Obama got Pwned. Again.

[Ziggurat]

Clinton: Dramatically lower spending.
Bush: Dramatically higher spending.
Solution: Hold the economy hostage as soon as a Democrat takes office. Nice.

Clinton: lost control of Congress to Republicans.

Bush: lost control of Congress to Democrats.

Your analysis is... shallow.

Govt: Spend more money.
Solution: Reduce taxes because it's responsible to not pay for what you spend. Nice.

The primary problem has always been the spending. Lower or higher taxes simply advance or defer when we pay for that spending, but we pay regardless.

I'm not the one taking the partisan approach here, you are. And in a particularly dishonest way, since this entire post is basically just a strawman.

 

[Skeptic]

Back to my earlier point: I'm not at all comfortable with a President who is a shrewd political manipulator.

Well, he was supposed to be just that -- by the magic power of his tongue. The idea was that he would give gold-like speeches and -- presto! -- the evil Republicans would recognize how wrong they are and agree with his wise and good policies. Or at least they will be so shamed and exposed nobody will ever vote for them again.

Only it didn't work out that way. Of course that is all the evil Republicans' fault, stubbornly refusing to believe in Obama's divinity, but still, if you want a president who actually gets things done, well, the president SHOULD be a shrewd political manipulator so as to be able to actually convince or get a deal done with those not in awe of him.

I mean, Clinton -- to name one -- could make reasonable deals with people who hated his guts with a vengence; Obama is unable to function, it seems, in an environment that is less hospitable than one of complete admiration of his person.

Randfan: if people had voted for Obama on the "better than McCain" view, well, you'd have a point. But they voted for him as if he were the Messiah. To now argue "he's not as bad as McCain might have been" is faint praise indeed, don't you think?

Especially when you consider how demonized McCain was. I mean, suppose that in 2008 you told me Dr. X was practically a miracle worker, who can save dying patients effortlessly, and now in 2011 when I ask you about him, you say, "well, if I had gone to a witch doctor, things would have been even worse...".

 

[Skeptic]

Bad as it was, unemployment was significantly better during Bush's presidency -- and that was BEFORE a trillion dollars or so were blown on the "stimulus" which was supposed to create so many jobs and save the economy.

 

[Ziggurat]

What as employment at the end of Bush's presidency? Now?

7.8% in January 2009, 9.2% in June 2011.
source
That one was trivially easy to find, I'm not sure why you even had to ask.

What was the housing market at the end of Bush's presidency? Now?
You are going to have to clarify to me what you mean by worse?

You're going to have to clarify what you mean by "the housing market". Do you mean median sale price? Sales volume? New housing starts? Inventory? Foreclosure rates? Some combined index?

 

[RandFan]

Clinton: lost control of Congress to Republicans.

Bush: lost control of Congress to Democrats.

When Zig? In 2007, right? Where was Bush's economic jobs recovery for all the time Bush enjoyed Republicans in control?

Your analysis is... shallow.

Is it zig. So is Obama doing a good job? Did Bush do a good job?

Was it a good job to appoint Brown head of FEMA? To fail to adequately asses the danger of Iraq? To give money to insurance companies for drugs? To give away billions in Medicaid? How great of a job did he do and just how shallow am I?

I voted for the guy. I came to this forum day after day for 5 years defending him. Don't tell me I'm shallow. I have the posts to prove I was a good little soldier. I want him to do well.

The primary problem has always been the spending. Lower or higher taxes simply advance or defer when we pay for that spending, but we pay regardless.

I'm not the one taking the partisan approach here, you are. And in a particularly dishonest way, since this entire post is basically just a strawman.

Nonsense. I'm a registered Republican sick of my party doing the bidding of the Chamber of Commerce. I stepped up to the plate day after day defending Bush on this forum. I was defending him after FEMA until I found out what cluster @$#% that was. Brown was crony who had no background and no resume to be head of FEMA. How shallow is that.

Your ad hominem is unfair and uncalled for.

 

[Skeptic]

7.8% in January 2009, 9.2% in June 2011.
source
That one was trivially easy to find, I'm not sure why you even had to ask.

But that just shows what a huge success the $800 billion stimulus bill was: just think how high unemployment would have been otherwise! The stimulus saved the USA from a depression by making it only a deep recession!

H'm -- that argument sounds familiar... oh wait, it's a version of the snake-oil salesman's argument when you complain his nostrum only made you feel worse: just think how much MORE sick you would have felt if you hadn't taken his magic pills! They SAVED you!

 

[RandFan]

7.8% in January 2009, 9.2% in June 2011.
source
That one was trivially easy to find, I'm not sure why you even had to ask.

And what was it when he took office? What was the trend? 2-3 points. You think that's a big deal considering where the economy was when he took over and the years he had cutting taxes and working with a Republican legislature. Had I looked that up I'd be damn embarrassed to post it.

You're going to have to clarify what you mean by "the housing market". Do you mean median sale price? Sales volume? New housing starts? Inventory? Foreclosure rates? Some combined index?

Now you are just being coy. When Bush took office my mothers house was worth nearly $500,000. She sold it for $170,000 last year which is what she paid for it in 1991.

Please, I've known you a long time. Slow down, don't try to win an argument. Be honest with me. We can talk. I'll concede I'm damn mad at what Bush did to my country. I'll admit that it pains me to see people cling to the notion that they have to defend him even while our nation has seen their worst economy since the depression .

 

[RandFan]

But that just shows what a huge success the $800 billion stimulus bill was: just think how high unemployment would have been otherwise! The stimulus saved the USA from a depression by making it only a deep recession!

H'm -- that argument sounds familiar... oh wait, it's a version of the snake-oil salesman's argument when you complain his nostrum only made you feel worse: just think how much MORE sick you would have felt if you hadn't taken his magic pills! They SAVED you!

8 years, a republican legislature until 2007. Taxes were lowered in 2001. And all we can do is come up with excuses? Seriously?

 

[Puppycow]

Markets collapse on signing on debt deal

With scant time to spare, President Barack Obama signed legislation Tuesday to avoid an unprecedented national default that he said would have devastated the U.S. economy. But the truce with Republicans that defused the crisis seemed to be fading already.

Wall Street crumpled, dismayed by reports of new economic weakness and unimpressed by Congress' prescription. The Dow Jones industrial average sank by 266 points, its eighth straight losing session, and biggest.

Looks like the black caucus aren't the only ones who see this as a turd sandwich.

 

[RandFan]

I have to ask, when Bush the lesser was in office for eight years, did you activly support him and his presidency, regardless of his actions, no matter how far removed from your own political perspective they may be, or did you openly, verbaly, rail against him at every possible opportunity you were presented with?

I defended more than criticize. I was fair but I was never but kisser. I took a lot of lumps though.

 

[Ziggurat]

When Zig? In 2007, right? Where was Bush's economic jobs recovery for all the time Bush enjoyed Republicans in control?

Go to my link. You can see for yourself what happened with unemployment over time. The page even lets you select time intervals you want.

Is it zig.

Yes it is, RF.

So is Obama doing a good job?

No, he is definitely not.

Did Bush do a good job?

Not really.

But then, I don't think everything is Obama vs. Bush, or Bush vs. Clinton, or Democrat vs. Republican.

Was it a good job to appoint Brown head of FEMA?

I thought we were talking about the economy.

To fail to adequately asses the danger of Iraq?

Way to Upchurch the thread.

I voted for the guy. I came to this forum day after day for 5 years defending him. Don't tell me I'm shallow. I have the posts to prove I was a good little soldier.

I don't have to tell you you're shallow. You just admitted it. You defended Bush not because he deserved defending, but because you were a "good little soldier". And now you feel like a jilted lover. So instead of defending Bush reflexively, you attack him reflexively. You've switched sides, but you haven't actually learned from your mistake.

Nonsense. I'm a registered Republican sick of my party

And Andrew Sullivan is a True Conservative^TM.

Partisan is as partisan does.

 

[BeAChooser]

When President Bush took over in office the country was already firmly headed towards the ditch. The country entered a recession a few months after he took office

Actually, just for the record, the country was in recession before Bush took office.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/conda200403050902.asp

While previously NBER indicated the recession started in March 2001 (it has not formally revised that date), official revisions of the data indicate that the recession started earlier than that.

For example, under revised calculations, real disposable income peaked in October 2000, rather than steadily rising in 2000 and early 2001 as indicated in the original data. Industrial production/manufacturing and trade sales both peaked in June of 2000, instead of September and August, respectively. Non-farm payroll employment peaked in February 2001, not March 2001. And monthly gross domestic product, which the NBER recently announced will be included in dating recessions, also peaked in 2000. According to the Council of Economic Advisers, the median date of these five data series is October 2000 — at least three months before George W. Bush took office. We also know that the stock market started to decline in March of 2000, business investment began to fall in the third quarter of 2000, and initial jobless claims began to rise at the end of 2000 — more evidence that the U.S. economy in late 2000 was in fact "on the front end of a recession," as Vice President-elect Dick Cheney observed on Meet the Press on December 3, 2000.

... snip ... even professor Joseph Stiglitz, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton, admits that "the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, ... snip ...."

