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Cranial Explosion Alert!









While extremist T-GOPers are running around shrieking "IMPEACH!"  "BENGHAZI!"  "BROWN REFUGEE CHILDREN WILL MAKE US ALL SICK!" "IRS!," President Obama is doing his job and demolishing every lie the T-GOPers read at Breitbart, Drudge, and FAUX NEWS.


Remember this phrase?:  "It's the economy, stupid!" 

Read this report from the right-leaning Rasmussen Report: 




Obama May Be Best Economic President Ever 


In case the above link fails, paste this into your browser:  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_froma_harrop/obama_may_be_best_economic_president_ever




"...Bob Deitrick, a principal at Polaris Financial Partners in Westerville, Ohio. Deitrick crunched 80 years of numbers. Politically, 1929 to 2009 were exactly divided -- 40 years under Republican presidents and 40 under Democrats. He put his extraordinary findings in a book, "Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box."

 Because President Obama was in office for only three years at the time of the writing, Deitrick and his co-author left him out. But Deitrick now has enough of an Obama track record to have recently declared in a Forbes interview, "By all measures, President Obama has outperformed every modern president." His findings were so lopsided in favor of Democrats I had to ask him whether he is one. He said no. "I really was apolitical until 2000," start of the George W. Bush era. That's when he saw massive mismanagement of the economy at the expense of his middle- to upper-middle-class clients.

 "The average retail investor got slammed, where hedge funds were allowed to take advantage of everyone else," he told me. The best overall economic performance pre-Obama was that of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (whom Deitrick put together because of Kennedy's early death).

No. 2 was Bill Clinton, with Franklin D. Roosevelt in third place.

The top six included two Republicans. Dwight Eisenhower ranked fourth, and Ronald Reagan sixth, edged out of fifth place by Harry Truman.

 Were it not for Herbert Hoover, George W. would have ended up last. Reagan was a "stimulus addict," in Deitrick's view. His economic growth came through massive spending on defense and deep tax cuts.

The price was a tripling of the national debt."

[skip]


Here's an interesting calculation: Suppose that in 1929, you put $100,000 in a 401(k) fully invested in stocks. Under the 40 years of Republican presidents, you would have ended up with only $126,000. Under the Democrats, you would have amassed a retirement nest egg of $3.9 million!   If you added Obama, the Democrats' number would be much bigger. 

 Deitrick believes that presidents largely control the economy -- through the bully pulpit and the power to appoint leaders, enact executive orders and issue vetoes. (Not everyone agrees they hold most economic cards.) 

 Deitrick is a disciple of Marriner Eccles, the rich Republican banker whom Roosevelt named Federal Reserve chairman. Eccles held that putting more money in middle-class hands is key to recovery and that trickledown economics helps mainly those providing the trickle. 

 Speaking of income inequality, the gap between the top 1 percent and bottom 99 percent widened 20 percent in the 40 years Republicans ran the Oval Office. In the Democratic presidential years, it narrowed 16 percent. 

Obama's greatest successes, Deitrick says, are the auto rescue plan and the Wall Street reforms, which revived faith among investors. The annual compound return on stocks has averaged between 25 and 30 percent (depending on the index) since the lows of March 2009. 

 Deitrick says he's perpetually shocked that Democrats don't trumpet their economic triumphs. You don't have to be a Democrat to wonder why."

28 comments:

Infidel753 said...

The objective empirical evidence has been clear for some time that left-wing economic policies benefit the entire economy, while conservative economic policies benefit only the wealthiest at the expense of the rest of the country.

Obama's record is all the more impressive given the unrelenting obstruction and sabotage he has faced from the opposing party -- something unparalleled in the experience of any other President, as far as I know.

It's interesting that Eisenhower is the highest-ranked Republican, given that tax rates on the wealthy under Eisenhower were probably the highest in history.

The last observation is interesting. Democrats do need to do a better job of making the public aware of their successes and conservatism's failures.

Rational Nation USA said...

Obama May Be Best Economic President Ever link displays website not available.

Shaw Kenawe said...

RN, fixed it.


Infidel753: "The last observation is interesting. Democrats do need to do a better job of making the public aware of their successes and conservatism's failures."


Yes. We bloggers on the left need to spread the good news around.

Duckys here said...

I have never figured out why my conservative brethren seem so sanguine about the fact that Saint Ronnie Raygun tripled the debt borrowing while often borrowing at a double digit interest rate but they go cuckoo when the Obama administration borrows at a rate lower than inflation.

Makes me think their anger at Obama really comes from someplace else.

skudrunner said...

The policies of the Fed, like zero interest, have made the stock market the only place to put money and expect a return. The rich have gotten richer and the poor poorer so I agree this administration has been great for the rich.

If you are on a fixed income and not part of the one percent, where do you secure your retirement money for any return. Guess you have to take a change on WS.

The middle class is being squeezed out and the poor, unskilled youth and minorities are being left without employment choices.

Small businesses are having a very difficult time getting loans because of dodge/funk and mortgage money is tight.

Great time if you have money, bad if you don't.

Jerry Critter said...

One can only imagine what he could have done for the economy if the republicans had cooperated instead of obstructed.

Hopelessly Confused Conservative said...

There is so much smoke and mirrors engineered by the Obama administration and their minions that I can't keep up with all that's going on.

Anonymous said...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16740.html

Anonymous said...

And the winner is Skudrunner

Anonymous said...

I wish skud had a blog

Anonymous said...

You can't compare the economics of 40 years ago to today, or the economics of ever (over 200 years ago) or even the economics of ten years ago to today. Do we have full employment? Do we have a robust economy that makes more than basics available to all? Compare our economy to 1954 (60 years ago) to today. Obama best economic president ever? Your messiah delusion is showing.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Anonymous @1:28: "Obama best economic president ever? Your messiah delusion is showing."

And your ability to understand anything is showing.

First, I didn't produce the report. Rasmussen Report did. And Rasmussen has a reputation of skewing right in its reporting. The crunching of the numbers was done by a policy expert. You don't like what the results are or refuse to believe them? Then go back to where reality can't bleed into your Obama Derangement Syndrome. Go back to your security bubble.

Second, the knee-jerk response that I or any other liberal believes Mr. Obama is a "messiah," only gives further proof to the notion that you and your fellow righties have no appreciation for anything good President Obama has done for our country. That's a shame because it puts YOU and THEM into a category of whiners and perpetual malcontents, which, in turn, makes suspect any genuine criticism you may have. Mr. Obama cannot be wrong or a dictating tyrant weak wuss on EVERYTHING!

Third, how would you have Mr. Obama handle the economy when the Republican House does all in its power to obstruct any initiativeS? Should the president then issue executive orders to get things done?

Oh, wait...when he does you all scream DICTATOR!

Make up your mind, Anonymous. You appear to be hopelessly confused.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Anonymous said...
I wish skud had a blog"

So do I so I can return the favor of whining and bitching about everything he writes.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Jerry Critter, exactly. The folks who come here and bitch about any good reporting on the Obama administration conveniently forget that the House Republicans have thwarted him in every initiative.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skudrunner: "Small businesses are having a very difficult time getting loans..."


Small businesses say loans easier to get


"...because of dodge/funk and mortgage money is tight."

This explain why banks are "tight" with their money for small businesses. And it isn't Mr. Obama's fault:



Funding a New Small Business? Don't Bother With Banks

Shaw Kenawe said...

From Andrew Sullivan's blog, some uncomfortable truths extremist T-GOPers don't like to face:

"When people talk about the GOP as the fiscally responsible party I have to stifle a laugh. At least since I was born, Republican administrations have led the way into economic downturns and Democratic ones led the way back out. Now maybe Republicans are terrible at running the economy or maybe the Democrats are just lucky, but either way that trend is not a good sign.

Then there is the federal debt. With a little bit of research I find that since Nixon, Republican administrations have always grown the federal debt as percentage of GDP with the worst offenders being Bush II, Reagan, and Bush I. Democrats, on the other hand, seem to have done rather well with Carter and Clinton, reducing the federal debt as percentage of GDP. Obama’s first term is going to be the first time a Democrat president since Nixon has grown the federal debt as percentage of GDP. It seems that the best way to fight the federal debt is to elect a Democrat president."

okjimm said...

oh boy....I really like it when a conservative-prone commentator makes, ah, a whole lotta sense...like the anon who said, "You can't compare the economics of 40 years ago to today," and then did exactly that, "Compare our economy to 1954 (60 years ago) to today"

......and then some folks wonder why they are not taken seriously.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Yes okjimm, our conservative friends are a curios bunch. Thanks for pointing out that this Anon contradicted her/himself after only two short sentences.

Jerry Critter said...

"Thanks for pointing out that this Anon contradicted her/himself after only two short sentences."

It usually takes only one.

Duckys here said...

So skud, high deficits and high levels for debt service are okay so long as interest rates are kept high along with unemployment?

skudrunner said...

I would have a blog but it takes too much time to manage. Unlike the one percenters on this blog, I do have to work for a living.
Maybe I can have someone leave me millions so I can join the elite's.

BTW, I did not slam the incompetent incumbent with my comment at 1135. Matter of fact I gave them credit for doing such a great job for the wealthy.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Thanks for pointing out that this Anon contradicted her/himself after only two short sentences."

Jerry Critter: "It usually takes only one."

This particular Anonymous was a bit slow.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skudrunner: "Unlike the one percenters on this blog, I do have to work for a living."

Oh, that's adorable. Because everyone knows that multi-billionaire one-percenters, like the Koch brothers, run blogs like this one, while they tool around the world on their yachts or private jets.

Perhaps, skud, you need some lessons on multi-tasking. It's not that hard. And I would so dearly love the chance to annoy you on your blog as you so consistently annoy me on mine. ;)

KP said...

<< I would so dearly love the chance to annoy you on your blog as you so consistently annoy me on mine. ;) >>

True! But recall you would drive traffic to his blog and visa versa :)

Shaw Kenawe said...

skud can be annoying, but he's never boorish and rude. That's why he's not chased away.

Jus Sayin' said...

you'll never hear a con give Obama credit for this it doesn't fit the image of him they've been fed by druggie limpballs.

Farmer Giles said...

Hey, man, do you do anything else but politics, my friend. Perhaps something a little light-hearted. After all, I'm only a simple pig farmer.! :-P

Good day to you, sir.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Hey pig farmer, man! You obviously don't come 'round these parts very often because you've missed the times nonpolitical posts are published.

Try coming by more often and see for yourself.

Cheers!