A leech and a parasite

"I inherited the worst inflation in the history of our country. And now we have almost no inflation," lied Donald Trump in an NBC New interview on February 4.

Inflation hit 9.1 percent in the summer of 2022 as a consequence of Covid-era supply chain disruptions, but that was not nearly the "worst inflation in the history of our country" and Trump wasn't in office to bring it down. By January of 2025, when Trump was sworn in, inflation had fallen all the way to 3 percent. That was the inflation Trump "inherited." A year later inflation is 2.4 percent, all thanks to the Federal Reserve, at which Trump has continually sniped and griped for its inflation fighting efforts.

Not only did Trump not inherit high inflation, but he also didn't do anything to bring down the modestly elevated inflation he did inherit. Trump, however, is always eager to take credit for the accomplishments of others.

Like with this disparagement of Joe Biden at a rally on Thursday, in which he said Biden "was sleeping while you were trying to get a job. You weren’t working, and now we have the most people working in history."

Now, huh? I wonder why there are so many people working right now. Maybe it's because Biden created an astonishing 15.4 million jobs during his four years as president. It's an all time record; no other president has come anywhere close to that many jobs created in a single term. So what Trump actually did inherit, thanks to Biden, is a country with lots of people working.

What, you might wonder, was Trump's contribution to our "now [having] the most people working in history"? This: Trump added a paltry 359,000 jobs total in his first full 12 months in office, for a dismal average of just 30,000 per month. The "sleeping" Joe Biden averaged 321,000 per month over a full four years. Now that's impressive. (You can get authoritative job creation numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)

Trump would like you to think he heroically brought down inflation when he actually had nothing to do with it. There wasn't much remaining by the time he arrived on the scene. And he certainly didn't bring down prices, as he promised he would. (Prices and inflation aren't the same thing.) He'd like you to think the country's record number of people working is his doing too, but his actual performance has been underwhelming, and that's being charitable. He actually had the gall to slander Biden, who really did create unprecedented numbers of jobs. Truly, Trump is a leech and a parasite, always trying glorify himself by taking credit for the accomplishments of others. It's a defining story of his life.

And he thinks you're stupid. He thinks you will swallow whatever he's peddling. I do have to admit, the abject stupidity of his supporters, or at least their stupendous ignorance, is one of the only explanations I can come up with for how Trump gets away with continually spewing outrageous lies, and creating an alternative reality, where he's always the star, that bears no resemblance to the actual one. Such flagrant lying by a president is as unimaginably noxious as it is unprecedented.

I will leave you with the graph below showing total nonfarm employment. It comes from the St. Louis Fed, the Federal Reserve branch responsible for the Fed's economic data. I added my own annotations marking the intervals that Trump has held office. As you can see, in his first term employment continued up at about the same rate as the long term trend Trump had inherited from Obama. So in this and several other respects, Trump can take credit for not screwing up Obama's economy. Which is hardly the economic "miracle" Trump claimed he accomplished. The recovery after the Great Recession of 2008--a catastrophe Obama really did inherit--was one of the longest economic expansions in U.S. history. Trump got in at the end, and promptly took credit for all of it. That's our Donald. Then Covid hit in the final year of his first term, and jobs were decimated. Counting the Covid bloodletting, Trump actually lost millions of jobs over his first term. But fair persons that we are, we won't blame him for those. Suffice to say that Obama created tens of thousands more jobs per month over his final three years as Trump did in his first three.

Now, over a year into his second term, we can see Trump's recent contribution to the employment picture: that pathetic little flat squiggle at the right edge of the graph. That's his contribution to our "now [having] the most people working in history" for which he wants to take credit.

He really is a piece of work, isn't he?

Click on image for a larger view

Copyright (C) 2026 James Michael Brennan, All Rights Reserved 

The latest from Does It Hurt To Think? is here

The complete archive is here

 

 

Trump employment

Click on image for a larger view

 

 

Perplexity on the 2020 election in Michigan

 

A Feb 17, 2026 NYT article titled "Republicans, Braced for Losses, Push More Voting Restrictions in Congress," referred to a 2020 letter from state Michigan Republicans to the state's secretary of state outlining voting concerns. I've been working on a piece on 2020 election conspiracy theories, so it got my attention. The letter itemizes a long list of common Republican complaints which conspiracy theorizers toss around. I didn't have time to fully research the Michigan situation myself at the time, so I decided to ask the Perplexity AI based search tool to provide me a quick overview, and I stashed it here.

