Author’s Note<\/u>: this article has been updated to account for new data relating to one of the original Gateway Pundit article’s charts. Hat tip to Ex-PH2 for the assist.<\/i><\/p>\n
—–<\/p>\n
Yesterday, AW1Ed posted a guest article titled \u201cObamanomics<\/a>\u201d<\/em>.\u00a0 While I agreed with the article\u2019s thrust, from my perspective there were a couple of problems.\u00a0 The original source for the article wasn\u2019t linked, and the accompanying graphics were a screen capture from the original that was at too low a resolution to allow someone to read the graphs\u2019 scales, units, and labels.\u00a0 Being able to do that is key in interpreting any graph.<\/p>\n The article generated some discussion, and I was curious.\u00a0 So I decided to do some digging and see if I could find the original article.<\/p>\n I found it; the article was from Gateway Pundit, and can be found here<\/a><\/em>.\u00a0 And after reading it, what I\u2019d found gave me pause.<\/p>\n The source article \u2013 hereafter \u201cGP article\u201d, which was NOT authored by Poetrooper (for whom AW1Ed acted as facilitator in posting his guest article) \u2013 IMO had several significant issues.<\/p>\n The last two truly bothered me.\u00a0 Taken together, it meant that the GP article gave the appearance of being either very sloppily written \u2013 or having deliberately \u201ccherry-picked\u201d data vice presenting reality.\u00a0 Neither is acceptable.<\/p>\n So I decided to do some more digging and see what I could find. \u00a0What follows are the results.<\/p>\n . . . <\/strong><\/p>\n In an attempt to replicate the charts in the GP article over the full period of the regime headed by the previous Occupant, 1600 Penn Ave, Wash DC, I searched their apparent source – the St Louis Federal Reserve\u2019s FRED website<\/a><\/em>.\u00a0 (FRED appears to be an acronym for either \u201cFederal Reserve Economic Data\u201d or \u201cFederal Reserve Economic Database\u201d.)\u00a0 Since most data was available with either quarterly or annual granularity, with one exception I used 2009-01-01 as the start date for my investigation; end dates were all 2017-01-01 or later. This covers the vast majority of the prior Administration, and allows an evaluation of the GP article\u2019s charts (and their implicit claims) over virtually the full 8-year period of that previous Administration.<\/p>\n BLUF:\u00a0 the GP article\u2019s implicit claims appear largely correct.\u00a0 However, the presentation is at times misleading.\u00a0 The conclusions are not fully supported by the charts in the GP article, and some may well be flat wrong.\u00a0 Data corresponding to 3 of the 9 charts could not be located, though similar data was located for both.\u00a0 In one case, this similar data was consistent with data presented in the GP article; in the other case, it was not.<\/p>\n I have not included charts in this article.\u00a0 If you desire, you can recreate the charts I used for my analysis yourself by going to the FRED links below and using the date ranges indicated.\u00a0 If you want to compare those to the charts in the GP article, use the link to the GP article’s charts avove.<\/p>\n Each of the original GP article\u2019s charts will be discussed next.<\/p>\n . . .<\/strong><\/p>\n The numbers below refer to the charts in the GP article.\u00a0 Starting at the upper left, the first row of charts in the GP article is 1 through 3; the middle row is 4 through 6; and the bottom row is 7 through 9.\u00a0 Original titles from the GP article are underlined below.\u00a0 The specific data I examined is identified by \u201cSource:\u201d, followed by the URL to the specific FRED dataset and the date range examined.<\/p>\n 1. Student Loans<\/u>: \u00a0This original graph in the Gateway Pundit article makes a valid point \u2013 and if anything underplays the situation.\u00a0 The USG guaranteed $146.9B worth of student loans on 1 January 2009.\u00a0 On 1 January 2017, the USG guaranteed just under $1,0493B \u2013 or $1.0493T, an increase of roughly 714% in 8 years.\u00a0 The trend throughout nearly the entire 8-year term of the previous clueless administration was a massive increase in Federal student loan guarantee liability.\u00a0 (Sadly, the trend has remained essentially constant during 2017 and 2018, with at best a slight decrease in the curve\u2019s rate of increase.<\/p>\n Source: https:\/\/fred.stlouisfed.org\/series\/FGCCSAQ027S<\/a>, select date range 2009-01-01 to 2018-10-01.<\/p>\n 2. Food Stamps<\/u>. This original graph in the Gateway Pundit article exaggerates the problem.\u00a0 However, the problem does appear to be real.\u00a0 On 1 January 2009, the USG was spending $54.762B on the SNAP program.\u00a0 Eight years later, the USG was spending $63.976B on the same program \u2013 supposedly after 7 \u00bd years of \u201ceconomic recovery\u201d and low inflation.\u00a0 One would expect that the total should be lower after 7 \u00bd years of recovery than during the height of the 2007-2009 recession.\u00a0 That\u2019s not what the data shows \u2013 it shows an effectively increasing program throughout the first 3 \u00bd years of the \u201crecovery\u201d.\u00a0 It\u2019s exceedingly doubtful that population increase between 2009 and 2017 explains the increase, either.<\/p>\n Source: https:\/\/fred.stlouisfed.org\/series\/TRP6001A027NBEA<\/a>, select date range 2009-01-01 to 2017-01-01.<\/p>\n 3. Federal Debt<\/u>. This original graph in the Gateway Pundit article exaggerates the scope problem by presenting only partial data, implying runaway Federal debt increasing wildly.\u00a0 However, the problem does appear to be real.\u00a0 On 1 January 2009, the USG had a Federal debt equal to just under 77.3% of the US GDP.\u00a0 Eight years later, Federal debt was just under 105.3% of the US GDP \u2013 supposedly after 7 \u00bd years of \u201ceconomic recovery\u201d and low inflation.\u00a0 (The Federal debt appears to have stopped increasing as a percentage of US GDP in Jan 2017 and has remained at roughly the same level as a percentage of US GDP \u00a0\u2013 e.g., somewhere around 104%, +\/- about 1.5%\u00a0– for the last 3 years).<\/p>\n Source:\u00a0 https:\/\/fred.stlouisfed.org\/series\/GFDEGDQ188S<\/a>, select date range 2009-01-01 to 2018-10-01.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0 Money Printing<\/u> (Monetary Base).\u00a0 The original graph in the Gateway Pundit article exaggerates the scope of the problem.\u00a0 However, the problem does appear to be real.\u00a0 On 25 January 2009, the US had an adjusted monetary base<\/a><\/em> of just over $1.7525 T. \u00a0Roughly eight years later, the adjusted monetary base was \u00a0just under $3.6756 T \u2013 an increase in excess nearly 110% – supposedly after 7 \u00bd years of \u201ceconomic recovery\u201d and low inflation.\u00a0 While some degree of \u201cpump priming\u201d should be expected during a recession and the early stages of recovery \u2013 and an enlarged economy would require a larger monetary base for normal operations \u2013 this increase seems far larger than justified.<\/p>\n Source:\u00a0 https:\/\/fred.stlouisfed.org\/series\/BASE<\/a>, select date range 2009-01-28 to 2019-05-22.<\/p>\n 5. Health Insurance Costs<\/u>: I have significant questions about this one, as I can\u2019t find this particular data set on the FRED site.\u00a0 However, I did find what appears to be similar data (Producer Price Index by Commodity for Insurance and Annuities: Health and Medical Insurance).\u00a0 This data does not agree with the chart presented in the Gateway Pundit article; however, it does show what appears to be a constant annual rise in Health and Medical Insurance costs since 2009.<\/p>\n Since it\u2019s not precisely the same data, a direct comparison is not possible.\u00a0 However, the chart in the GP article implies that Healthcare Insurance costs rose substantially between Jan 2011 and Jan 2013 \u2013 by nearly 20%.\u00a0 The data I found at the St Louis FRED site contradicts that, showing a much smaller increase (roughly 4%) during that same period.\u00a0 So my take here is that this chart is unsupported and misleading – and should be ignored.\u00a0 I can\u2019t find the underlying data, and the data I can find seems to contradict it. (If anyone can find the precise FRED dataset that might have been used for the GP article\u2019s \u201cHealth Insurance CPI\u201d chart, please post it in comments and I\u2019ll revise this section.)<\/p>\n Source:\u00a0 https:\/\/fred.stlouisfed.org\/series\/WPU41110301<\/a>, date range 2009-01-01 to 2019-04-01.<\/p>\n 6. Labor Participation Rate<\/u>: This original graph in the Gateway Pundit article makes a valid point \u2013 and perhaps underplays the situation somewhat.\u00a0 While the Previous Occupant, 1600 Penn Ave, Wash DC inherited a recession, it wasn\u2019t until 3Q\u00a0 2015 that the US Civilian Labor Participation Rate \u00a0\u201cbottomed out\u201d \u2013 at 62.4%, a level not seen since the Carter Administration.\u00a0 From 3Q 2015 until today, the US labor participation rate has remained roughly constant, varying between approximately 62.5% and 63.2% \u00a0– down roughly 3.5% from the end of the Bush(43) Administration.\u00a0 Since we\u2019ve had an economic \u201crecovery\u201d,\u00a0one would expect the Labor Participation Rate to have begun climbing; however, that hasn\u2019t happened.<\/p>\n Source: https:\/\/fred.stlouisfed.org\/series\/CIVPART<\/a>, select the date range 2009-01-01 to 2019-04-01.<\/p>\n I guess that means some of those changes made by the previous SCoaMF Administration have convinced 5M+ Americans that sitting on their butt on a couch at home while eating Cheetos and watching the Kardashians on TV is better than honest work.\u00a0 Great.\u00a0 Just freaking great.<\/p>\n 7. (UPDATED) Worker\u2019s Share of Economy<\/u>. I couldn\u2019t find the exact data used to create this GP chart on the FRED site. However, one of our other authors found what appears to be very closely related data<\/i><\/a> that is consistent with the GP chart and which continues through 1 Jan 2017. So I\u2019ll discuss that data. (The FRED data I\u2019ll discuss is annual, while the GP chart apparently was based on quarterly data \u2013 so the GP chart will show more rapid variation.)<\/p>\n The chart from the GP article is apparently accurate, but incomplete. It does show a decline from Jan 2009 to approximately mid-2013 \u2013 but such a decline is common in most recessions and during the early part of most recoveries, so that\u2019s not unexpected. However, examining the full period of the previous Administration (Jan 2009 to Jan 2017) shows that this metric recovered substantially during the next 3 \u00bd years – though it still never recovered to Jan 2009 levels. And an examination of historical data shows that this metric has been generally declining since 1970. In short: the GP article chart is accurate, but misleading and doesn\u2019t tell the whole story.<\/p>\n Source: https:\/\/fred.stlouisfed.org\/series`\/W270RE1A156NBEA<\/a>, data ranges 2009-01-01 to 2017-01-01 and full period (1948 to 2017-01-01).<\/p>\n 8. Median Family Income<\/u>. The chart in the Gateway Pundit article is accurate as far as it goes, but presents only a small and, frankly, misleading part of the picture.\u00a0 In truth, US real median household income did decline during the first 3 years of the previous administration, and remained below 2009 levels for an additional 2 years.\u00a0 However, by 2015 the US real median household income had surpassed 2009 levels.\u00a0 It continued to rise during the next two years.\u00a0 Please note that direct comparisons with past data may be difficult or misleading without adjustment \u2013 the FRED site is now indexing real median household income using 2017 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars as the base year vice 2012 CPI-U-RS dollars (used previously and referenced on the chart in the original GP article).<\/p>\n Source:\u00a0 https:\/\/fred.stlouisfed.org\/series\/MEHOINUSA672N<\/a>, date range 2009-01-01 to 2017-01-01.<\/p>\n 9. Home Ownership<\/u>: The original graph in the Gateway Pundit article makes a valid point \u2013 and if anything underplays the situation with respect to the Home Ownership Rate.\u00a0 While the Previous Occupant, 1600 Penn Ave, Wash DC inherited a recession, it wasn\u2019t until 2016 that US home ownership \u201cbottomed out\u201d.\u00a0 The trend throughout virtually the entire 8-year term of the previous clueless administration was downward (quarterly data shows the absolute bottom was 4Q 2016); quarterly data shows it\u2019s been generally rising since.\u00a0 And 2016 represents the lowest US home ownership rate on record<\/span> (FRED data for home ownership rate only goes back to the mid-1960s).<\/p>\n\n
![it can be found here<\/a><\/em>).<\/li>\nThe GP article seemed to reference an apparently-recent \u201cSt Louis Federal Reserve Report\u201d, but failed to provide a link to same.<\/li>\nThe data on which the GP article\u2019s charts are based wasn\u2019t fully sourced, which meant that the reader could not independently replicate the article’s graphics.<\/li>\nThe data on which the GP article\u2019s charts are based did not cover the entire 8 years of the previous \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 gang of fools<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0clown crew<\/span> \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 bunch of na\u00efve dilettantes<\/span> \u00a0\u00a0 Administration.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nThe last two truly bothered me.\u00a0 Taken together, it meant that the GP article gave the appearance of being either very sloppily written \u2013 or having deliberately \u201ccherry-picked\u201d data vice presenting reality.\u00a0 Neither is acceptable.<\/p>\nSo I decided to do some more digging and see what I could find. \u00a0What follows are the results.<\/p>\n. . . <\/strong><\/p>\nIn an attempt to replicate the charts in the GP article over the full period of the regime headed by the previous Occupant, 1600 Penn Ave, Wash DC, I searched their apparent source – the St Louis Federal Reserve\u2019s FRED website<\/a><\/em>.\u00a0 (FRED appears to be an acronym for either \u201cFederal Reserve Economic Data\u201d or \u201cFederal Reserve Economic Database\u201d.)\u00a0 Since most data was available with either quarterly or annual granularity, with one exception I used 2009-01-01 as the start date for my investigation; end dates were all 2017-01-01 or later. This covers the vast majority of the prior Administration, and allows an evaluation of the GP article\u2019s charts (and their implicit claims) over virtually the full 8-year period of that previous Administration.<\/p>\nBLUF:\u00a0 the GP article\u2019s implicit claims appear largely correct.\u00a0 However, the presentation is at times misleading.\u00a0 The conclusions are not fully supported by the charts in the GP article, and some may well be flat wrong.\u00a0 Data corresponding to 3 of the 9 charts could not be located, though similar data was located for both.\u00a0 In one case, this similar data was consistent with data presented in the GP article; in the other case, it was not.<\/p>\nI have not included charts in this article.\u00a0 If you desire, you can recreate the charts I used for my analysis yourself by going to the FRED links below and using the date ranges indicated.\u00a0 If you want to compare those to the charts in the GP article, use the link to the GP article’s charts avove.<\/p>\nEach of the original GP article\u2019s charts will be discussed next.<\/p>\n. . .<\/strong><\/p>\nThe numbers below refer to the charts in the GP article.\u00a0 Starting at the upper left, the first row of charts in the GP article is 1 through 3; the middle row is 4 through 6; and the bottom row is 7 through 9.\u00a0 Original titles from the GP article are underlined below.\u00a0 The specific data I examined is identified by \u201cSource:\u201d, followed by the URL to the specific FRED dataset and the date range examined.<\/p>\n1. Student Loans<\/u>: \u00a0This original graph in the Gateway Pundit article makes a valid point \u2013 and if anything underplays the situation.\u00a0 The USG guaranteed $146.9B worth of student loans on 1 January 2009.\u00a0 On 1 January 2017, the USG guaranteed just under $1,0493B \u2013 or $1.0493T, an increase of roughly 714% in 8 years.\u00a0 The trend throughout nearly the entire 8-year term of the previous clueless administration was a massive increase in Federal student loan guarantee liability.\u00a0 (Sadly, the trend has remained essentially constant during 2017 and 2018, with at best a slight decrease in the curve\u2019s rate of increase.<\/p>\nSource: https:\/\/fred.stlouisfed.org\/series\/FGCCSAQ027S<\/a>, select date range 2009-01-01 to 2018-10-01.<\/p>\n2. Food Stamps<\/u>. This original graph in the Gateway Pundit article exaggerates the problem.\u00a0 However, the problem does appear to be real.\u00a0 On 1 January 2009, the USG was spending $54.762B on the SNAP program.\u00a0 Eight years later, the USG was spending $63.976B on the same program \u2013 supposedly after 7 \u00bd years of \u201ceconomic recovery\u201d and low inflation.\u00a0 One would expect that the total should be lower after 7 \u00bd years of recovery than during the height of the 2007-2009 recession.\u00a0 That\u2019s not what the data shows \u2013 it shows an effectively increasing program throughout the first 3 \u00bd years of the \u201crecovery\u201d.\u00a0 It\u2019s exceedingly doubtful that population increase between 2009 and 2017 explains the increase, either.<\/p>\nSource: https:\/\/fred.stlouisfed.org\/series\/TRP6001A027NBEA<\/a>, select date range 2009-01-01 to 2017-01-01.<\/p>\n3. Federal Debt<\/u>. This original graph in the Gateway Pundit article exaggerates the scope problem by presenting only partial data, implying runaway Federal debt increasing wildly.\u00a0 However, the problem does appear to be real.\u00a0 On 1 January 2009, the USG had a Federal debt equal to just under 77.3% of the US GDP.\u00a0 Eight years later, Federal debt was just under 105.3% of the US GDP \u2013 supposedly after 7 \u00bd years of \u201ceconomic recovery\u201d and low inflation.\u00a0 (The Federal debt appears to have stopped increasing as a percentage of US GDP in Jan 2017 and has remained at roughly the same level as a percentage of US GDP \u00a0\u2013 e.g., somewhere around 104%, +\/- about 1.5%\u00a0– for the last 3 years).<\/p>\nSource:\u00a0 https:\/\/fred.stlouisfed.org\/series\/GFDEGDQ188S<\/a>, select date range 2009-01-01 to 2018-10-01.<\/p>\n4.\u00a0 Money Printing<\/u> (Monetary Base).\u00a0 The original graph in the Gateway Pundit article exaggerates the scope of the problem.\u00a0 However, the problem does appear to be real.\u00a0 On 25 January 2009, the US had an adjusted monetary base<\/a><\/em> of just over $1.7525 T. \u00a0Roughly eight years later, the adjusted monetary base was \u00a0just under $3.6756 T \u2013 an increase in excess nearly 110% – supposedly after 7 \u00bd years of \u201ceconomic recovery\u201d and low inflation.\u00a0 While some degree of \u201cpump priming\u201d should be expected during a recession and the early stages of recovery \u2013 and an enlarged economy would require a larger monetary base for normal operations \u2013 this increase seems far larger than justified.<\/p>\nSource:\u00a0 https:\/\/fred.stlouisfed.org\/series\/BASE<\/a>, select date range 2009-01-28 to 2019-05-22.<\/p>\n5. Health Insurance Costs<\/u>: I have significant questions about this one, as I can\u2019t find this particular data set on the FRED site.\u00a0 However, I did find what appears to be similar data (Producer Price Index by Commodity for Insurance and Annuities: Health and Medical Insurance).\u00a0 This data does not agree with the chart presented in the Gateway Pundit article; however, it does show what appears to be a constant annual rise in Health and Medical Insurance costs since 2009.<\/p>\nSince it\u2019s not precisely the same data, a direct comparison is not possible.\u00a0 However, the chart in the GP article implies that Healthcare Insurance costs rose substantially between Jan 2011 and Jan 2013 \u2013 by nearly 20%.\u00a0 The data I found at the St Louis FRED site contradicts that, showing a much smaller increase (roughly 4%) during that same period.\u00a0 So my take here is that this chart is unsupported and misleading – and should be ignored.\u00a0 I can\u2019t find the underlying data, and the data I can find seems to contradict it. (If anyone can find the precise FRED dataset that might have been used for the GP article\u2019s \u201cHealth Insurance CPI\u201d chart, please post it in comments and I\u2019ll revise this section.)<\/p>\nSource:\u00a0 https:\/\/fred.stlouisfed.org\/series\/WPU41110301<\/a>, date range 2009-01-01 to 2019-04-01.<\/p>\n6. Labor Participation Rate<\/u>: This original graph in the Gateway Pundit article makes a valid point \u2013 and perhaps underplays the situation somewhat.\u00a0 While the Previous Occupant, 1600 Penn Ave, Wash DC inherited a recession, it wasn\u2019t until 3Q\u00a0 2015 that the US Civilian Labor Participation Rate \u00a0\u201cbottomed out\u201d \u2013 at 62.4%, a level not seen since the Carter Administration.\u00a0 From 3Q 2015 until today, the US labor participation rate has remained roughly constant, varying between approximately 62.5% and 63.2% \u00a0– down roughly 3.5% from the end of the Bush(43) Administration.\u00a0 Since we\u2019ve had an economic \u201crecovery\u201d,\u00a0one would expect the Labor Participation Rate to have begun climbing; however, that hasn\u2019t happened.<\/p>\nSource: https:\/\/fred.stlouisfed.org\/series\/CIVPART<\/a>, select the date range 2009-01-01 to 2019-04-01.<\/p>\nI guess that means some of those changes made by the previous SCoaMF Administration have convinced 5M+ Americans that sitting on their butt on a couch at home while eating Cheetos and watching the Kardashians on TV is better than honest work.\u00a0 Great.\u00a0 Just freaking great.<\/p>\n7. (UPDATED) Worker\u2019s Share of Economy<\/u>. I couldn\u2019t find the exact data used to create this GP chart on the FRED site. However, one of our other authors found what appears to be very closely related data<\/i><\/a> that is consistent with the GP chart and which continues through 1 Jan 2017. So I\u2019ll discuss that data. (The FRED data I\u2019ll discuss is annual, while the GP chart apparently was based on quarterly data \u2013 so the GP chart will show more rapid variation.)<\/p>\nThe chart from the GP article is apparently accurate, but incomplete. It does show a decline from Jan 2009 to approximately mid-2013 \u2013 but such a decline is common in most recessions and during the early part of most recoveries, so that\u2019s not unexpected. However, examining the full period of the previous Administration (Jan 2009 to Jan 2017) shows that this metric recovered substantially during the next 3 \u00bd years – though it still never recovered to Jan 2009 levels. And an examination of historical data shows that this metric has been generally declining since 1970. In short: the GP article chart is accurate, but misleading and doesn\u2019t tell the whole story.<\/p>\nSource: https:\/\/fred.stlouisfed.org\/series`\/W270RE1A156NBEA<\/a>, data ranges 2009-01-01 to 2017-01-01 and full period (1948 to 2017-01-01).<\/p>\n8. Median Family Income<\/u>. The chart in the Gateway Pundit article is accurate as far as it goes, but presents only a small and, frankly, misleading part of the picture.\u00a0 In truth, US real median household income did decline during the first 3 years of the previous administration, and remained below 2009 levels for an additional 2 years.\u00a0 However, by 2015 the US real median household income had surpassed 2009 levels.\u00a0 It continued to rise during the next two years.\u00a0 Please note that direct comparisons with past data may be difficult or misleading without adjustment \u2013 the FRED site is now indexing real median household income using 2017 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars as the base year vice 2012 CPI-U-RS dollars (used previously and referenced on the chart in the original GP article).<\/p>\nSource:\u00a0 https:\/\/fred.stlouisfed.org\/series\/MEHOINUSA672N<\/a>, date range 2009-01-01 to 2017-01-01.<\/p>\n9. Home Ownership<\/u>: The original graph in the Gateway Pundit article makes a valid point \u2013 and if anything underplays the situation with respect to the Home Ownership Rate.\u00a0 While the Previous Occupant, 1600 Penn Ave, Wash DC inherited a recession, it wasn\u2019t until 2016 that US home ownership \u201cbottomed out\u201d.\u00a0 The trend throughout virtually the entire 8-year term of the previous clueless administration was downward (quarterly data shows the absolute bottom was 4Q 2016); quarterly data shows it\u2019s been generally rising since.\u00a0 And 2016 represents the lowest US home ownership rate on record<\/span> (FRED data for home ownership rate only goes back to the mid-1960s).