Skip to comments.Now that the Election Is Over, the Washington Post Admits that the Obama Recovery Has Been Terrible
Posted on 11/20/2012 6:40:05 AM PST by Kaslin
I agree that Obama inherited a crappy economy, and I think it is silly to assert that he bears any responsibility for the severity of the 2007-2009 recession.
But it is very fair to hold him responsible for whats happened since the recession ended. Ive cited data from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve on both employment and gross domestic product to show that Obama has presided over the weakest recovery in the post-World War II period.
And I think it is fair to blame Obama for the economys anemic performance during that time, largely because his agenda of faux stimulus and Obamacare exacerbated the statist policies of Bush. In other words, he promised hope and change, but delivered more of the same.
Well, now that the election is over, even the Washington Post is willing to admit that Obamas economic performance is dismal. Heres a remarkable chart showing that growth is far below the average.
There are actually two very important conclusions to draw from this chart.
Indeed, I fear permanently lower growth is the legacy of the Bush-Obama years. We now have a substantially bigger burden of government spending, and things will get worse rather than better in the absence of real entitlement reform.
And we have a lot more cronyism and interventionism, which undermines economic efficiency. To make matters worse, Obama wants higher tax rates and more double taxation of saving and investment.
To be blunt, those are not the policies that create jobs and wealth.
Last century, a good rule of thumb was that the United States was about halfway between the high-growth, small-government economics such as Hong Kong and Singapore and the low-growth, big-government economies of Europe.
But as we move closer and closer to European-style economic policy, it should be no surprise that we get anemic European-style economic performance.
We know the recipe for growth and prosperity. But the political elite is oblivious or doesnt care.
Bush had a housing bubble economy, Obama has the stimulus and college bubble, my WAG these bubbles burst and O’s next 4 years rival the Great Depression. But then again with the super non-stoppable Nitschean Uber Hispanic vote the GOP will never win another election because tomorrow will be exactly like today. WRONG
islamobama destroys everything he touches.
We ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
What Recovery? As Michigan so will the rest of the country!
The unemployment for some parts of Michigan is well above the national average.
I live in the UP of Michigan - in my business I have taken more time off in order to keep others employed.
I see more properties going in foreclosre and more properties simply being abandoned.
recovery is a joke. It is more like a wrecking ball.
The first line of the article was this:
“I agree that Obama inherited a crappy economy, and I think it is silly to assert that he bears any responsibility for the severity of the 2007-2009 recession.”
At that point, the author had no credibility with me at all. How breathtaking.
This is what Obama inherited: Obama!
What everyone is forgetting, is that the economy Obama “inherited” was bequeathed to him by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
The rats won the house and senate in the 2006 elections.
The rats threatened to nationalize the oil industry, among lots of other massively ignorant things.
F the rats.
I read your article and found its economic conclusions spot on.
The only problem I see with it is that the American populace—well, at least the ones you spotlighted—cannot and will not make the connection between intrusive government and the loss of their jobs.
To this day I doubt that many have made the connection between Obama’s restrictions on oil drilling and the prices that they have been paying for gasoline.
Inherited a crappy economy from Pelosi-Reid. Democrat taint.
Thanks for comments, and a couple responses:
First, how do we know what the populace will understand if our guys NEVER actaully tell them? And all during the campaign, Romney and Ryan conceded the point that Obama “inherited” this and that. So yes, the populace is ignorant, and yes, they are willfully so, but NO, we haven’t even tried to reverse it.
Second, all we have to do is flip about 1-2% - to reverse elections. We can never flip 51%, but we don’t have to. I will never buy into the notion that we can’t flip 1-2% - or energize a 3-4% that stayed home, if we ever tried to fight the battle on truth and ideology.
We haven’t tried, since 2010 - and how did that work out?
The debates were frustrating.
I kept waiting for Romney to land a haymaker on that glass jaw, but all Mitt wanted to do was dance, jab and clinch.
Somebody must have told him he was way ahead on points without throwing a punch.
The worst moment was when Ryan actually said “yes, you inherited a tough situation” - right after Biden had blamed it all on Bush. STUPID STUPID STUPID.
I see your points.
The low-information voter is truly the reason we’re in the situation we’re in. The problem is how do we get to him/her. The establishment media certainly will not help. Frankly, I have no idea as to how to accomplish this but it seems to me that some of our talk show hosts and columnists could help by toning down their messages and actually educate; a constant ranting and raving is quite a turn-off.
The low info voter is the key, and no, the media will not help. And no, big education will not help, nor will big hollywood or any of that.
The candidates themselves, with their ads, their debates, their speeches, MUST articulate the truth. Super PACS are a great idea, but they are currently run by people like Rove who is just an extention of the GOP e campaign structure.
There are thousands of brilliant videos out there about why liberalism fails, and if some super PAC would tap into that kind of brilliance with a hundred mill, instead of giving us another hundred mill of Rove’s bullshit, that would help too.
But I must disagree with you about talk radio - that is our only good venue now. They don’t ‘rant” that I can tell, and most folks who think they do don’t listen anyway.
It's not silly. ObaMao worked with ACORN to sue Citi in order to force them to make loans to unqualified buyers back in the early '90's. He was a pioneer in forcing banks to create the sub-prime market bubble.
When ever I read some author of a news article saying that you can’t blame Obama for what happened in 2007 and 2008 I post this.
This tells the story, why Bush was so bad at the end of his term, or so they say.........
The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.
The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault”, think about this:
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress. At the time:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH
Remember the day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress
So when someone tries to blame Bush...
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!”
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009..
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.
The word at issue in the original clip was "inconceivable", which the character "Vizzini" had just used.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.