Democrats love to cherry pick statistics to make the case that Barack Obama’s stewardship of our economy has been successful. Obama himself often claims to have saved the world economy from disaster, but how? If anything averted collapse, it was the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which was executed by the Bush administration, for better or worse. If any government measure saved the economy, it was TARP.
The “stimulus” bill that didn’t stimulate anything was enacted in Obama’s first year, but that had only a fraction of the predicted impact and no one claims it somehow rescued the world economy. Nor did Dodd-Frank, which was passed in 2010, after the financial crisis had passed. Dodd-Frank’s principal effects were to devastate community banks and starve small businesses of capital.
The manner in which Democrats assign credit and blame is amusing. They claim, absurdly, that Obama reduced the federal deficit; they accomplish this sleight of hand by attributing Obama’s first year in office, when there was a trillion dollar-plus deficit because of the stimulus bill and other measures, to George W. Bush. Sure: we all remember Bush’s “stimulus” bill in FY 2009, after he left office.
On the other hand, they try to reach back to 2008, before Obama became President, to give him credit for saving the world economy through TARP. Are voters really dumb enough to fall for such silly tricks?
Yes and no. The true believers don’t remember the details and will buy anything. On the other hand, voters have a general recollection of how the economy has performed over the last 7 1/2 years, and it hasn’t been good.
As Steve wrote here, Hillary Clinton has no choice but to run against Barack Obama’s poor economic record, just as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump do. The Obama “boom” is pathetic compared to any comparable period in the post-WWII era:
And now commentators are telling us to expect another recession, and a sharp stock market decline, soon. That would put a capstone on the worst economic record of any president since Jimmy Carter. Hillary can say, “I was just in charge of Libya and other foreign policy fiascos! I had nothing to do with economic policy.” But voters won’t give her a pass on the economic record of the administration she served and whose policies she endorsed.
Michael Ramirez sums up the Democrats’ position on the economy. Click to enlarge: