Wednesday, June 08, 2011

"Let Me Be Clear"--Our Economy Is In The Crapper Because Of This President's Policies and Beliefs

As I've had a busy day and need to go rest and recover, let's just string together a few different articles I've read and see what picture they form as a result. First, from the Daily Caller:
A cascade of bad economic and political news knocked President Barack Obama off his game today, and prompted him to revive his 2008-style criticism of his predecessor, and also to suggest that investors, consumers and even the media are responsible for today’s stalled economy.

The blame-game rhetoric – which pollsters say is counterproductive – came during the White House’s joint press conference with Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel. “It is just very important for folks to remember how close we came to complete disaster,” he told the watching TV cameras and reporters...

Obama’s misstep at the Tuesday press conference followed several days of bad news showing the economy produced only 54,000 jobs in May and spiked the formal unemployment rate to 9.1 percent. His economic adviser resigned, and a new poll showed his economic record getting record-low ratings and that he was trailing Gov. Mitt Romney by a few points among registered voters.

Let's remember, this guy his been president for 2-1/2 years and up until a half a year ago, his political party had run both houses of Congress for 4 years. Charlie Cook agrees with me: Obama owns this debacle:
While I generally loathe press releases, I have to admit that one caught my eye on Monday morning. The e-mail release from the Republican National Committee simply said, “They Own It.”

As I expected, “They” referred to President Obama and Democrats, and “It” referred to the economy. Within the first six months or even a year of a new administration, it’s fair game to blame predecessors for any problems. Indeed, it’s a legitimate and time-honored tradition by presidents of both parties. But such arguments get much less convincing as the second year comes to an end. Once into the third year, such claims sound downright silly. Gradually, any president and any administration take ownership of the problems facing the country.

And Charlie's liberal enough to think to that the stimulus was too little!

Well, let's look at that three-quarters of a trillion dollar stimulus--as much money as has been spent on the Iraq war!--and see what we were promised and what we got:
Back in January 2009, Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein produced a report estimating future unemployment rates with and without a stimulus plan. Their estimates, which were widely circulated, projected that unemployment would approach 9% without a stimulus, but would never exceed 8% with the plan. The estimates, along with real unemployment rates, are posted below:
updated stimulus unemployment chart

You can blame President Bush all day long, lefties, but this is on you. You got what you wanted, with a grand total of 3 Republican votes (if memory serves) in the entire 535-seat Congress, and this is the result.

History tells us how to fix this, but it's you liberals who are too hellbent on your ideology to see reality and fix the problem. Your failed beliefs are dragging out a recession far beyond when it should have ended, just like Roosevelt's policies dragged out the Great Depression for 7 extra years.

And wishing it weren't so doesn't change the facts.

Update, 6/9/11: This New York Post column doesn't pull any punches, either:
The growth in GDP declined to a measly 1.8 percent in the first quarter of 2011 as consumers hung desperately onto their wallets. Job growth has completely collapsed. Fully 60 percent of the electorate thinks the country is on the wrong track. No wonder the daily economic briefing, once on a par with the intelligence briefing, has vanished from President Obama's schedule.

Heckuva job, guys.

And now Obama says he's not worried about a double-dip recession. Easy for him to say: For Americans not feeding at the government trough, the first recession never ended.

We are witnessing the total failure of academic Keynesian economics, with its heavy emphasis on high taxes and exorbitant government spending. Yet Obama sails blithely on, already in full campaign mode and still blaming George W. Bush and the Republicans (admittedly no models of fiscal restraint or responsibility) for everything.
Here on this blog I used to criticize President Bush and the Republican Congress for "spending money like a drunken sailor in a Southeast Asian port", but they were models of fiscal restraint and responsibility compared to the Pelosi/Reid Congress and President Obama.

Update #2, 6/10/11: Here's another chart, and the Keynesians aren't going to like it.
Again, I won’t pretend this proves anything, however, it does suggest to me that continued massive government spending is not going to turn around the job market.

16 comments:

Mr. W said...

these are my favorite posts from you. The ones where you "take off the gloves" and just go at it.

Darren said...

Thanks! They're certainly not my favorite to write, that's for sure. My favorite posts to write are the ones wherein I get to tell a personal anecdote, like The King's Speech, Freedom Is A Little Piece of Broken Concrete, and Graphing Calculators--and Tanks!

Ohr Taylor said...

And the blame-game continues. The Left will blame the Right for screwing up the economy initially, and they are absolutely correct. The Right will blame the left for screwing up the economic recovery, and they are also absolutely correct. I love how neither side can come up with a plan that works though, it is much more productive to find things wrong with the other side.

mazenko said...

That is such revisionist history - I'm still trying to get my mind around the spin. Anyone recall 1981-83? How about 1932-36? And then, of course, 1942-72. To place blame for the unemployment problem on current policy is ... absurd.

Does Obama get credit for the stock market turnaround? Expanding stock prices? Resurgence of American auto sales? Record oil and tech sector profits? Slowing foreclosures? Decreasing bad loans? Record financial industry profits? Rising dividends? How about the trillions in cash that American corporations are accruing?

Any credit given? And, if not, then I am OK with it. Because I don't credit the government for the US economy. It's not the government's job. But, as credit should not go to the White House and Congress, neither should blame.

Darren said...

Interesting that you want the government to *do* everything but don't want the government held responsible for anything.

Economic cycles happen. Governments can't do much to make them better, but they can sure gum up the works--and this administration has gummed up the works. It's only your ideological bent that prevents you from seeing it.

mazenko said...

Prove that they gummed up the works. Prove that they are preventing companies from hiring. Prove that they are slowing consumers from buying.

Answer the questions about the positives in the economy. Really. Any details would be fruitful discussion.

Or is this the O'Reilly show - where you dismiss the refutation ... and then move on to the next topic.

Darren said...

How you can ignore that chart amazes me.

But hey, I have this wacky idea! I'll post what I want to post on my blog, and you can post what what you want on your blog! And I won't command you to post certain things, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't command that I post certain things. Nifty?

mazenko said...

Oh, come on, D. Give me - a longtime contributor - some credit. I'm not trying to command what you write. It's just trying to generate discussion. You know I'm a fan of your blog/posts, and I check in and participate because we enjoy the discussion and feedback on our ideas/posts.

The chart is biased and speculative with its projections on how unemployment goes with or without the stimulus. And, I'm simply arguing that unemployment is only one measure of an economy. If unemployment is the measure of policy - then you could conclude the 01/03 tax policy was a failure because it produced one of the few jobless recoveries in history.

Not trying to command - just asking what I think are legitimate questions based on your post. Just hoping for some give and take, some back and forth, discussion.

Darren said...

The chart was Obama's own--his way to sell that so-called stimulus package. Oh, the red dots have been added, to show either his foolishness, naivete, stupidity, arrogance--whatever you want to call it. It's perfect--exactly what happened vs. exactly what he said would happen. There's no way around that.

MikeAT said...

mazenko

It's not your "trying to generate discussion."  In defending B Hussein Obama and his economy you are sounding like Kevin Bacon at the end of Animal House screaming   "Remain calm ....all is well!". We can believe you or our lying eyes.

By any objective measure the American economy is in tatters.  The year deficits are in the trillions (that's without factoring in Obamacare),   The fed is buying our debt because no one else wants it.  Unemployment, which he said would not go over 8% if we blew this trillion in  stimulus  is acknowledged by his Labor Department at 9.1%...and if you factor in the people who have simply given up it's closer to 15%.  No one wants to invest in the US now because business doesn't know what will the cost be (taxes, mandated health care cost, etc)  and multiple industries are being targeted by the Obama regime (auto, oil, coal,  health care) for destruction.  

And also M, as one of you blog debaters I see you seem to conveniently not answer simple questions put to you.  So I will ask you again.  Can you tell me one thing, in your opinion, B Hussein Obama has done wrong during his reign of error?

mazenko said...