Furthermore, the NBER ... the official arbiter of recession ... was highly inconsistent in claiming the 2001 recession started under Bush. The rule of thumb for defining a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative real growth in GDP. Indeed,

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/nbers_anomalous_recession_call.html

[o]f all 11 NBER-called recessions since 1947, only one other involved no two consecutive quarters of negative real growth.

That being the case,

in the 2001 "recession", why does the NBER say it started in March, under Bush, and not in 2000, under Clinton? The first quarter of negative real growth was actually the third quarter of 2000, under President Clinton. It showed -0.5% growth contraction, annualized. But the NBER said no recession. When it again showed -0.5% growth six months later, under Bush, the NBER said recession.

In 2007, the final revision of the estimate of fourth quarter growth was slightly negative: -0.2%. The NBER now says that was a recession. One quarter of -0.5% under Clinton, not a recession. One quarter of -0.2% under Bush, a recession.

But maybe NBER reached it's conclusion based on what unemployment was doing at that time. Well, from the same source:

When the NBER said the recession of 2001 started, the unemployment rate was 4.3%. That's pretty low. In fact, the unemployment rate was 4.3% or higher in every single month of President Clinton's first term, and every single month of his second term until March of 1999. No recession that whole time.

Similarly, the author of that source disposed of the drop in disposable income as a rational explanation for why the NBER assigned the recession to Bush:

In three of the last four months of 2000, all under President Clinton, real DPI declined. NBER said no recession. In the next three months, or the first three months of 2001 and mostly under President Bush, real DPI increased in each month. NBER said recession. Decline in three of four months, no recession. Increase in three of three months, recession.

Indeed, that source then observed the following:

Just for fun, I looked at quarterly GDP numbers since 1947 and all 11 NBER recessions called since that year. Here are a couple of interesting observations.

(1) Every time there was at least one quarter of year-to-year negative real GDP growth, there was a recession associated with it. There were no recessions without such negative year-to-year growth, with two exceptions.

(2) With simple rules based on real GDP numbers alone, a recession as well as its beginning and ending quarters could be called. Every recession called by these rules was also called by the NBER. Every recession called by the NBER was also called by these rules, with two exceptions.

And guess what the two exceptions were in each case? Recessions that the NBER blamed on Bush.

Reading that, one begins to get the idea that the NBER just didn't like Bush. Maybe there is a reason.

Note first that Christina Romer (Obama's former economic advisor) was on the NBER committee. She is married to David Romer, who was also an NBER commitee member.

And note this:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.c...sts-on-the-candidates-economic-plans/?apage=3

The Economist contacted all the economists in the National Bureau of Economic Research (N.B.E.R.) — a sample that would include just about every top economist in the United States — and 142 economists responded

... snip ...

Remarkably, only about 10 percent of these economists self-identify as Republicans. Nearly half of economists called themselves Democrats

So I think that explains why Bush was assigned the 2001 recession and not Clinton.

Other than that, I agree with your post.

 

[MattusMaximus]

The fact that there are people on both ends of the ideological spectrum bitching about this deal makes me think it may actually be a good thing. That said, the one thing I would have liked to have seen in the deal is a serious restructuring of the tax code. Simply by doing that and closing loopholes, we could raise about a trillion dollars in revenue, which needs to be done.

In addition, we need to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2012, and I think pretty much every serious economist knows this. This is one of the reasons why I will support President Obama's re-election bid, because him winning in 2012 is the best shot we have of seeing those tax cuts go away.

To get out of a hole like this, we have to engage in sensible cuts AND raise revenue. There is no way we can just cut our way out. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

 

[Puppycow]

The fact that there are people on both ends of the ideological spectrum bitching about this deal makes me think it may actually be a good thing.

A common fallacy. The truth does not always lie halfway in between.

In addition, we need to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2012, and I think pretty much every serious economist knows this.

Definately.

This is one of the reasons why I will support President Obama's re-election bid, because him winning in 2012 is the best shot we have of seeing those tax cuts go away.

At this point I have little confidence that Obama will do that. Last time this came up, he extended them. And that was when there were democratic majorities in both houses of congress. Republicans have his number. They don't want those tax cuts to expire, and Obama has a long history of capitulating to those demands. They are going to make it a condition for anything Obama wants to do.

 

[RandFan]

Go to my link. You can see for yourself what happened with unemployment over time. The page even lets you select time intervals you want.

I know the facts. I want you to learn them. When under Bush was this fantastic economy? When did things get good? When did housing prices rise? When did job rates rise and stay high?

I thought we were talking about the economy.

No, we are talking about Bush as a president.

I don't have to tell you you're shallow. You just admitted it. You defended Bush not because he deserved defending, but because you were a "good little soldier".

Knock it off. That's rhetoric. I was here for years being dair and reasoned. I critisized Bush when I thoght it was dair.

