Another Day, another Moronic Meme

      I regret that I am unable to find the offensive graphic, but it went something like this: It showed a candid photo of the POTUS smiling and then in two columns laid out some economic data which,  at a glance, seemed to show that the Obama presidency has had seriously negative result for the economy and it concluded with some rather snotty remark such as, "Thanks, Obama."  Now, as Mark Twain famously said, "There are three types of lies - lies, damned lies and statistics."  This meme was comprised of the latter two types, and don't ya wanna know how and why? Frankly I don't give a shit, because I'm gonna tell you anyway.  

        The first rule of cheating with data is to choose points for comparison which are most advantageous to your argument. The meme in question was a prime example of this kind of numerical chicanery. It chose economic stats from 2008 as the beginning of the Obama administration, and alleged that the ending point was the present, although some of the data used was from as far back as 2013. Factually, the economic picture from Jan.  2008 to Jan.  2009 includes the precipitous economic decline triggered by the housing bubble collapse. Since President Obama was inaugurated in mid January, 2009, any "starting point should be within that year, not 2008. Additionally, the events of 2008 extended what is now being referred to as the "Great Recession." well into the 2013 range.

       At this point, in fairness, it must be noted that no responsible economist would blame Bush 43 for the bubble collapse, as there  were many more, and more involved, culprits, including many of both parties in Congress who steadfastly refused responsible oversight or regulation of financial markets. Blaming the President, any president, for an economic collapse triggered by Wall Street speculation in financial instruments not even understood by most commercial banks'  CEOS is a fool's errand. This is not to say it doesn't happen. Another similar but unrelated example would be the ludicrous 2012 comments by Newt Gingrich that if  Obama were re-elected the price of gasoline would hit $10. Diametrically opposite were the promises of Michele Bachmann, who as candidate, (briefly, mercifully) actually said if she were President, gas would be $1 per gallon. Both reflect pandering to the ignorance of the electorate, which, as recent pathetic events have shown, can  sometimes  be fruitful.

       Having said that, let's briefly discuss "debt" and "deficit", since many Americans are in the dark and confuse them as identities, which they are not. Rather than reinvent a cogent presentation, here's a good one from today's  New York Times:  "The federal deficit tells you how much more money the government spent in a single year than it received in revenue. During the recession, for example, the deficit spiked because the government received less tax revenue as incomes dropped at the same time it was spending more money for things like unemployment benefits and stimulus programs to revive the economy. Since the end of the recession (2013-ish), the size of the yearly deficit has been declining. The national debt, on the other hand, is the cumulative amount of money that the federal government has borrowed to make up for all those deficits in previous years. Even if the size of the federal deficit, or “shortfall,” shrinks from one year to the next, the total national debt will still increase because the government is still borrowing money (just not as much as it did the year before). The government could even have a budget surplus one year — where it takes in more money than it spends — but still have a sizable national debt that has built up over time.

        Since Bush 43 is cited in the offending meme as the "good example" it must be noted that he inherited a budget surplus from his predecessor, Democrat, Bill Clinton. He forthwith pissed it and thousands of American lives away on a war in Iraq, at the end of which he adopted "reconstruction" policies which are generally considered the spark that set fire to ISIS.  Many of you know this, but I'm laying the groundwork for some actually valid statistics, and I hope some who read this will be better enabled to understand my point.

        So, let's take accurate data points for economic sampling. That would be Jan. 2001, Jan.2009, and Jan 2017. The span from 01-to 09  should (does) reflect what Bush started with and what he ended up with as well as what Obama started with. Again, for fairness, neither recession, debt, deficit or recovery are the sole purview of  POTUS, nor is he even the major factor, especially with a recalcitrant Congress, which both had to some extent, Bush a Democratic Senate, Obama a Republican House. Again. in reality, the House controls the nation's purse strings, not the POTUS or anyone else. So the objective will be to compare where Bush started, where he ended (what he handed off to Obama) and where we are now again, total disclosure, 2016 data is incomplete for some indicators so 2015 is used. For simplicity assume the year is as of Jan 15

                              2001        2009       2016        Obama change

Unemployment       4%         10.1%      5%          5.1% decrease

GDP growth           .5%         3%           2.85%           flat

DJIA                   15,002       8,030        19,950    248% increase

Deficit as % of GDP:

1998-2001- actual surplus, no deficit!

2004, 2005 - large deficits due to war in Iraq

2009- massive recession, housing bubble burst, TARP approved (by Bush), unemployment extended to 99weeks (by Obama) large deficits to feed people, provide shelter, unemployment.

2014 - deficit returns to below the statistical average since 1965, and is actually lower than 7 of the 8 Reagan years! CBO projects below average remainder of the decade.

         Now, some perspective. Reagan had 7 above average deficit budgets with no war or recession; Obama had only 4 large above average deficits in eight years after a huge recession. The largest deficit ever since the Great Depression was the Bush budget of 2009!  

         This doesn't even cover the millions now insured under the ACA.  So maybe we ought to look at fact before we smear the President with the toughest economy since Hoover and Roosevelt, although, it should be remembered that Roosevelt was also slandered by the Far Right Neanderthals, as was his wife. And he was Caucasian! It is worthy of note as well, that what ended the Great Depression was really WWII, not government action which was a bit effective but well short of recovery and involved large  deficits. So there. You're bored but I feel better.