I've answered this so many times.

I opposed the push on the health care bill. It over-reached and was not a priority for voters. Parties agreed on 80% of it, and the bill should have been simple and covered that common ground. It would have been good for America.

The stimulus bill was too heavily geared toward tax rebates that produced no guaranteed impact on the economy. And the spending should have been geared toward infrastructure and labor - not bailing out state deficits.

Military contract spending has not been adequately reviewed and restrained. Medicare should be allowed to negotiate prices. Oil, ethanol, and farm subsidies should be closed, and the tax code should be simplified.

Obama's attitude has been tepid at best - and he has not been candid on the massive loss of revenue from the recession. I don't like his "lack of" leadership style.

That said - I'd vote for him again over any ticket that represented the McCain-lite as opposed to the McCain of 2000, or any ticket that had Sarah Palin on it. The same goes for any current GOP candidate who is so naive on supply-side tax cuts that he/she continues to ignore decades of history.

Pawlenty and 5% growth? Puh-leeeeeeeze.

Darren said...

Obama uber alles!

At least you seem to have gotten past the (hope and) change mantra, as you'd rather keep the loser we have than try *any*one new.

Oh, sure, you'll toss one or two names out there, and if it's not them, then Obama! I, on the other hand, would rather have someone who's only 30% like Obama (pick your favorite RINO) as opposed to the 100% real thing.

Darren said...

BTW, I'm a math guy. Those charts--especially Obama's own (augmented by the red reality dots)--speak to me.

mazenko said...

D. & Mike, I'll take it one better on Obama and the GOP.

If Romney is the nominee in 2012 - and he has a pragmatic running mate like Judd Gregg or Lindsay Graham or Tom Coburn or Chuck Grassley - I will most likely vote for him over Obama.

I will have to consider the projections for Congress and the current economic situation - I certainly don't want either party controlling Congress and the White House.

But, if the election were held right now and it was Obama-Biden against Romney-Coburn, I'd vote Republican.

If it's Pawlenty or Gingrich or Bachmann or any other batshit crazy Republican, I'll take the knucklehead I know in Obama.

mazenko said...

BTW, Mike, your comments on not investing in the US are a myth, and you'd know it if you read a bit more.

US companies have been investing in Germany, Brazil, and India - all countries that require more taxes and a greater regulatory burden.

Check out Michael Spence's "The New Convergence" or James Manyika's "An Economy that Works." And feel free to dispute the data if you can.

Or just dismiss without reading, as you have often done. Whatever.

MikeAT said...

mazenko

Oh,you call me an ideologue......and for an English teacher I think your need work on your reading comprehension.  

 No one wants to invest in the US now because business doesn't know what will the cost be (taxes, mandated health care cost, etc)  and multiple industries are being targeted by the Obama regime (auto, oil, coal,  health care) for destruction.

I think that means because of the uncertainty of the business climate business does want to expand, open new facilities etc in the United States of America.O  The other nations you mentioned are more stable.  Hell,  remember my previous post on how a oil company is leaving the US for the more business stable environment of The Congo.    Business needs certainty more than anything...and it won't have it while the radical left controls the White House. For someone who claims extensive knowledge of economics this fact seems to have missed you....sounds like an academic blind spot.

The point being the economy sucks, we're in serious trouble and Obama has brought us to this point.  Can you comprehend the words I'm typing?  

Oh, good point on Obama's " I don't like his 'lack of' leadership style"...then again anyone who looked at him years ago knew he was not a leader and has no business near the White House.  He has never done anything in his life to show accomplishment and America was sold a serious bill of goods. 

As far as your support of GOPers, for someone who claims at great length to be moderate and non-partisan you seem to admire only liberal Republicans...and we all know the only reason Graham is a senator is the open primary in South Carolina.  And a Rhomney-Graham ticket will ensure Obama-Biden for four more years.  RINOs like that will only piss off the base of the conservative majority in this country and they will stay home. 

As far as your suggested reading I just started Ann Coulter's latest and have Reckless Endangerment coming....