2016 was a bad year for US growth.

2016 proved to be a really bad year for the US economy.

In the 4th Qtr the economy grew at an anemic 1.9% but that was trying to lift the year which was even worse totally at 1.6%. The economy slowed from 2015 which already was not a great year for the economy.

The economy was the worse since 2011.


No votes yet

8 years as POTUS, in 2008, the real GDP "growth" was -0.3% -- as in negative! This was followed in 2009 with -2.8% -- as in negative again!
As POTUS, Obama dug the U.S. out of the deepest economic decline we have had since the Great Depression. His economic legacy is one of a slowly (sometimes painfully slowly) growing economy and a relatively low rate of unemployment. W left Obama a shrinking economy, and a growing rate of unemployment.
Let's discuss this again in 2018. Let's see if trade restrictions and tax rate cuts mostly for the super-rich do better than trade restrictions did in the 1930s, http://www.economist.com/node/12798595, and tax rate cuts mostly for the super-rich did in the early 2000s.
By 2018, there might be a LOT of a type of "buyer's remorse" on the part of the American people for the choices they made in the 2016 elections. Republicans are totally in charge. Republicans have total responsibility. If things go well, good for them, and good for America. Forgive me for being skeptical, but I do not see success when using policies so similar to those which failed miserably in the past.

Sorry Dale but the GDP peaked in 2013 and then fell. So this is not crawling out of the 2008/9 hole but rather a new dip. You're not arguing with me you're arguing with the numbers.

Btw, how about that DOW.


The INCREASE in GDP is not as great as it was. My argument is NOT with the stats. They support ME not YOU!
GDP in 2013: $16.69112 trillion
GDP in 2015: $18.06635 trillion
That is an increase, DUH!
GDP in 2008: $14.71858 trillion
GDP in 2009: $14.41874 trillion
That is a decrease. DUH!

Good point on the DOW, Mikey.
The DOW on January 20, 2009, closed at 7949.09.
The DOW on January 20, 2017, closed at 19827.25!
In short, during Obama's 8 years as POTUS, that's an INCREASE of 149.43%!! WOW!! Thanks, Barack!
BTW, Mikey...How did W do by this measurement you love?
The DOW on January 19, 2001, closed at 10587.59.
The DOW on January 20, 2009, closed at 7949.09.
In short, during W's 8 years as POTUS, that's a DECREASE of 24.9%. BOO!!
Thanks, W???
Write about the "great" economy in 2018 or in 2020, Mikey!

What was the Dow on Obama's last day? What is it today?

Just using the metrics of comparison you chose.


On January 20, 2017, the DOW closed at 19827.25.
Today, January 30, 2017, the DOW closed at 19971.13.
That's and increase of 0.726% Whoppy-do!
To place this in perspective,when W took office in 2001, the DOW was at 10587.59.
By January 30, 2001, it had reached 10881.20.
That's an increase of 2.77%.
Yet, as noted above, at the end of his 8 years in office the DOW [that I guess you love even more than I originally thought, Mikey] LOST almost 25.00%!!

Get back to me in 2018. Get back to me in 2020, Mikey!

term effects of the economic policies of Lyin' Don the Michelin Man who never met a burger he didn't like, on investments, as reported on the NEWSMAX website: "Meanwhile, the market’s record highs are alarming to some observers. Former Reagan economic adviser David Stockman warns savvy investors not to be swept away by the jubilation of stocks. The former Reagan Budget Director told CNBC that traders are living in a 'fantasy land' that can't last — and Trump's policies will derail the market for years to come.
'What's going on today is complete insanity,' said Stockman, who served as a Republican U.S. Representative from the state of Michigan (1977–1981) and as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (1981–1985) under President Ronald Reagan.
'The market is apparently pricing in a huge Trump stimulus. But if you just look at the real world out there, the only thing that's going to happen is a fiscal bloodbath and a White House train wreck like never before in U.S. history,' he said.
Since the election, the S&P 500 Index has rallied more than 8 percent, the Nasdaq about 6 percent and the Dow Jones Industrial Average a whopping 10 percent. Last week, all three benchmarks rallied to new record highs.
Stockman predicts that those gains may be lost for these three reasons:
*Most of Trump's actions '[have] nothing to do with the economic agenda' he's proposed
*A debt ceiling debate looms for March 15 in Congress
*The current rally that has gone on for way too long, and a correction is far overdue"
So, Mikey, as I stated above...before we judge how well or how poorly the economy is doing under our new POTUS, let's wait a while. Is this rally "complete insanity?" I don't know. I do know that it is far too early to declare either success or failure for the current POTUS. But, under the previous POTUS, stocks did remarkably well!

"Real GDP increased 1.6 percent in 2016 (that is, from the 2015 annual level to the 2016 annual level)"
Please note the word "increased"!!
GDP only fell in one quarter since 2013, and that was the 1st quarter of 2014. This proved to be a temporary blip, since the GDP has INCREASED every other quarter since.

Please note: I have NEVER stated that we have had a booming economy under the Obama Presidency. However, there has been a slowly growing, often painfully slowly growing, economy since Obama dug us out of the Great Recession. And the wealthiest among us have made out fantastically well in their investments in the stock market during the Obama years.
My personal stock portfolio took a severe hit in the calendar year 2008. Since then, from January 1, 2009, through today, it is up 196.50%. Now, if I were a multi-millionaire, or a billionaire, I would literally be rolling in dough! And, I am NOT an investment guru. It's just a matter of how much one has to invest...thousands vs. millions or billions.

Clearly not a study of economists.

Most economists agree that 2-3% growth is an indication of a healthy economy.


A 1.6% increase is not good.


met a burger he didn't like, you lie as easily as you tell the truth:
In your original post, you stated, "The economy slowed from 2015 which already was not a great year for the economy." This is just plain wrong! The GROWTH in the economy slowed. I agree that a 1.6% increase is not good. But, it's better than actually having a shrinking economy, as Obama was handed by W!
On one of your comments, you stated, "Sorry Dale but the GDP peaked in 2013 and then fell." Wrong again, Mikey! The RATE OF GROWTH dropped. As I pointed out above, economic activity is still going up!

And, of course, you totally avoid the unemployment rate. When W took office, the unemployment rate was at 4.2%. When he left office, unemployment was at 7.8%.
Unemployment peaked at 10.0% in October, 2009. Under Obama, unemployment had fallen to 4.7% by December, 2016, the last month reported so far. As a matter of fact, the unemployment rate has been at or below 5.0% since September, 2015!

As I stated above, I have NEVER claimed that the U.S. economy is booming under Obama, But he DID dig us out of a terrible economic disaster under W!! And Obama did so without ANY HELP AT ALL from the GOP in Congress. As a matter of fact, the GOP blocked innumerable initiatives for which Obama had plans. Not the least of these were multi-billion dollar plans to rebuild our infrastructure. Now, Lyin' Don wants to do almost exactly the same thing and the GOP seems poised to approve these plans. We can only imagine what would have happened had the GOP put the nation ahead of politics and approved Obama's infrastructure plans two or three years ago. Ideology once again trumps [pun intended] practicality. Heaven forbid that the GOP would have done anything to improve the nation while Obama was still in office, Obama might get credit for it. And with ideologues like the GOP leaders, the betterment of the nation takes a distant second place to who gets political points for spurring the nation forward.

economy than he inherited! As I stated above, it's all a matter of perspective, Mikey.

And just to present some extremes viewing the same data, here are links with very different takes on the latest economic news.
Positive: http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/06/news/economy/december-jobs-report-2016/
and: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/december-jobs-repor...
Negative, (We could call this "the Mikey view"): http://fortune.com/2017/01/06/december-jobs-report-unemployment/
and: http://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2017/01/06/december-jobs-report-the-numbers-3/
And, balanced, the closest to my own view: http://www.housingwire.com/articles/38891-despite-slowdown-in-growth-dec...

The economy continues to grow, albeit slowly, and with unemployment comparatively low: "Though job creation slowed according to December’s employment report, we have now seen a record 75 months of job growth," wages are rising and there is a shortage of skilled workers, technicians, and other professionals. IMHO, Mikey, this does NOT meet your definition of a "Bad Year for U.S. Job Growth." It's all a matter of perspective!

economic news for America until at least late this year when some effects of the Republican economic program are having an impact, but I keep reading these positive stories. Sorry, Mikey.
Here's a link to one of those far-left pinko sources, Forbes. Please don't cry when you read this, Mikey: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/02/16/us-unemployment-claim...
Among other things, it states: "Claims for unemployment benefits rose by 5,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 239,000, the Labor Department reported Thursday. The increase came after claims had dropped to 234,000 the previous week, the second lowest reading in the past year. The less-volatile four-week average edged up a slight 500 applications to 245,250. THAT MARKS 102 CONSECUTIVE WEEKS IN WHICH CLAIMS APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN BELOW THE KEY THRESHOLD OF 300,000, THE LONGEST STRETCH SINCE 1970." [emphasis added]
The author also states: "And something that we've noted here before. Back then, in those 70's of tank tops and bell bottoms, the labor force was about half the size it is now. So the rate of unemployment claims, as opposed to the number, is about half what it was back in those halcyon days."

Yes indeed. Obama has left a MUCH BETTER economy for his Republican successor than he was given by his Republican predecessor!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.