PDA

View Full Version : Obama How Much Is Obama Really to Blame for the Economy?


|Zach|
08-15-2011, 07:13 PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/how-much-is-obama-really-to-blame-for-the-economy/243598/

President Obama was eager to meet real, suffering Americans in the troubled Midwest, and when he got there he promised "to do everything" he could to address the economic crisis that he had "inherited," one that he said was "as deep and as dire as any since the Great Depression."

The date was February 9, 2009; the place was Elkhart, Ind. It was the newly inaugurated president's first trip out of Washington. This week, as Obama returns to the Midwest for another attempt at assuaging the nation's economic distress, the issue that he once said he had inherited--and few people disagreed with that assessment then--is seen by more and more people as his own problem.

So a new cynicism greets the president on his bus tour through the heartland. Still, even at this late date it is fair to ask: In purely economic terms, how much of this crisis is really Obama's problem, and how much better might he have done to fix it? The answer is: probably not that much.

"A long, long period of halting and slow growth was baked in the cake when he took office," said Harvard University economist Kenneth Rogoff, a former adviser to Obama's 2008 GOP opponent, John McCain, and the co-author of an acclaimed 2009 book on the nature of economic crises, This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly. "It's very difficult after such a huge credit bubble and financial collapse to recover all that much faster than we've been doing. It wouldn't have mattered if McCain had won. We would have been in a similar situation."

The traumatic events around the world that have been exacerbating the recovery, especially Europe's debt crisis, are mostly out of Obama's control. That too was more or less predetermined, Rogoff said. "The sovereign debt woes in Europe are prototypical of a financial crisis of this size," he said. The only difference this time is that the new fact of the eurozone might have made things worse, Rogoff added, because it prevented individually troubled nations such as Greece from devaluing their currencies and recovering faster.

But there is general agreement on both sides of the aisle that Obama could have done a better job of leadership, both at home and globally. That he could have done much more to make Americans and the rest of the world believe he was indeed doing "everything" to tackle the toughest issues and thus restore what JPMorgan Chase Chairman Jamie Dimon, a sometime Obama adviser, last week called the "secret sauce" to any economic recovery: confidence.

As Obama himself seemed to understand at the outset, the economic devastation he faced was the worst in 80 years. It was far worse, in other words, than anything Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, or Gorge H.W. Bush had to overcome. And because this recession was caused by an unprecedented financial collapse, history shows that it was destined to be longer-lived than most.

The numbers tell part of that story. What Rogoff calls the Great Contraction is essentially an inversion of the debt-inflated consumer bubble of the 2000s, a continuing collapse of demand that has lingered longer than many of Obama's top advisers or the Federal Reserve thought would occur. Though the recovery technically began in June 2009, the reason for this "jobless recovery" is pretty straightforward: Consumers aren't buying, stores aren't selling, and as a result companies aren't making--or hiring. That has been exacerbated by a credit crunch that is also historic. Consumer confidence is at the lowest level since 1980, new data show.

Unemployment trends also indicate that it is somewhat unfair to accuse Obama, as his GOP opponents are wont to do, of driving up the jobless rate beyond what it was when he took office. The official recession began in December 2007, more than a year before he became president, and ended in June 2009, some five months into his presidency. But the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator; in November of 2008, the month of Obama's election, it was still only 6.8 percent, though it had slowly climbed from December and it reached a height of 7.8 percent in January, just before Obama was sworn in. Still driven by what began as George W. Bush's recession, it didn't bottom out until nine months into Obama's term, 10.1 percent in October of 2009, and then barely began to decline over the next two years.

Today, the unemployment rate continues to hover above 9 percent, below the worst levels at the recession's bottom. Elkhart itself is down to 10.1 percent from the 15 percent level it reached during Obama's inaugural visit, although that's still double what it was in the 2000s.

This doesn't mean, however, that there was nothing else Obama could have done. In retrospect, that Elkhart speech in early 2009 presaged the president's biggest current problem: the perception that he is a naïve, weak leader who has allowed both the GOP and Wall Street to get the better of him, and who by trying to do too much at once did too little. Even then, trying to be all things to everyone, Obama was muddying the message and leaving himself open to savage Republican counterattacks. In Elkhart, he tried to sell what was actually a giant shot of adrenalin to an economy with a stopped heart--in other words, a pure emergency measure, the nearly $800 billion stimulus package--as a long-term restructuring plan that would "lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth." Obama thus fed GOP suspicions that he was just another Big Government liberal.

After the stimulus passed, Obama and his team took great pride in preventing the economy from falling into another Great Depression, while at the same time fighting two wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq. But he quickly grew distracted by other issues, especially by health care reform. Obama seemed to pay less attention, as if just successfully avoiding the abyss were the main job. "The plan that we put forward will save or create 3 to 4 million jobs over the next two years," Obama had pledged that day in Elkhart. According to Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute, "there is pretty strong consensus in the economics community that the stimulus did pretty much what it said it was going to do. It created or saved between 3 to 4 million jobs. But the gap in the labor market is 11 million--that's how many payroll jobs we've lost since the start, plus the number of jobs we didn't add."

Obama, in other words, failed to keep his eye on the biggest thing on his agenda by far: an ongoing historic disaster, created by an out-of-control era of credit expansion and a predecessor administration that seemed not to care a whit about fiscal responsibility or oversight of the financial system. Above all, Obama left himself to appear weak--hardly confidence-instilling--by constantly appealing to Republicans and especially to Wall Street, one of the biggest culprits in the crisis, for help.

In a speech at Cooper Union in New York in April 2010, he spoke again "of a financial crisis as dire as any we've known in generations. And that crisis was born of a failure of responsibility--from Wall Street to Washington--that brought down many of the world's largest financial firms and nearly dragged our economy into a second Great Depression." Yet even there Obama seemed to pretend that Wall Street was on his side. "Ultimately, there is no dividing line between Main Street and Wall Street," he declared. "We rise or we fall together as one nation. So I urge you to join me."

Meanwhile, health care reform totally dominated the Washington agenda for the next year, sapping Obama of what remaining political capital he had if he wanted to bring additional stimulus measures. Did the health care system need attention? Of course, but not necessarily in the middle of an unprecedented economic disaster, and not at the expense of permitting the chief culprits in the disaster to escape whipping. Surveys show that both Left and Right, liberals and conservatives, were united in wanting to see fundamental change to Wall Street and big finance. Yet rather than seizing the chance at the kind of leadership that might have unified a good part of the country, Obama threw himself into an issue that divided Left and Right as never before, and which was not directly related to the historic crisis at hand. "He was too generous to the financial system. He followed a set of policies aimed at preserving the status quo," Rogoff said.

It is a status quo that much of the country now identifies with Barack Obama.

HonestChieffan
08-15-2011, 07:20 PM
He said he would fix it.

He made it worse.


Really pretty simple.

Mr. Kotter
08-15-2011, 07:20 PM
The political history of the U.S. demonstrates consistently....that Presidents always receive much more credit AND blame, than they ever deserve for the economic ups and downs of the business cycle--and the abuses, exploitations, and extremes of 'free market capitalism' (or the mixed economy, which we have embraced...but errs too much on the side of 'freedom' far too often.)

The American people, generally, are too lazy, too complacent, and too dumb to expect otherwise.

patteeu
08-15-2011, 07:21 PM
Obama says he never told us that he could deliver change we can believe in in 18 months. Except that he did and he didn't deliver.

http://freedomist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Democrat-Projection-of-Unemployment-Rate-With-Stimulus.jpg

Mr. Kotter
08-15-2011, 07:25 PM
He said he would fix it.

He made it worse.


Really pretty simple.

I suppose you believed all the empty promises of W too? Heh.

You know how you can tell if a politician is lying? His lips are moving. LMAO

Hog Farmer
08-15-2011, 07:25 PM
You gotta be kidding me, He's Osamas half brother !

HonestChieffan
08-15-2011, 07:26 PM
Tornados in Alabama and Kansas
Tea Party
Bush
Boehner
Tsunami in Japan
Arab Spring
Bush

If Presidents get too much blame and too much Credit in Obamas case, would Bush not get the same bye?


Anything but Obama.

Brainiac
08-15-2011, 08:01 PM
The political history of the U.S. demonstrates consistently....that Presidents always receive much more credit AND blame, than they ever deserve for the economic ups and downs of the business cycle--and the abuses, exploitations, and extremes of 'free market capitalism' (or the mixed economy, which we have embraced...but errs too much on the side of 'freedom' far too often.)

The American people, generally, are too lazy, too complacent, and too dumb to expect otherwise.

Presidents who fail always use that excuse.

Presidents who succeed take the credit they are due.

HonestChieffan
08-15-2011, 08:02 PM
I suppose you believed all the empty promises of W too? Heh.

You know how you can tell if a politician is lying? His lips are moving. LMAO

How long will Bush be responsible for the worlds evils?

mlyonsd
08-15-2011, 08:07 PM
QUICK, CIRCLE THE WAGONS....all that bull shit we were spouting in 2008 on how we would fix things didn't come through because of....an earthquake....and other shit.

Too funny.

mlyonsd
08-15-2011, 08:09 PM
How long will Bush be responsible for the worlds evils?Probably a long time because I'm still blaming FDR for our current predicament.

Bewbies
08-15-2011, 08:11 PM
Obama has literally had less impact on the economy than my dog has.

mlyonsd
08-15-2011, 08:15 PM
Obama has literally had less impact on the economy than my dog has.Did your dog sign into law a $800+ billion stimulus bill for no gain it's pups would have to pay off?

If your answer is no I deem your statment correct.

suzzer99
08-15-2011, 08:30 PM
2.5 million jobs is not no gain. The stimulus cost $666 billion and half of that was tax cuts. I thought you guys love tax cuts above all else? Obama could cut your taxes in half, you would call it a stimulus, and blame him when the economy tanked.

mlyonsd
08-15-2011, 08:36 PM
2.5 million jobs is not no gain. The stimulus cost $666 billion and half of that was tax cuts. I thought you guys love tax cuts above all else? Obama could cut your taxes in half, you would call it a stimulus, and blame him when the economy tanked.Serously dude, check your math and your facts.

Bewbies
08-15-2011, 08:37 PM
2.5 million jobs is not no gain. The stimulus cost $666 billion and half of that was tax cuts. I thought you guys love tax cuts above all else? Obama could cut your taxes in half, you would call it a stimulus, and blame him when the economy tanked.

I could tell you that there are tiny purple men on mars, and we'd have the same starting point of a debate that you propose here.

petegz28
08-15-2011, 08:37 PM
2.5 million jobs is not no gain. The stimulus cost $666 billion and half of that was tax cuts. I thought you guys love tax cuts above all else? Obama could cut your taxes in half, you would call it a stimulus, and blame him when the economy tanked.

