DCCC tries to show Obama has been a success

Obama numbers

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out the above chart today.

And while I usually have nothing but snarky remarks for these blatant fund-raising emails, I have to say I actually thought the number look pretty good.

So… are we a lot better off than we were when this POTUS took office? I have to say, I am not — but then, I’m no worse off than I was two months after he took office, when I got laid off.

And yeah, I would hope we’d look good when compared to the very low point of the recession. But still, I thought the numbers looked good…

Do the number lie? Are they the right number to be looking at? Thoughts?

6 thoughts on “DCCC tries to show Obama has been a success

  1. Doug Ross

    So what the DCCC is saying is that the best path for America is for Congress to remain in permanent gridlock where nothing is done. I can agree with that. The more they do, the worse off we are.

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      That may well be the logical conclusion to draw from this — seeing how little has gotten done the last few years.

      Of course, the Dems would probably credit the stimulus, etc….

  2. Juan Caruso

    Without any doubt the statistics shown reflect impressive improvements.

    We are adults, here, and not school children, however.

    The Dow Jones Index not only fluctuates volatively at times, but is unrepresentative of small businesses that provide 64% of U.S. jobs. The unemployment stat has been distorted during Obama’s administration by the increase in people collecting government benefits (NOT SHOWN im the chart).

    Rules of the game are not the same today as in 2010. Manipulating definitions, cherrypicking the stats, and taking advantage of timing –Christmas season always boosts temporary employment, and post election turnovers in the Senate often boost the stock market makeing a nice chart for anyone’s administration.

    For the entire length of the Bush administration, we were told every month that it takes 125 to 150 thousand new jobs just to keep the unemployment rate stable. Suddenly that kind of growth under Obama sends unemployment markedly downward. How can that be? Economist Jim Pethokoukis tells us how. The universe of job seekers has declined due to millions of drop outs. Millions fewer people seeking work rather than EBT cards distorts the true employment rate. U6 under Bush versus Obama at this point is NOT SHOWN. Cherrypickers are very subjective, are they not?

    The Dow Index will be down and unemployment (as currently distorted) will be up by the time the new Congress takes office.

  3. Bart

    Notwithstanding a rebuttal from bud, but anytime a political party issues something like this chart, it cabnot be take with one grain of salt but an entire shaker. And that includes Republican produced charts.

    Unemployment is low because of numerous factors that are not included or accounted for. The stock market is high because the Fed is pumping billions into the market to keep it afloat and at record highs. The consumer confidence index must have been pulled from the nether regions because every indicator I have read is the opposite.

    The situation we are in now is not proprietary to one party, it took both to dig the hole so deep, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be paying for it well into their adulthood and maybe pass it on the the next generation.

    Charts? We don’t need no stinking charts!

  4. Harry Harris

    I would say somewhat successful despite no cooperation from Congress since 2010. In numbers it looks like this:
    Obama took office 1-21-09 with a 1.2 Trillion budget deficit and GDP falling 12.6 percent in his first 2 quarters . Stimulus bill passed in April ’09. GDP declined until August, but reversed and averaged 3.14% growth until Winter 2011 right after Republicans took the house in Jan 2010. Growth then slowed to an average growth of 1.78% through spring 2012 (obsession with debt/deficit and the debt limit debacle).
    No stimulus was wrung out of the House until the FICA tax cut (2% and temporary) in Jan 2012. Growth increased a little, but did little to improve employment until the Fed, seeing no hope of fiscal stimulus started monetary stimulus through “Quantitative Easing.” Growth and employment have increased moderately and unevenly (as it always does) since then to the present. Republicans want to call this Obama’s failing economy and cry “failed stimulus” but both are inaccurate. The stimulus worked, but it hasn’t been Obama’s economy since mid 2011. The Republican house has passed bills they called “jobs bills,” but all were either oil drilling, pipeline bills, or gut the EPA bills – no infrastructure, but a little extended unemployment wrung out by cutting in other social programs. No fiscal stimulus since 2011, and they want to blame slow to moderate growth in employment and GDP on Obama. Phony talking points. They want to take us back to the “trickle down” upper-income tax cuts that created almost no net job growth under Bush, but built growth on easy credit and wartime deficit spending that caused the 2008-2009 recession. By the way, the deficit is less than 1/2 what it was when Obama came in.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *