Endless arguments continue regarding Obama’s success in either helping or hindering the “Recovery” from the financial crisis brought on by decades-long policy failures regarding the Housing Markets/Financial Regulatory failures. The most recent argument is the “rate of change” that has occurred during Obama’s first four years.
I liken that argument to two runners in a race. The first one has a great race then stumbles dramatically at the end of the race but manages to finish the race with a very respectable World Class time. The second runner begins his race with a history of handicaps and encumbrances (he is the darling of the under-dog fans) but manages to finish the race making remarkable progress in spite of his disadvantages and finishes the race with a flurry of bravado. His time is substantially less than the previous runner but is heralded as a much better competitor. Was he? That all depends how you rate the runners. If winning times are ultimately valued (that is how winners are decided in the world of competition) then the first runner is decidedly the winner. If the criteria of overcoming difficulties and simply finishing are of higher value, then the second runner is your winner. The record books won’t show the latter runners’ effort or difficulties overcome, only his stats.
When the statistics are compared (here), Obama’s record must be judged on: record numbers in Poverty, on Food Assistance, Unemployed, Underemployed, out of the Job’s Market, the GDP, the National Debt, deficit Budget spending and Inflation. To those immediately affected by those numbers, feeling sorry for poor President Obama brings little solace. Where is the Press on this? Crickets, that’s where.