How many of those were Gov jobs?

suzzer99
08-15-2011, 08:50 PM
Who cares. A job is a job. And lots of them weren't govt jobs. You're boy Rick Perry seemed to think it was ok when he took the stimulus money.

2bikemike
08-15-2011, 08:50 PM
While I view Obama as a horrible president partially for reasons mentioned in the OP. I place more of the blame on Congress. Both past and present.

petegz28
08-15-2011, 08:53 PM
Who cares. A job is a job. And lots of them weren't govt jobs. You're boy Rick Perry seemed to think it was ok when he took the stimulus money.

Because government jobs cost the tax payer, fool! And Rick Perry is not my boy, that's 0-2 in 1 post.

petegz28
08-15-2011, 08:54 PM
While I view Obama as a horrible president partially for reasons mentioned in the OP. I place more of the blame on Congress. Both past and present.

And the Federal Reserve and Treasury.

ChiTown
08-15-2011, 08:54 PM
Who cares. A job is a job.

Really? So a job in the public sector that doesn't create wealth is the same as a job in the private sector that does? Gotcha.

suzzer99
08-15-2011, 08:58 PM
When no one else is hiring? Yes. We live in a consumer-based economy if you hadn't noticed. People without jobs make shitty consumers. Also our infrastructure is falling apart and a lot of stuff needs to be fixed.

Business is sitting on their hands right now. The nice thing about govt spending is they don't have a profit motive, so they invest in hiring people and doing projects rain or shine. If we kill govt spending right now and the rich don't immediately jump up and start creating jobs like you all think they will - we are all fucked. The economy will go into a massive death spiral that makes this recession look like a boom time.

That is where you tea party types are so out of touch with reality.

Bewbies
08-15-2011, 09:03 PM
When no one else is hiring? Yes. We live in a consumer-based economy if you hadn't noticed. People without jobs make shitty consumers. Also our infrastructure is falling apart and a lot of stuff needs to be fixed.

Business is sitting on their hands right now. The nice thing about govt spending is they don't have a profit motive, so they invest in hiring people and doing projects rain or shine. If we kill govt spending right now and the rich don't immediately jump up and start creating jobs like you all think they will - we are all ****ed. The economy will go into a massive death spiral that makes this recession look like a boom time.

That is where you tea party types are so out of touch with reality.

Clearly.

petegz28
08-15-2011, 09:03 PM
When no one else is hiring? Yes. We live in a consumer-based economy if you hadn't noticed. People without jobs make shitty consumers. Also our infrastructure is falling apart and a lot of stuff needs to be fixed.

Business is sitting on their hands right now. The nice thing about govt spending is they don't have a profit motive, so they invest in hiring people and doing projects rain or shine. If we kill govt spending right now and the rich don't immediately jump up and start creating jobs like you all think they will - we are all ****ed. The economy will go into a massive death spiral that makes this recession look like a boom time.

That is where you tea party types are so out of touch with reality.

Pass whatever it is you are toking cause it must be some good shit!

suzzer99
08-15-2011, 09:05 PM
Yeah it's not like a majority of economists hold the same views or anything. Just some loopy nut out in space.

petegz28
08-15-2011, 09:06 PM
Yeah it's not like a majority of economists hold the same views or anything. Just some loopy nut out in space.

What majority of what economists? When are you going to learn Keynsian economics is not going to get us out of this mess. It's just going to make it worse. Particularly because you have an economicaly ignorant President and Democratic party running things.

ChiTown
08-15-2011, 09:07 PM
When no one else is hiring? Yes. We live in a consumer-based economy if you hadn't noticed. People without jobs make shitty consumers. Also our infrastructure is falling apart and a lot of stuff needs to be fixed.

Who do you think pays for those Gov't jobs that do not create wealth?

By the way, I am a business owner and a partner in two different businesses, so I have a decent feel what drives the US economy - and it's not Gov't jobs.

Bewbies
08-15-2011, 09:12 PM
Yeah it's not like a majority of economists hold the same views or anything. Just some loopy nut out in space.

It wasn't long ago that ALL scientists agreed that man made global warming was going to destroy the earth.

patteeu
08-15-2011, 09:13 PM
Who cares. A job is a job. And lots of them weren't govt jobs. You're boy Rick Perry seemed to think it was ok when he took the stimulus money.

He took the money because he had a job to do on behalf of Texans. It doesn't mean he thought it was ok for the Feds. In fact, he criticized it.

petegz28
08-15-2011, 09:18 PM
It wasn't long ago that ALL scientists agreed that man made global warming was going to destroy the earth.

And EVERYONE knew the world was flat...

And EVERYONE knew the earth was the center of the universe...

The supposed "top economist" in the country, the illustrious Ben Bernanke, has been wrong at every turn....

But let's not dwell on facts

Mr. Kotter
08-15-2011, 09:26 PM
How many of those were Gov jobs?

Actually, government jobs have recently been DECLINING; which is part of the reason unemployment remains sluggish--private sector gains are helping, but are being held back by government (local, state, national...OVERALL, declines) job losses. Nevermind though, because some folks just don't care about facts and all. Heh.

petegz28
08-15-2011, 09:28 PM
Actually, government jobs have recently been DECLINING; which is part of the reason unemployment remains sluggish--private sector gains are helping, but are being held back by government (local, state, national...OVERALL, declines) job losses. Nevermind though, because some folks just don't care about facts and all. Heh.

Yeah, recently.....so much for the claim of 2.5 mil jobs created then, heh?

2bikemike
08-15-2011, 09:29 PM
Who do you think pays for those Gov't jobs that do not create wealth?