And now you feel like a jilted lover. So instead of defending Bush reflexively, you attack him reflexively. You've switched sides, but you haven't actually learned from your mistake.

Seriously? And I'm shallow?

I never made anything personal. I never said anything against you. Not sure why you thought that necassary. I had respected you for a long time. Sad.

 

[Wolrab]

No, its not a joke because they are the ones who can most afford to pay a little more in taxes.

Putting all the burden on the poor & middle-class is a moral crime.
Not only have we now bailed out the banks that put us into the Great Recession without bailing out the all the mortgage holders that were going to lose their homes, but we have now cut spending on the poor & middle-class as well.

Where is Eugene V. Debs when we need him?

The poor pay taxes?
When I was poor, I got back every nickel and more in anything taken from my paycheck.

 

[Ziggurat]

I know the facts. I want you to learn them.

Then you're starting from a false premise that I don't already know them.

When under Bush was this fantastic economy?

I never said that the economy was fantastic. That's a strawman.

But until late 2008, unemployment was pretty good under Bush. In particular, from mid-2003 to early 2007 (when the Democrats took over Congress), unemployment was on a steady decrease.

I never made anything personal. I never said anything against you. Not sure why you thought that necassary. I had respected you for a long time. Sad.

You're right, I have made it unnecessarily personal. But that post of yours really was worthless. And you are capable of better, when you put your mind to it.

 

[Brainster]

I know the facts. I want you to learn them. When under Bush was this fantastic economy? When did things get good? When did housing prices rise? When did job rates rise and stay high?

Economic growth was solid from 2002-early 2008 with most quarters averaging 2% annualized growth or better. Housing prices soared beginning before Bush took office, starting from about 1999 and lasting into 2006, and although they have crashed since, they are still reasonably in line with the pre-bubble trend. I'm not sure what you mean by job rates; the unemployment rate hit its peak in 2003 after the 2001-2002 recession at 6.3%, then declined pretty steadily until 2006 when it bottomed out at 4.4%, and then stayed virtually unchanged at around that rate until mid-2008, when it started moving higher.

It is certainly fair to point out as you have done that Obama inherited an economy heading into recession. What you ignore is that Bush also inherited poor economic conditions in 2001.

 

[RandFan]

TBut until late 2008, unemployment was pretty good under Bush. In particular, from mid-2003 to early 2007 (when the Democrats took over Congress), unemployment was on a steady decrease.

Let's assume your premise for a moment. What did the Democrats do to make things worse? Did they raise taxes?

But that post of yours really was worthless. And you are capable of better, when you put your mind to it.

Thanks for the admission. "Worthless"? How was it worthless. It's the result of years of serious contemplation and study. Asserting that it was "worthless" isn't an argument. Please focus on the arguments.

 

[RandFan]

Economic growth was solid from 2002-early 2008 with most quarters averaging 2% annualized growth or better. Housing prices soared beginning before Bush took office, starting from about 1999 and lasting into 2006, and although they have crashed since, they are still reasonably in line with the pre-bubble trend. I'm not sure what you mean by job rates; the unemployment rate hit its peak in 2003 after the 2001-2002 recession at 6.3%, then declined pretty steadily until 2006 when it bottomed out at 4.4%, and then stayed virtually unchanged at around that rate until mid-2008, when it started moving higher.

It is certainly fair to point out as you have done that Obama inherited an economy heading into recession. What you ignore is that Bush also inherited poor economic conditions in 2001.

I lived through it. Since Bush has taken office there has only been uncertainty. There have been weak recoveries that have simple been followed by stagnant growth.

BTW: The unemployment rates only reflect those who are collecting unemployment. Once people can no longer collect they move of the rolls. They become the permanant unemployment not counted.

We have not seen the unemployment problems we see now since the Great Depression.

Housing market. Many people lost their homes, permanently. You don't account for that fact. The value of most people's homes is about what it was when they bought them. People, like mom who had hoped to retire on their home value got screwed. But Bush made damn sure that the Bankers got their fat bonuses.

Can you point me to a news article that declared that America was ever doing well during Bush?

Long-term unemployment worse now than during Great Depression

About 6.2 million Americans, 45.1 percent of all unemployed workers in this country, have been jobless for more than six months - a higher percentage than during the Great Depression. The bigger the gap on someone's resume, the more questions employers have.


"(Employers) think: 'Oh, well, there must be something really wrong with them because they haven't gotten a job in 6 months, a year, 2 years.' But that's not necessarily the case," said Marjorie Gardner-Cruse with the Hollywood Worksource Center....


Here's another problem: more than 1 million of the long-term unemployed have run out of unemployment benefits, leaving them without the money to get new training, buy new clothes, or even get to job interviews.