Check the math on that. It looks like that calculation first appeared in an article published on
Real Clear Markets, written by Thomas Woodhill, described as an engineer and software entrepreneur. I don't know where he got his degree, but the numbers I have indicate Reagan's performance at 2.64 and Obama's at .97.
Real gross domestic product per capita
1980 — 28428
1988 — 35008
2008 — 47697
2015 — 51041
Overall, President Obama has managed to turn the terrible economic hand he was dealt into a mixed economic record. In some areas, the economy has performed remarkably, while in other areas, the performance has been disappointing. Many of the challenges President Obama faced are common to the entire developed world and the United States has certainly fared far better than the other developed nations. However, that has come at the expense of adding to the national debt, and the gains have generally been concentrated in the hands of those who need them the least.
In addition to the challenges imposed by the global economic climate, President Obama has faced extraordinary opposition by the Republicans in the legislature. Many of the acts of congressional Republicans, such as forcing the sequester, bringing the country to the brink of default twice,shutting down the government and blocking a wide variety of legislation designed to minimize the risks posed by the financial sector or to create jobs, have caused harm to the economy and prevented the economy from healing as quickly as would be desirable. However, despite these hurdles, the economy has performed passably overall and thus far, has performed quite well during President Obama's second term. — "
Economic Record: President Obama", politicsthatwork.com, Mar 29, 2015
Over the past forty-five years, Republican presidents have increased debt, and Democrats have diminished it.
View attachment 67200746
Reagan and Bush43 implemented SSE policies that created most of the national debt. Clinton brought us eight years of peace and prosperity. Obama helped prevent a worldwide depression brought on by an economic collapse that was produced by SSE deregulation of the financial sector.
Nixon gave us an invasion of Cambodia, more or less destroying that nation. Bush43, with a big push from Dickhead Chaingang and Donnie Dumbsfeld, brought us an invasion of Iraq. We're still trying to pick up the pieces from that disaster. Carter negotiated a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel that ended major conflicts in the region. The foreign policy "disasters" Obama's critics point to are:
- the death of four Americans at a diplomatic outpost that was located in a very dangerous part of the world
- the withdrawal of our forces from Iraq in 2011, an action mandated by a SOFA signed by Bush
- the presence of ISIL in Libya following the overthrow of a brutal dictator who would have slaughtered thousands of civilians if we had not joined in a NATO action to defend them
That article was published in 2012. If you measure from 2008, when the debt/GDP ratio was 73.5, to 2011 when it was 94.5, Obummer had increased it by 31.2%, which is indeed more than the figure indicated in that chart of around 24-25%. But if you start from the end of 2009, when it was 84.5, the increase is only 14.1%.
It's widely accepted that the Negro can reasonably be held accountable for $250-450 billion of the $1.412 trillion 2009 deficit. Fwiw, I can't say how the author of that
Atlantic piece did his figuring.
But let's look at an update. The ratio is now 104.2, an increase of 41.8% from 2008. Using 2009 as the baseline, the figure is 23.3%. Obummer still has a year to go, but GDP is growing about as fast as the debt, so the ratio won't change much. Reagan's number was 59.5%.
The important thing to remember is that Obama did not create the conditions that led to the very large deficits 2009-2012. GOP SSE policies did.