By the way, I am a business owner and a partner in two different businesses, so I have a decent feel what drives the US economy - and it's not Gov't jobs.

Exactly,

It really is quite simple. The road to financial success requires you to spend less than you take in and put your money into things that will give you a return on your money. Something the Govt does not do.

Hiring Govt employees ends up costing the Govt much more than they would ever get in return. Building High Speed rail will do nothing to bring more into Govt. Coffers in fact it will drain more from those coffers long after the initial investment. This is just an example of things the Govt should not be involved in. If there was money to be made an entrepanuer would have done it by now.

BucEyedPea
08-15-2011, 09:30 PM
He took the money because he had a job to do on behalf of Texans. It doesn't mean he thought it was ok for the Feds. In fact, he criticized it.

Typical criticizing it but taking the money. Texas had a long anti-debt history but I hear Perry changed that by issuing nearly $15 billion in road bonds, and getting a line of credit for another $20 billion. Perry is the banksters' boy....not to mention big Pharma. Oh brother are we in trouble.

BucEyedPea
08-15-2011, 09:31 PM
Actually, government jobs have recently been DECLINING; which is part of the reason unemployment remains sluggish--private sector gains are helping, but are being held back by government (local, state, national...OVERALL, declines) job losses. Nevermind though, because some folks just don't care about facts and all. Heh.

I have to see a link or some source on that. I heard govt jobs have increased in the last ten years and more now.

Mr. Kotter
08-15-2011, 09:32 PM
Yeah, recently.....so much for the claim of 2.5 mil jobs created then, heh?

Overall, he's right; GOVERNMENT jobs (spawn of the Debil!!!) have been the only ones declining.

Don't you speak English? :shrug:

petegz28
08-15-2011, 09:33 PM
Overall, he's right; GOVERNMENT jobs (spawn of the Debil!!!) have been the only ones declining.

Don't you speak English? :shrug:

Which brings us back to the original point....nice try at having it both ways but you pretty much just fucked yourself.

KC native
08-15-2011, 09:34 PM
....everyone say it with me, PRESIDENTS HAVE LITTLE TO NO IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY.

petegz28
08-15-2011, 09:34 PM
I have to see a link or some source on that. I heard govt jobs have increased in the last ten years and more now.

He's smoking crack....on one hand he wants to tout how many gov jobs were created and the other wants to say how they were declining when it gets pointed out that most of the job creation were gov jobs

KC native
08-15-2011, 09:35 PM
with the exception of Hoover.

Mr. Kotter
08-15-2011, 09:42 PM
I have to see a link or some source on that. I heard govt jobs have increased in the last ten years and more now.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/factchecking-the-pledge/

http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/july-jobs-numbers-there-no-silver-lining

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/08/263588/the-conservative-recovery-continues-2/

Mr. Kotter
08-15-2011, 09:49 PM
....everyone say it with me, PRESIDENTS HAVE LITTLE TO NO IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY.

Drunk, dope smoking, and just plain stupid "tea party" types....just don't get that. Just sayin'.

BucEyedPea
08-15-2011, 09:57 PM
Drunk, dope smoking, and just plain stupid "tea party" types....just don't get that. Just sayin'.

They can if they are too interventionist in trying to fix it...as Obama has tried to do. He's even taken credit for reversing the recession... until bad luck. Getting in they way, especially his way, prevents recovery. Other than that the Fed Reserve has more impact however, it provides that stimulus money that a Keynesian leader wants to spend.

No one man can know all the areas and needs and wants of every individual in an economy. But some do try that...and it makes things worse. The economy should have been allowed to recover on its own and it would have corrected by two years into it.

ClevelandBronco
08-15-2011, 11:23 PM
What do you mean by "blame"? I thought he wanted credit for saving us all from a much worse economy.

Guess you're not buying it either.

KC native
08-16-2011, 12:54 AM
Drunk, dope smoking, and just plain stupid "tea party" types....just don't get that. Just sayin'.

hey, don't defame weed smokers.

petegz28
08-16-2011, 05:18 AM
Drunk, dope smoking, and just plain stupid "tea party" types....just don't get that. Just sayin'.

Obviously you don't either

blaise
08-16-2011, 07:12 AM
Drunk, dope smoking, and just plain stupid "tea party" types....just don't get that. Just sayin'.

Yeah, must have been those tea party types that blamed Bush for the economy during his presidency.

Jaric
08-16-2011, 07:46 AM
Drunk, dope smoking, and just plain stupid "tea party" types....just don't get that. Just sayin'.

What horseshit.

If you want to make the claim that only dope smoking tea partiers believe the president controls the economy then you need to explain the hordes of liberals who all still blame Bush for our economic woes.

ROYC75
08-16-2011, 08:41 AM
Exactly,

It really is quite simple. The road to financial success requires you to spend less than you take in and put your money into things that will give you a return on your money. Something the Govt does not do.

Hiring Govt employees ends up costing the Govt much more than they would ever get in return. Building High Speed rail will do nothing to bring more into Govt. Coffers in fact it will drain more from those coffers long after the initial investment. This is just an example of things the Govt should not be involved in. If there was money to be made an entrepanuer would have done it by now.

BINGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

And the Loons never seem to understand this?

ROYC75
08-16-2011, 08:44 AM
Drunk, dope smoking, and just plain stupid "tea party" types....just don't get that. Just sayin'.

Rob, for the most part, many here just feel Obama was a poor leader, community organizing was his forte, not POTUS.

ChiTown
08-16-2011, 08:50 AM
What horseshit.