<\/p>\nSource:\u00a0 https:\/\/fred.stlouisfed.org\/series\/USHOWN<\/a>, with date range 2009-01-01 to 2017-01-01. \u00a0This is unadjusted annual data, which for some reason doesn\u2019t seem to be available yet for 2018 on the FRED site.<\/p>\n. . . <\/strong><\/p>\nSo, what\u2019s my take overall?\u00a0 The original GP article is a mixed bag.\u00a0 Its charts are all over the board \u2013 some are spot on, while others are accurate as far as they go but fail to tell the whole story.\u00a0 Some are misleading, and one may be flat-out inaccurate.\u00a0 And none cover the entire prior Administration; some cover barely half of it.<\/p>\nNonetheless, many if not most of the conclusions implied in the GP article are IMO valid. That’s true even though there’s nowhere near enough data presented in the GP article to support its claims.<\/p>\nThe Labor Participation Rate indeed fell precipitously during the prior Administration \u2013 then remained at this new, lower level afterwards.\u00a0 That\u2019s NOT a good thing.\u00a0 The US Home Ownership Rate fell throughout the entire prior Administration, finally “bottoming out” at the very end of the prior Administration – again after years of so-called \u201crecovery\u201d.\u00a0 And the Federally-guaranteed student loan program appeared to have been completely out of control, increasing federal financial liability in this area by over 700% \u2013 to over $1 trillion<\/span> – in roughly eight years.<\/p>\nThe Federal debt burden (as a percentage of GDP) increased by more than 1\/3 during the previous Administration.\u00a0 The US adjusted monetary base increased far beyond what would be expected due to population and GDP increases – though, thankfully, without triggering massive inflation.\u00a0 The cost of health insurance appears to have far outstripped the general rate of inflation as well. Finally, the cost of the SNAP program (\u201cfood stamps\u201d) in 2016 remained at levels suggesting hard economic times \u2013 even though we\u2019d had 7 \u00bd years of \u201crecovery\u201d by then.\u00a0 Even given 8 years of population growth, that’s not what you’d expect to see.<\/p>\nIn short, an examination of data over the full period of the prior Administration shows that the GP article\u2019s implied conclusions are largely correct.\u00a0 That\u2019s true in spite of the fact that the GP article is badly documented, provides insufficient data to support its claims, and is in places misleading or inaccurate.<\/p>\nThe GP article\u2019s shortcomings could have been the result of either sloppy writing (e.g., re-use of old data without updating and re-analyzing same), or those shortcomings could have been intentional.\u00a0 I\u2019d guess sloppy writing, but I can\u2019t rule out the other possibility.<\/p>\nThis also should be a cautionary tale that’s generally applicable.\u00a0 As the old proverb says: \u201cDoveryai, no proveryai.\u201d (Translation: \u201cTrust, but verify\u201d.) That\u2019s alway a good strategy.\u00a0 Blindly accepting something as fact from an individual or source you don’t know well without double-checking its accuracy can be . . . risky.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Author’s Note: this article has been updated to account for new data relating to one of … Obamanomics, Revisited (Updated)<\/span>Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":623,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-87675","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-economy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87675","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/623"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=87675"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87675\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":87706,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87675\/revisions\/87706"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=87675"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=87675"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=87675"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}](\"https:\/\/www.thegatewaypundit.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/obama-economy-disaster.jpg\"){kind=link}