The CNN example is a nice illustration of poorly presented data that can easily be misinterpreted . Or perhaps you posted it out of its original context, and it is not due to CNN at all but just being reported by them. Frankly it has the mark of someone more interested in spreading disinformation or being intentionally misleading. I can't know without going to the original, something I am not inclined to do. Perhaps later. Your post I am responding to now is yet another nice example of posts addressed to rather dull witted forum participants. I hope that it is not a true reflection on your own intellect; I fear it may be. You have an opportunity to convince me otherwise, why not take it.
FEB 25,2016 Seven Years After the “Stimulus,” President Obama’s Economic Legacy is Lacking Post by Freedom Partners BLOG CHARTS AND INFOGRAPHICS Last week marked the seventh birthday of President Obama’s $1.1 trillion stimulus bill, but Americans didn’t celebrate with cakes and balloons. Years after the passage of the massive spending and revenue bill, America is left with a subpar growth, stagnant incomes, low workforce participation and higher poverty. When the stimulus passed in 2009, President Obama called it the “most sweeping economic recovery package in our history” and declared that it would allow us to “leave this struggling economy behind.” Now President Obama’s recent economic victory laps are ringing hollow as Americans struggle and presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle campaign against the Obama economy. Let’s take a look at the data. President Obama’s economy has grown at the slowest rate of any administration since World War II. Since President Obama assumed office, annual economic growth has averaged a mere 1.4 percent, the lowest average growth rate of any administration over the past 70 years. Meanwhile, spending is projected to grow by 32 percent by the time President Obama leaves office. It’s clear that big government hasn’t led to the growth and prosperity that Americans were promised at the beginning of President Obama’s term. From 2009 to 2014, real median household income fell $1,268 or 2.3 percent. President Obama’s spending policies have also taken a real toll on Americans’ wallets. With their paychecks getting smaller, Americans aren’t buying it when President Obama touts a strong recovery under his watch. Under President Obama, the poverty ratehas increased from 14.3 percent in 2009 to 14.8 percent in 2014. Big government policies don’t always affect everyone equally, oftentimes hurting the disadvantaged the most. While large companies have benefited, during Obama’s “recovery” it’s become more difficult for individuals to work their way out of poverty. While spending is often touted as a way to combat poverty, the poverty rate has only increased in an era of record government spending. In 2014, the poverty rate was 25 percent higher than it was in 1976 when 11.8 percent of the population was impoverished. During President Obama’s terms the number of individuals living in poverty has increased by 3.1 million and the number of individuals receiving food stamp benefits increased 12.3 million. Compared to historic recoveries, the number of people who have remained in poverty is staggering. Unemployment fell because people stopped looking for work. While President Obama claims that falling unemployment levels demonstrate a strong economic recovery, the statistic only tells a part of the story. The labor force participationrate stood at a near 30-year low in January, meaning that a large amount of individuals capable of working instead gave up looking for a job. As the number of people looking for work falls, the unemployment rate falls as well, but not because those Americans got new jobs. Americans have seen the very clear evidence that the $1.1 trillion stimulus did not stimulate the economy in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Americans are waiting for a new vision that reduces the size of government, removes barriers to opportunity and unleashes our economy’s true potential.
Since President Obama took office, the national debt has increased by $7.4 trillion. On January 20, 2009, it stood at $10.6 trillion; on Monday, it was at $18 trillion.Jan 7, 2015 The story behind Obama and the national debt, in 7 charts - The ... https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../the-story-behind-obama-and-the-national-debt-in-7-...
He had to pay for Bushs wars,Bushs tax cuts,Bushs unfunded medicare expansion,Bushs doubled military budget,Bushs economy, etc. https://abcnews.go.com/Business/national-debt/story?id=17159803 But the national debt didn't just happen in the past three years, and President Obama's supporters point out that he inherited much the increase in the debt. "The fact of the matter is," Obama said earlier this year, "is that when we came into office, the deficit was $1.3 trillion -- $1.3 trillion. So when you say that suddenly I've got a monthly deficit that's higher than the annual deficit left by Republicans, that's factually just not true, and you know it's not true. And what is true is that we came in already with a $1.3 trillion deficit before I had passed any law. What is true is, we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade." Obama points out that he inherited an economy on the brink of collapse that needed more than $1 trillion in stimulus, two wars that were simply added to the national debt, a prescription drug program for seniors that wasn't paid for and the Bush-era tax cuts that were not matched by cuts in spending -- in other words, not paid for.
Obama came into office with a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit and left office with a 600 billion dollar deficit. Trump came into office with a 600 billion dollar deficit and now its over a trillion.
Boggles the mind how you make such asinine statements as if you could somehow figure out how many jobs Obama was actually, personally, responsible for, and how many Trump will be at some point in the future.