If you want to make the claim that only dope smoking tea partiers believe the president controls the economy then you need to explain the hordes of liberals who all still blame Bush for our economic woes.

Isn't that just priceless? I thought the following article was pretty poignant from Freerepublic.com: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2759233/posts#comment

A few inconvenient truths getting in the way of the “We inherited the financial crisis” meme
Hotair ^ | 08/05/2011 | Ed Morrissey
Posted on Fri Aug 05 2011 16:02:31 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by SeekAndFind

As Barack Obama continues to blame his predecessor for the tanking economy and the chronic unemployment that Obama promised to avoid with his big stimulus package more than two years ago, and as other Democrats get aboard the Blameshift Express, Byron York attempts to set the record straight. He focuses on the claim that eight years of spending and “reckless tax cuts” by the Bush administration bankrupted the country. When one looks at the numbers, the Democratic argument doesn’t stand up at all:

This week a Florida Democratic representative, Corrine Brown, explained her vote against the debt-ceiling agreement by citing “eight years of horribly reckless spending and excessive tax cuts for the rich under President Bush and the Republican Congress.”

Some critics have trouble with even the most basic facts. George W. Bush was indeed president for eight years. But do Brown and her colleagues remember that Congress was fully controlled by Republicans just four of those eight years? The GOP ran the House from 2001 to 2007, Bush’s first six years in office, while Republicans only controlled the Senate from 2003 to 2007. (In Bush’s first three months, the Senate was divided 50-50 until the May 2001 defection of Republican Sen. James Jeffords gave Democrats control.)

As far as tax cuts are concerned, Bush did indeed cut taxes for the wealthy — along with everybody else who paid income taxes. But does Brown remember that tax revenues actually increased in the years after the Bush tax cuts took effect?

Revenues fell in Bush’s first two years because of a combination of the tech bust and the start of the tax cuts. But then things took off. After taking in $1.782 trillion in tax revenues in 2003, the government collected $1.88 trillion in 2004; $2.153 trillion in 2005; $2.406 trillion in 2006; and $2.567 trillion in 2007, according to figures compiled by the Office of Management and Budget. That’s a 44 percent increase from 2003 to 2007. (Revenues slid downward a bit in 2008, and a lot in 2009, when the financial crisis sent the economy into a tailspin.) “Everybody talks about how much the Bush tax cuts ‘cost,’” says one GOP strategist. “We’re saying, no, they led to a huge increase in revenue.”

And deficits shrank. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus in 2001, the Bush administration ran up deficits of $158 billion in 2002; $378 billion in 2003; and $413 billion in 2004. Then, with revenues pouring in, the deficits began to fall: $318 billion in 2005; $248 billion in 2006; and $161 billion in 2007. That 2007 deficit, with the tax cuts in effect, was one-tenth of today’s $1.6 trillion deficit.

York notes that it wasn’t until Democrats took over Congress in 2007 — including one Democrat named Barack Obama in the Senate — that deficits began exploding.

Next, Harry Reid said that the loss of eight million jobs came during “the Bush eight years” in a floor speech this week, a claim that Politifact rated as “pants on fire”:

“My friend (Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.) talks about no new taxes,” Reid said. “Mr. President, if their theory was right, with these huge (tax cuts) that took place during the Bush eight years, the economy should be thriving. These tax cuts have not helped the economy. The loss of eight million jobs during the Bush eight years, two wars started, unfunded, all on borrowed money, these tax cuts all on borrowed money — if the tax cuts were so good, the economy should be thriving. If we go back to the prior eight years during President Clinton’s administration, 23 million new jobs were created.”

A reader asked us whether Reid was correct that there was a “loss of eight million jobs during the Bush eight years.” So we looked into it.

As always, we looked at jobs numbers compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the government’s official source of employment data.

During Bush’s eight years in office — January 2001 to January 2009 — the nation actually gained a net 1.09 million jobs. (Because there were gains in government jobs, the private sector actually lost 653,000 jobs during that period.)

This isn’t remotely close to what Reid claimed. Reid’s office didn’t respond to our request for information, but we think we know what he was referring to.

From the economy’s peak to its low point, the nation lost 8.75 million jobs. Here’s the problem: The peak for jobs came in January 2008, while the low point for jobs came in February 2010. This means the starting point for Reid’s measure came seven years into Bush’s eight-year tenure, and the low point occurred about a year into Barack Obama’s tenure.

In other words, Reid had a point in saying that there was a “loss of eight million jobs” — but it didn’t come “during the Bush eight years.” The loss of eight million jobs occurred during a roughly two-year period shared more or less equally between Bush and Obama.

Well, the data is easily retrievable from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (now that it’s finally back on line), so let’s take a look at seasonally-adjusted private-sector employment over the last twenty years. I’ve compiled the total number (seasonally adjusted) of private-sector jobs each month over the last 20 years and put them into this chart. The blue colors of this graph show when Democrats held complete control of Congress, while the white areas show when Republicans held complete control. The two purple areas show when Democrats controlled the Senate, as York notes above, and when Republicans controlled only the House. This gives a much different picture of when job losses occurred, and who controlled policy in Congress when it happened.

When Democrats talk about “eight years of job losses” during the Bush administration, just show them this chart.

blaise
08-16-2011, 08:53 AM
"Bush did it, Bush did it, Bush did it, Bush did it....Fast Forward 3 years............Now, wait a minute. Obama doesn't control the economy. You can't pin this on him."

