A few points that I cannot consider are:

Can’t judge presidents in a vacuum. No president before Obama has EVER faced a conspiracy from day one from the opposing party of blanket obstruction. Even given that lockstep conspiracy the president got legislation that fundamentally improved the lives of U.S. citizens, from ending “pre-existing condition” insurance exclusions to re-regulating the financial sector that caused the Great Recession. for all the endless GOP blather about “repeal and replace”, there was, and in many instances still is strong conservative resistance to the “replace”, largely from those whose insurance access was guaranteed. Nevertheless those forces will lose. The GOP will come up with a replacement, not just a repeal, working poor Americans will, for the first time in many decades, have access to coverage and care, or the GOP will pay a tough political price.

“Unprecedented regulation”? Be specific. Just a buzz phrase otherwise. Government programs during the Great Depression? Chump change in comparison to the economy’s spending deficit during those years. Just curious though, how would 5 million more jobless, starving civilians have either found work or prompted capital to reinvest? Does capital invest for ANY other reason than to meet actual or projected demand? Does capital invest for humanitarian reasons? Free Trade sparking the economy during a global depression? How? Now plunging into REAL deficit spending to arm the Allies and hiring millions into the military, that did put the country back to work but you’ll have to explain to me how and why the “invisible hand” would have persuaded or forced capital which was appreciating in value in a deflationary trend to leave shelter and chase non-existent or flat demand.

That period from ’46 through ’66 was a period of MASSIVE government investment in human capital and infrastructure, part of what allowed the population increase. People don’t tend to HAVE kids unless they have jobs, homes, prospects. Since the middle 70’s we have MASSIVELY scaled back those investments, and oddly enough our economy has flattened. We have followed the course of “supply side” theory that posited cutting marginal tax rates and leaving more money in the hands of the wealthy would stimulate investment and growth, and oddly enough we have seen the “bottom” 80% of American’s share of wealth shrink from 60% to around 10%. simultaneously we have seen 40 years of flat wages and a shrinking middle class. Who could have seen that in an economy that is 70% consumption, shrinking the disposable wealth of 80 percent of consumers would cause flat growth?

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.