Here's what I asked, and what Perplexity answered. 

Question to Perplexity: 

A November 16, 2020 letter by Michigan Republicans to Michigan's secretary of state itemized a long list of election security concerns. Were these ever addressed? Is the election audit process that was already in place likely to uncover election problems of the sort listed in the letter? Were (and are) there sufficient safeguards already in place to detect fraud and other election problems? And to what extent was the 2020 election in Michigan carefully examined? 

Answer from Perplexity:

Michigan’s 2020 election, including the issues raised by Republican legislators in November 2020, was examined in multiple layers by courts, the Michigan Senate, and extensive post‑election audits, and those processes did not find evidence of outcome‑changing fraud while also identifying areas for procedural improvement. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

What happened to the November 2020 Republican concerns?

The November 2020 Republican letters and statements alleged things like ineligible ballots being counted, ballots counted multiple times, improper treatment of absentee ballots, problems with observers, and general vulnerabilities in Detroit and other jurisdictions. [7] [3]

Those themes were specifically examined in later investigations and audits, most notably by the Michigan Senate Oversight Committee (led by Republicans) and by the Bureau of Elections’ post‑election audit program. [2] [3] [6]

The Republican‑led Senate Oversight Committee spent months reviewing fraud allegations, holding hearings, examining documents, and interviewing witnesses; its June 2021 report explicitly concluded that the certified and audited results of the November 2020 election “were accurately represented,” while also listing real vulnerabilities and recommending reforms.​ [3]

 
In other words, the committee treated the kinds of issues raised in those letters as claims to be tested and, after review, rejected the broad fraud narrative while still pushing for changes in training, procedures, and law. [2] [3]

How robust was Michigan’s audit process?

Michigan ran what state officials described as the most comprehensive series of post‑election audits in its history after the 2020 general election, involving more than 250 audits statewide. [5] [6] [1] [2]

These included:

• A statewide “risk‑limiting” audit (RLA) of the presidential race, in which randomly selected paper ballots from across the state were manually checked against machine‑tallied results and found to confirm the outcome. [5] [2]

• Hand‑count audits of selected races (for example, U.S. Senate) in many jurisdictions, comparing paper ballots directly to machine totals to test tabulator accuracy. [1] [2]

• Procedural audits in counties, cities, and townships that examined how absentee ballots were processed, how equipment was secured, and whether local officials followed legal and administrative requirements. [6] [2] [5]

The Michigan Auditor General later reviewed this audit program and concluded that the post‑election audits were effective overall and that the outcome of the 2020 election accurately reflected the will of the voters, while pointing out weaknesses in training, documentation, and oversight of local officials performing audits. [1] [2]

The Bureau of Elections agreed with those findings, implemented or began implementing recommended improvements (such as better training and more formal audit‑related certification), and emphasized that, despite the noted administrative issues, the audits still collectively upheld the accuracy of the 2020 results. [2] [1]

Can these audits catch the kinds of problems alleged?

The main categories of alleged problems in 2020 Michigan—mis‑tabulation by machines, batches counted more than once, counting of ineligible or late absentee ballots, and mishandling of ballots in large cities—map directly onto what risk‑limiting and procedural audits are designed to detect. [8] [7] [5] [2]

• Machine mis‑tabulation or double‑counting: Randomly sampling and hand‑counting paper ballots in an RLA and targeted hand‑count audits of specific contests will reveal if the electronic totals diverge from what is on the paper. If there were large‑scale double‑counting or systematic machine errors, you would expect to see statistically significant discrepancies in those samples, which the audits did not find. [6] [5] [2]

• Widespread use of ineligible or late absentee ballots: While some kinds of eligibility issues can be difficult to detect after the fact, procedural audits examine whether clerks followed rules for signature verification, deadlines, chain of custody, and ballot handling, and they did not uncover systemic failures that could plausibly have changed statewide outcomes. [5] [6] [2]

• Problems with observers and access: These are primarily legal and procedural questions, and they were addressed through litigation and legislative review; courts rejected broad claims that improper observer access undermined the count, and the Senate committee likewise did not find those complaints sufficient to cast doubt on the statewide result. [7] [3]

Experts broadly view risk‑limiting audits, when combined with traditional canvass and recount mechanisms, as a strong safeguard against large‑scale tabulation errors and many types of fraud because they rely on the voter‑verified paper ballots as the ultimate record. [8] [5]

Michigan’s system in 2020 was not perfect—training and documentation gaps were real—but the evidence from audit samples and investigations indicates it was capable of detecting major discrepancies, and it did not reveal any that would call the certified presidential result into question. [3] [6] [1] [2] [5]

Were there sufficient safeguards then, and are there now?

Before 2020, Michigan already had a paper‑ballot system, bipartisan canvassing boards, pre‑ and post‑election testing of voting machines, requirements for post‑election audits, and legal avenues for recounts and court challenges, all of which are standard safeguards against fraud and error. [8] [2] [5]

The post‑2020 reviews demonstrated that these safeguards largely functioned as intended for detecting tabulation problems and major irregularities, while revealing that processes around training, documentation, and audit oversight needed strengthening. [3] [1] [2]

Following 2020, the Bureau of Elections and Legislature pursued additional changes, such as improved training programs and certifications for local officials conducting audits and a broader package of election‑law reforms designed to address vulnerabilities the Senate Oversight Committee identified. [1] [2] [3]

Later statewide elections (for example, 2024) have likewise been followed by recounts and broad audit programs; their results have again reported that Michigan’s election system accurately tabulated votes and met “good general compliance” standards, while continuing to refine procedures. [9] [10]

How thoroughly was the 2020 Michigan election examined?

By early 2021, more than 250 post‑election audits had been completed across Michigan, involving over 1,300 clerks of both parties and nonpartisan officials, and every one of those audits confirmed the accuracy and integrity of the 2020 general election results. [6] [2] [5]

In addition, the Republican‑led Michigan Senate Oversight Committee conducted what it described as a lengthy and thorough investigation into fraud allegations and concluded that the certified and audited results accurately reflected the vote, while recommending reforms rather than any new statewide “forensic” audit. [4] [3]

Multiple court cases in Michigan related to the 2020 election also reviewed and rejected fraud claims, often noting a lack of evidence or unreliable affidavits; while each case was limited to particular issues, the pattern reinforced the findings of audits and legislative inquiry. [4] [3]

Outside fact‑checking organizations reviewing Michigan’s handling of 2020 likewise highlight that the state did not conduct a separate Arizona‑style “forensic” audit because it had already completed what they describe as the most extensive post‑election audit program in its history, which validated the presidential result. [4] [5]

Taken together—court rulings, the large statewide audit program, and the Republican‑led Senate investigation—Michigan’s 2020 election was subject to unusually intensive scrutiny, and those examinations converged on the conclusion that while procedural improvements were needed, there was no evidence of widespread or outcome‑changing fraud of the sort alleged in the November 2020 Republican letters. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [1]

1. https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MISOS/bulletins/30d40e3

2. https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2022/03/04/michigan-elections-auditor-general-report/6979835001/

3. https://www.misenategop.com/senate-oversight-committee-releases-report-on-november-2020-general-election/

4. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/05/14/fact-check-michigan-did-not-authorize-forensic-audit-2020-election/5057526001/

5. https://www.michigan.gov/sos/resources/news/2021/02/12/statewide-election-audit-process-affirms-presidential-election-outcome

6. https://www.michigan.gov/sos/resources/news/2021/03/02/more-than-250-audits-confirm-accuracy-and-integrity-of-michigans-election

7. https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/michigan-republican-senators-request-election-audit-from-secretary-of-state

8. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/review-robust-post-election-audits

9. https://www.michigan.gov/sos/resources/news/2025/10/13/2024-postelection-recount-and-audit-report-confirms-michigans-elections-are-secure-and-accurate

10. https://www.michigan.gov/sos/-/media/Project/Websites/sos/Elections/Ballot-Access/November-2024-post-election-audit-report.pdf?rev=5e193acac9334f13932c72cb8bb39854

Perplixity: The Inflation Reduction Act was "Paid For"

Here's the result of a query to the AI-based Perplexity search engine: 

Was the Inflation Reduction Act actually "paid for"?