ChiTown
08-16-2011, 08:56 AM
By the way, if you aren't familiar with Corrine Brown, here's a little taste of how intellectually deficient she really is........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgbBP9Em00A

Baby Lee
08-16-2011, 09:02 AM
By the way, if you aren't familiar with Corrine Brown, here's a little taste of how intellectually deficient she really is........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgbBP9Em00A

I'm totally going with Tim Tivo from here on out. ROFL

blaise
08-16-2011, 09:06 AM
By the way, if you aren't familiar with Corrine Brown, here's a little taste of how intellectually deficient she really is........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgbBP9Em00A

She seems very bright.

ROYC75
08-16-2011, 09:11 AM
I like this one comment from a posters response in the article ......

Speaking of "inherited":

Reagan inherited high unemployment, double digit inflation, and the Cold War from his predecessor.

Twelve years later, Clinton inherited the end of the Cold War, the start of the tech boom, and a growing economy from his predecessor.

Eight years later, Bush inherited Bin Laden and the start of a recession from his predecessor.

And in 2007, the Democrat Congress including Senator Obama inherited DOW 14,000 and 4.4% unemployment from their predecessors.

Pretty much sums up the inherited crap.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 09:20 AM
I like this one comment from a posters response in the article ......



Pretty much sums up the inherited crap.

If we inherited anything, we've inherited Nixon and his last remnants of the Gold standard being removed. That and Lord Maynard Keynes.

Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama even Reagan resorted to a Keynesian stimulus—the worst of them being Clinton, Bush and Obama. Clinton and Bush's created a false sense of prosperity which has lead to what we're in now. Obama repeats and compounds the error.

RedNeckRaider
08-16-2011, 09:29 AM
Drunk, dope smoking, and just plain stupid "tea party" types....just don't get that. Just sayin'.

Sometimes it appears you either do not think before posting, or you are just looking for a reaction. Just sayin~

blaise
08-16-2011, 09:32 AM
Sometimes it appears you either do not think before posting, or you are just looking for a reaction. Just sayin~

He thinks saying both sides are stupid somehow makes him smarter.

evenfall
08-16-2011, 09:34 AM
They should do an ESPN special, 5 reasons you can't blame... Obama, for the economy getting worse on his watch (despite throwing money at it like money is some kind of an imaginary concept)

It would be just about as ridiculous as the one about Ernest Byner, and how you supposedly cant blame him for The Fumble.

ROYC75
08-16-2011, 09:34 AM
She seems very bright.

WOW :eek: How in the world can somebody, anybody, many bodies elect someone like this to our government?

And people want to know what is wrong with our government, it's electing clowns and idiots like this. Not knowing the candidates and just selecting the D or the R on a straight ticket ballot.

How can the country get turned around when " We The People " ( this was the voters in her district ) are not responsible enough to keep bafoons like this out of office.

RedNeckRaider
08-16-2011, 09:36 AM
If we inherited anything, we've inherited Nixon and his last remnants of the Gold standard being removed. That and Lord Maynard Keynes.

Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama even Reagan resorted to a Keynesian stimulus—the worst of them being Clinton, Bush and Obama. Clinton and Bush's created a false sense of prosperity which has lead to what we're in now. Obama repeats and compounds the error.

Indeed, he started this grand illusion~

ROYC75
08-16-2011, 09:37 AM
If we inherited anything, we've inherited Nixon and his last remnants of the Gold standard being removed. That and Lord Maynard Keynes.

Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama even Reagan resorted to a Keynesian stimulus—the worst of them being Clinton, Bush and Obama. Clinton and Bush's created a false sense of prosperity which has lead to what we're in now. Obama repeats and compounds the error.

We would not be this bad off if Nixon had not done this, I agree. But it is what it is, we now need to become more fiscally stable because of it.

boogblaster
08-16-2011, 09:41 AM
he was handed a plate of shit .. the stink is still there ....

patteeu
08-16-2011, 09:49 AM
Isn't that just priceless?

...

When Democrats talk about “eight years of job losses” during the Bush administration, just show them this chart.

Wow, that chart is a goldmine. Apparently, job losses occur only when democrats have significant influence over the federal government. The message is clear. If you want more jobs, vote Republican.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 09:59 AM
We would not be this bad off if Nixon had not done this, I agree. But it is what it is, we now need to become more fiscally stable because of it.

Well those candidates in the thrall of those who are pushing this still are what the right is in love with.

KC native
08-16-2011, 02:10 PM
Isn't that just priceless? I thought the following article was pretty poignant from Freerepublic.com: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2759233/posts#comment

.

Complete and total revisionist/spin bullshit.

Let's ignore the huge bubble that happened under Bush's watch (which he was responsible for some it). Let's ignore the fact that employment is a lagging indicator.

I could continue but that is an absolute shit job of looking at what happened. If you find anything compelling in this then you need your head checked.

KC native
08-16-2011, 02:11 PM
Wow, that chart is a goldmine. Apparently, job losses occur only when democrats have significant influence over the federal government. The message is clear. If you want more jobs, vote Republican.

Yea, because a chart gives character to everything that was going on. :rolleyes:

By 2008, everything Bush had "gained" during his early presidency, was pretty much gone.

vailpass
08-16-2011, 02:28 PM
he was handed a plate of shit .. the stink is still there ....

And he managed to make it 10X stinkier. So what do you think of his performance?

ROYC75
08-16-2011, 02:35 PM
Yea, because a chart gives character to everything that was going on. :rolleyes:

By 2008, everything Bush had "gained" during his early presidency, was pretty much gone.

Bubbles, Bubbles, people we have bubbles ......

Bubbles pop, ever heard of this?

I for one am tired of bubbles. Obama ran and claimed to make hard sacrifices and solutions. He has only tried to create a new bubble with his Liberal D's in control of the house & senate for 2+ years.

patteeu
08-16-2011, 02:39 PM
Yea, because a chart gives character to everything that was going on. :rolleyes:

By 2008, everything Bush had "gained" during his early presidency, was pretty much gone.

I predict that the job creation curve will trend up for at least 2 years if Republicans win the WH and gain control of the Senate in next year's election.

KC native
08-16-2011, 02:40 PM
I predict that the job creation curve will trend up for at least 2 years if Republicans win the WH and gain control of the Senate in next year's election.

Wow, bold prediction there patty considering that trend is already in place and employment is a strongly trending data series.

patteeu
08-16-2011, 02:56 PM
Wow, bold prediction there patty considering that trend is already in place and employment is a strongly trending data series.

Yeah, it helped to get a Republican majority in the House, but wait until Republicans take the Senate and the WH too. Party time, Daddy got a job!

KC native
08-16-2011, 02:59 PM
Yeah, it helped to get a Republican majority in the House, but wait until Republicans take the Senate and the WH too. Party time, Daddy got a job!

You are a delusional man. None of the stooges that the GOP has right now are capable of beating Obama.

patteeu
08-16-2011, 03:03 PM
You are a delusional man. None of the stooges that the GOP has right now are capable of beating Obama.

In that case, I'll see you in the bread lines.

CoMoChief
08-16-2011, 03:12 PM
He walked into a hellish economy.

But he more than added fuel to the fire.

He promised to fix the economy (which was all BS talk, let's be honest here) and he flat out lied to the American people to win an election. Not that hasn't been done before, but the guy is 100% all rhetoric talk, no game whatsoever and is completely over his own head in the most important office in the free world.

He's a puppet, he does what Wall St and the international banking cartels tell him to do. Pretty simple...Romney and Perry are also in that same boat.

If Americans really want change.....they need to vote for Ron Paul....no president elect is going to be able to "fix" the economy......we're so far into debt it's virtually impossible.....but Ron Paul would damn sure start leading this country in the right direction.

If you want out of these stupid wars that cost American taxpayers trillions of dollars, auditing/abolishing the fed reserve, then vote for the guy. If you don't want that, well, then I pray for you and your children's children because you're a damn fool.

CoMoChief
08-16-2011, 03:13 PM
You are a delusional man. None of the stooges that the GOP has right now are capable of beating Obama.

Ron Paul is well more than capable of beating Obama.....after the mess he's created.....even liberals are now turning on BO because frankly he's full of shit on just about every issue he's campaigned on.

KC native
08-16-2011, 03:16 PM
Ron Paul is well more than capable of beating Obama.....after the mess he's created.....even liberals are now turning on BO because frankly he's full of shit on just about every issue he's campaigned on.

Ron Paul won't get the GOP nomination.

blaise
08-16-2011, 03:19 PM
Obama reminds me of that Simpsons episode when Homer campaigns to be the sanitation manager.
He tells everyone the garbagemen will do everything for them: shovel driveways, take out dirty diapers, get cats out of trees. Then he realizes, once he gets the position, he has no money and can't do everything he said he'd do.

CoMoChief
08-16-2011, 03:20 PM
Ron Paul won't get the GOP nomination.

You don't know that, neither do I.....

The mainstream media is completely ignoring Paul as a candidate, even though he destroyed everyone in the Iowa debates the other day.

If the GOP nominates someone else besides him, then yeah I don't think anyone else can defeat BO, it's the status quo reublican bullshit that work for the same people that the dems do.

But I don't think there's anyone that doesn't think Paul wouldn't put a fucking clown suit on Obama during the presidential campaign, esp during the debates.

Stewie
08-16-2011, 03:23 PM
Obama had all the power to make changes in the Treasury and the Fed. He didn't do a damn thing. He gets the lion's share of the blame.

Amnorix
08-16-2011, 10:39 PM
"A long, long period of halting and slow growth was baked in the cake when he took office," said Harvard University economist Kenneth Rogoff, a former adviser to Obama's 2008 GOP opponent, John McCain, and the co-author of an acclaimed 2009 book on the nature of economic crises, This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly. "It's very difficult after such a huge credit bubble and financial collapse to recover all that much faster than we've been doing. It wouldn't have mattered if McCain had won. We would have been in a similar situation."


This si what I've been saying all along. I even speculated, back before the 2008 election, that the chances of whoever was elected being a one term President were unusually high, and that it might be the better strategy for one of the party's to LOSE that election, blame the other side, and take a strangle-hold on the Presidency for a guaranteed 8-12 years.

That strategy would've worked better for the Democrats. Had McCain won, there'd be no escaping the blame for the economic morass for the Republicans, given the Bush/McCain combo during the relevant timeframe.

Amnorix
08-16-2011, 10:41 PM
Obama had all the power to make changes in the Treasury and the Fed. He didn't do a damn thing. He gets the lion's share of the blame.



ROFL ROFL ROFL.

Lion's share of the blame for not fixing a massive economic disruption that he didn't cause? Nonsensical.

oh, and there wasn't likely to be any change anyone could've made that would have fixed it. These things take time, no matter what policies are instituted.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-16-2011, 10:42 PM
Obama gets ALL of the blame at this point because he has done NOTHING to turn it around.

Amnorix
08-16-2011, 10:43 PM
I predict that the job creation curve will trend up for at least 2 years if Republicans win the WH and gain control of the Senate in next year's election.