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was designed to be "paid for" through a combination of new revenue measures and cost savings, according to official estimates and legislative summaries. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) projected that the law would raise approximately $738 billion in revenue, primarily from tax reforms (such as a 15% minimum tax on large corporations), enhanced IRS enforcement, and prescription drug pricing reforms. The authorized spending was estimated at $891 billion, with the difference expected to reduce the federal deficit.

Key revenue sources included:

• 15% minimum corporate tax on companies earning over $1 billion in profits. 
• Enhanced IRS enforcement to close the tax gap, targeting high-income earners and corporations.
• Prescription drug pricing reforms, including allowing Medicare to negotiate prices, which was projected to lower federal spending on drugs.

Independent analyses and government projections at the time of passage indicated the IRA would reduce the federal deficit over a 10-year period, meaning it was technically "paid for" in the sense that new revenues and savings would offset or exceed new spending. However, some critics argue that the burden of these revenues ultimately falls on taxpayers, either directly or indirectly.

It is important to note:

• Some recent estimates suggest the actual cost of the IRA could be higher than initially projected, especially as more programs are implemented and demand for incentives grows. This has led to debate about whether the law will ultimately be deficit-reducing as originally forecast.
• The law's impact on inflation and its distributional effects remain contested, but the mechanism for "paying for" the bill was clearly outlined in the legislative process and official analyses.

In summary, the Inflation Reduction Act was structured to be "paid for" through a mix of new tax revenues and spending reductions, with official estimates projecting a net reduction in the federal deficit over time. Whether these projections hold in practice depends on future implementation and economic conditions.

The most significant federal legislative achievments of the past 17 years

The following list comes from queries of the AI-based Perplexity search engine requesting the "most significant" legislative accomplishments of various presidential administrations. The partisan vote tallies come from Perplexity.In the partisan vote tallies below, "Democrats" includes independents who caucused with the Democrats. 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (2008) - (Bush) Passed toward the end of the George W. Bush administration, as the Great Recession was building momentum. In the House, Democrats voted 172 in favor and 63 against, and Republicans voted 91 in favor and 108 against. In the Senate, Democrats voted 40 in favor and 10 against; Republicans voted 35 in favor and 15 against.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - (Obama) Additional economic stimulus to mitigate the effects of the Great Recession. In the House, 246 Democrats voted in favor, and 7 against. All Republicans voted against. In the Senate, all 58 Democrats voted in favor, 3 Republicans voted in favor, and 38 Republicans voted against. The bill received a total of 3 Republicans votes in the entire Congress.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (2009) - (Obama) Strengthened laws against pay discrimination based on gender. In the House, 247 Democrats voted in favor, and 5 against; 3 Republicans voted in favor, and 172 against. In the Senate, all but 5 Democrats supported the bill (Edward Kennedy was absent for health reasons), and all but 5 Republicans opposed it. The bill received 8 Republican votes in the entire Congress.

The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (2009) - (Obama) Expanded federal hate crime protections to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. In the House, 231 Democrats voted in favor, and 18 Republicans did. In the Senate, 63 Democrats voted in favor, and 5 Republicans did.

The Affordable Care Act (2010) - (Obama) Expanded health insurance coverage to millions of Americans. In the House, 219 Democrats voted in favor of the bill, and 34 voted against it. In the Senate, all 60 Democrats voted in favor, and 39 Republicans voted against it. (One Republican did not vote). The bill passed without a single Republican vote.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010) - (Obama) Implemented regulations to prevent future financial crises and, notably, established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In the House, 234 Democrats voted in favor, whereas just 3 Republicans did. In the Senate, 57 voted in favor, whereas just 3 Republicans did. One Democrat voted against. The bill received just 6 Republican votes in the entire Congress.

The Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 - (Obama) Ended the ban on openly LGBTQ individuals serving in the military. In the House, 235 Democrats voted in favor, and 15 against. Because the bill's passed 250-175, we can infer that 15 House Republicans voted in favor, and 160 Republicans voted against. In the Senate, all but one Democrat voted in favor, and 8 Republicans voted in favor.

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (2017) - (Trump) The most sweeping overhaul of the U.S. tax system in over 30 years. The benefits were disproportionately favorable to corporations and high-income earners. In the House, 227 Republicans voted in favor, and 12 voted against. No Democrats voted for the bill. In the Senate, 51 Republicans voted in favor, and 1 against. No Democrats voted for the bill in the Senate or in the entire Congress.

Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (2018) - (Trump) Rolled back key provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act by reducing reporting requirements for institutions with fewer than 500 loans annually. House Republicans voted 225 for, 1 against, and 8 didn't vote. Democrats voted 33 for, 158 against, and 2 didn't vote. In the Senate, all Republicans and 17 Democrats voted in favor; 32 Democrats voted against.

Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (2017) - (Trump) Bipartisan legislation imposed sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea. The bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.

Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act (2017) - (Trump) Aimed at combating elder abuse, this law enhanced DOJ requirements for investigating elder abuse crimes, improved victim assistance, and bolstered data collection. Passed unanimously in both houses of Congress.

Women, Peace, and Security Act (2017) - (Trump) Focused on increasing women's participation in conflict prevention and resolution globally. The bill was approved in the House on a voice vote. According to Perplexity, the bill appears to have been approved by the Senate by unanimous consent.

Non-legislative Trump Administration policy changes (provided unsolicited by Perplexity along with legislative achievments) - Major regulatory rollbacks including environmental rules like the Waters of the United States Rule and fuel economy standards under the SAFE Vehicles Rule. Significantly weakened the Affordable Care Act after an attempt to repeal it failed. Implemented travel bans from Muslim countries and ended protections for certain immigrant groups under programs like Temporary Protected Status. Family separation under "Zero Tolerance" policy. Renegotiated NAFTA. Established a commission on election integrity, which disbanded in January 2018 after 9 months of operation without finding any evidence to support claims of widespread voter fraud. Rescinded Obama-era housing regulations under AFFH, and modernized NEPA to expedite infrastructure projects.

American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 - (Biden) A $1.9 trillion stimulus package to address the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, including direct payments to Americans, extended unemployment benefits, and funding for vaccine distribution. In the House, all but two Democrats voted in favor. All Republicans voted against. In the Senate, all Democrats voted in favor, and all Republicans voted against, with one Republican absent. The bill did not get a single Republican vote in the entire Congress.

Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (2021) - (Biden) A major investment in America's infrastructure, allocating nearly $600 billion ($1.2 trillion total authorized funding) for improvements to roads, bridges, public transit, rail, ports, airports, water systems, and high-speed internet access. All but 6 Democrats voted for the law in the House. Only 13 Republicans did. In the Senate, all 50 Democrats voted in favor. 19 Republicans voted in favor, and 30 against.

Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 - (Biden) The largest ever investment in clean energy and climate action, which also aimed to reduce healthcare costs and make the tax code fairer. In the House, all Democrats voted in favor, and all Republicans voted against. In the Senate, all 50 Democrats voted in favor, while all 50 Republicans voted against, with the Vice President breaking the tie. The bill did not get a single Republican vote in the entire Congress.

CHIPS and Science Act (2022) - (Biden) Legislation to bolster the semiconductor and manufacturing industry in the United States. All but one Democrat voted for the bill in the House. Just 24 Republicans voted in favor. In the Senate, all Democrats but one voted in favor, and 17 Republicans voted in favor.

Respect for Marriage Act (2022) - (Biden) Codified same-sex and interracial marriage in the United States. In the House, all Democrats and 39 Republicans voted in favor. 169 Republicans voted against. In the Senate, All 49 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted in favor. 36 Republicans voted against. 

Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (2022) - (Biden) The first major federal gun control law in nearly three decades. In the House, 220 Democrats voted in favor. Only 14 Republicans voted in favor, with 193 against. In the Senate, 50 Democrats and 15 Republicans voted in favor, with 35 Republicans voting against. 

Honoring our PACT Act (2022) - (Biden) Expanded health care for US veterans exposed to toxic substances during their service. In the House, all Democrats and 34 Republicans voted in favor; 174 Republicans voted against. In the Senate, all Democrats and 34 Republicans voted in favor; 11 Republicans voted against. 

Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act (2022) - (Biden) Aimed at clarifying the electoral vote counting process. In the House, all Democrats and 9 Republicans voted in favor; 201 Republicans voted against. In the Senate, all Democrats and 18 Republicans voted in favor, with 29 Republicans voting against.  

Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 - (Biden) Addressed the debt-ceiling crisis by restraining federal spending and implementing various fiscal reforms. In the House, 165 Democrats voted in favor, and 46 Democrats voted against. 149 Republicans voted in favor, and 71 voted against. In the Senate, 47 Democrats voted in favor, and 5 voted against. 17 Republicans voted in favor, and 31 against. 

Social Security Fairness Act (2024) - (Biden) Addressed inequities in Social Security benefits for certain government employees. In the House, 191 Democrats voted in favor, with 4 opposed. 136 Republicans voted in favor, with 71 opposed. In the Senate, 49 Democrats voted in favor, and none against. 27 Republicans voted in favor, and 20 against.

Trump and Obama inauguration crowd photos

 

Click on image for a larger view. Maximize your browser window to get the best effect. Photos were taken from atop the Washington Monument, showing much more open space on the National Mall during Trump's inauguration in 2017 compared to Obama's in 2009. The high angle of these photos give a more accurate indication of open space compared to low angle shots that make the crowds look denser. You can see similar side-by-side photos in a Washington Post article on the crowd sizes.

Trump's "economic miracle" wasn't miraculous

Donald Trump frequently claimed during his presidency that he was presiding over an "economic miracle." More recently he has claimed repeatedly that his was the best economy in U.S. history. That's patently absurd.

Average annual GDP growth for Trump's first three years was 2.49 percent. I exclude the disastrous 2020 because of the enormous pandemic-caused decline that year.

For purposes of comparison, Obama's final three years saw average annual GDP growth of 2.22 percent—a little lower than Trump's, but the difference is negligible.

Obama's first year, 2009, saw a huge decline thanks to the ongoing financial crisis he inherited from Bush. Excluding that year, as I did Trump's 2020, the average for Obama's presidency was 2.15 percent. But the dig-out from the financial crisis—the worst downturn since the Great Depression—essentially occupied Obama's entire presidency. Recovery from financial crises is slow in the best of cases. The slow recovery was exacerbated by years of misguided fiscal austerity imposed by the Republican-controlled Congress. Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz had predicted the return to economic normalcy would take about a decade, and that proved to be fairly prescient.

To calculate the Trump and Obama GDP values I simply summed each year's rate and divided by the number of years. Investopedia apparently uses a different methodology. It has Trump and Obama tied at 2.3 percent over their presidencies.

Presidencies with the highest GDP growth rates include JFK and LBJ at 5.2 percent each, Clinton at 4 percent, and Reagan at 3.6 percent. Clinton had seven years over 3 percent, and four years over 4 percent. Trump never even hit 3 percent. Even Jimmy Carter beat Trump by half a point, with 2.8 percent average GDP growth over his presidency.

By comparison to those strong economies, Trump's GDP growth rate was middling at best. It was in most respects just an unremarkable continuation of Obama's economy. Not a miracle. Not even close to the best ever. And by other metrics, such as monthly jobs created, Trump substantially under-performed Obama and was blown away by Biden. Biden's job creation has been off-the-charts incredible, with about 16 million jobs created in his first (and only) term. No other president in U.S. history has come close to that.