That's not a particularly bold prediction. Heck, I predict that too. I also predict that if the Democrats win in 2012. The job creation curve is likely to trend up not matter who wins.

Amnorix
08-16-2011, 10:50 PM
Yeah, it helped to get a Republican majority in the House, but wait until Republicans take the Senate and the WH too. Party time, Daddy got a job!


Because Republicans did what, exactly, to stimulate job growth?

The multiple ways that both parties can spin facts to support their position is endlessly fascinating. Let's analyze it by who held the WH, who held which house of Congress, ignore that policies need time to take effect, etc. etc.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics indeed.

HonestChieffan
08-17-2011, 06:45 AM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-U-Dm9gAJzNM/TkuovNfpHxI/AAAAAAAAzv4/Ff5dITdrdU8/s400/theo3.jpg

mlyonsd
08-17-2011, 07:01 AM
ROFL ROFL ROFL.

Lion's share of the blame for not fixing a massive economic disruption that he didn't cause? Nonsensical.

oh, and there wasn't likely to be any change anyone could've made that would have fixed it. These things take time, no matter what policies are instituted.The problem is he said he could fix it. He made people (the stupid ones) believe his policies would fix it.

They didn't. Time to move on.

blaise
08-17-2011, 07:19 AM
I'm sure if the economy turns around, whether or not the President affects it will get different responses from both sides.

BigMeatballDave
08-17-2011, 06:35 PM
I don't blame him for its failure, but he has failed miserably in fixing it.

He's an empty suit, just like the rest of them.

Bewbies
08-17-2011, 07:19 PM
Has anyone figure out why democrats in Congress get absolutely no blame for the economic mess?

Everything started to take a dump after the spending binge began in 2007 when Queen Nancy took over.

HonestChieffan
08-17-2011, 08:03 PM
Has anyone figure out why democrats in Congress get absolutely no blame for the economic mess?

Everything started to take a dump after the spending binge began in 2007 when Queen Nancy took over.

Boosh. G. W. Boosh

CoMoChief
08-18-2011, 01:47 AM
....everyone say it with me, PRESIDENTS HAVE LITTLE TO NO IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY.

This potus does have every bit to do with the economy...all of his top advisers are all wall St guys.

BWillie
08-18-2011, 03:15 AM
Honestly not very much, my main beef for him is the massive want to spend money on healthcare and social welfare programs and not cutting the military like he said he was going to.

RedNeckRaider
08-18-2011, 04:00 AM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-U-Dm9gAJzNM/TkuovNfpHxI/AAAAAAAAzv4/Ff5dITdrdU8/s400/theo3.jpg

That is the situation in a nutshell~

ChiTown
08-18-2011, 07:47 AM
Honestly not very much, my main beef for him is the massive want to spend money on healthcare and social welfare programs and not cutting the military like he said he was going to.

Until he comes up with a way to create REAL job growth, he's in a political trick-bag relative to cutting the military.

HonestChieffan
08-18-2011, 07:50 AM
Until he comes up with a way to create REAL job growth, he's in a political trick-bag relative to cutting the military.


When he realizes his job is to make the environment right so that business can grow and recover and create jobs, then maybe something can happen that is positive.

He and his followers do not understand how business works.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-18-2011, 07:56 AM
When he realizes his job is to make the environment right so that business can grow and recover and create jobs, then maybe something can happen that is positive.

He and his followers do not understand how business works.

Sure he does, everything for Wall Street and nothing for Main street.

ROYC75
08-18-2011, 08:07 AM
More than the Loons want to give him credit for.

FishingRod
08-18-2011, 09:20 AM
How much blame? Certainly some but much of the criticism comes from his tendency blame everyone else for all the wrongs and to take all the credit when something goes right. When you have spent years telling everyone it was Bush’s fault at some point one should expect to be held to the same standard. Americans still like a person that at least gives the appearance of taking responsibility. In football terms Elvis Grback had the physical tools to be a good QB but, when you say I can’t “throw it and catch it too” it shows lack of leadership and announces to the world that he thought he was better than the rest of his team. It absolutely begs for the spotlight to shine on one’s own mistakes when a person acts like this. Fast forward to Trent Green his first year with the Chiefs was pretty tough and he really did not have the talent around him to Succeed. He said I need to play better and we need to play better. He understood leadership and never threw his guys under the bus. President Obama is Elvis Grback.

ROYC75
08-18-2011, 09:23 AM
How much blame? Certainly some but much of the criticism comes from his tendency blame everyone else for all the wrongs and to take all the credit when something goes right. When you have spent years telling everyone it was Bush’s fault at some point one should expect to be held to the same standard. Americans still like a person that at least gives the appearance of taking responsibility. In football terms Elvis Grback had the physical tools to be a good QB but, when you say I can’t “throw it and catch it too” it shows lack of leadership and announces to the world that he thought he was better than the rest of his team. It absolutely begs for the spotlight to shine on one’s own mistakes when a person acts like this. Fast forward to Trent Green his first year with the Chiefs was pretty tough and he really did not have the talent around him to Succeed. He said I need to play better and we need to play better. He understood leadership and never threw his guys under the bus. President Obama is Elvis Grback.


Elvis in the WH?

patteeu
08-18-2011, 09:41 AM
President Obama is Elvis Grback.

President Obama is Ryan Leaf. Came into the league with much fanfare, flopped miserably, and blamed everyone but himself.

FishingRod
08-18-2011, 10:30 AM
I'm in a kind mood today