Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Reasonable Obama reasons that he's reasonable

Remember how reasonable he was when he shamelessly broke his campaign promises about entitlement reform? And how, when Paul Ryan got exasperated at the lack of leadership on this issue of utmost fiscal gravity, he risked political destruction to offer his own solution instead — and got dumped on by Obama at a televised press conference for his trouble? That was pretty reasonable. How about when the “grand bargain” for the debt-ceiling deal was just about to come together, replete with $800 billion in new tax revenues, when Obama suddenly decided he needed another $400 billion in revenue or else his base would be grumpy? That was the end of the bargain, and the bill that did finally pass, of course, produced nothing in revenue. And yet, somehow, on the stump it’s all the GOP’s fault for not putting “country first” and compromising. Reasonable.
Allow me to go back a little further. Remember when Obama was putting the finishing touches on his useless stimulus package and Republicans thought maybe it wasn't such a good idea? The new President told the GOP "I won" then crammed it through the House with no support from the Republicans. Reasonable.

Later the Republicans resisted the unpopular restructuring of one-sixth of the U.S. economy with Obamacare. When John McCain raised some objections to the legislation being crafted behind closed doors with special deals, Obama told McCain: "we're not campaigning anymore - the election's over." Reasonable.

And whole some may criticize that the President has "never once" presented a budget plan or a debt-reduction plan amidst his taxpayer-funded campaign tour, it's OK. Because the man, after all, is reasonable.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Remember when Obama was putting the finishing touches on his useless stimulus package and Republicans thought maybe it wasn't such a good idea?

Yes. They were wrong.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1326

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/17/barack-obama/obama-says-stimulus-responsible-millions-jobs-save/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303635604576392023187860688.html

http://www.nasbo.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=H6sHQ5MhK5o%3D&tabid=81

http://mediamatters.org/research/201105180030

Eric said...

Unemployment: 9.1%

Roger Bournival said...

Media Matters - now there's an unbiased source!

Anonymous said...

Unemployment: 9.1%

Yeah. The research explains how that number would be higher if not for the useless stimulus package. You block two extra points, you're losing 12-0 instead of 14-0. It's not an arcane concept.

This site enjoys citing Politifact when their findings match conservative preferences. But this Politifact verdict must be some kind of Krugmanian trick:
"IHS/Global Insight estimates that the gap between employment with and without the stimulus will be 2.45 million jobs, while Moody's economy.com finds the gap to be 2.5 million jobs... With the notable exception of conservatives, the independent economists who have produced studies agree that the stimulus has saved or created upwards of 1 million jobs, and that the bill will likely create another million or so jobs in 2010."

Media Matters - now there's an unbiased source!

The Media Matters link is just a collection of various responses to the supposedly "failed stimulus." It's even divided into sections: two conservative critiques, three progressive responses, and two non-partisan studies. Don't be afraid to click on the link - seeing it won't melt your eyes like the last scene in "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

Bram said...

That research is biased crap and wrong. Higher government spending drags the economy. Always. It dragged the economy through the Great Depression. It dragged the Japanese economy through their lost decade and it is dragging us through our current Depression.

Taxing or borrowing can change behavior - but it is spending that drags and crowds out private business.

You, Hoover / FDR, Obama and Krugman are all laughable. The "unemployment went up when spending went up, but not as much as it would have" is the weakest arguement ever.


p.s. Never link a media matters article when trying to make a point to the non-believers.

Anonymous said...

Rave on, Grover Jr. The ebbs and surges of the U.S. Depression can be mapped by when the government stimulated the economy and when they cut back. Worldwide, the countries who did stimulus spending first recovered first. No amount of conservative revisonism can change that.

Japan's troubles sprang from cronyism, a boom of bad loans, and the subsequent retrenchment by corporations who ceased investing and banks that stopped lending. Most economists agree that Japan's stimulus spending was what prevented their system from going into complete collapse. Gee whiz, does this story sound at all familiar?

Keep shouting "no, no, no" at history, Bram. You're right and it's wrong. We'll all get there someday, baby.

Bram said...

Anonymous:
I shouted "yes, yes, yes" to History and majored in it (before going to graduate business school). I took an entire seminar on FDR and the Depression. I know all about the ebbs and flows of the series of recessions that we call the Depression. Tying those recessions to government programs is nonsense.

"Most economists agree that Japan's stimulus spending was what prevented their system from going into complete collapse." You mean most liberal economists.

Sounds familiar - "sorry we are in a recession but I saved everybody by blowing through a few trillion."

Funny how the states that didn't blow money aren't hurting as bad. And countries that didn't "stimulate" aren't hurting as bad either. How do "most economists" explain it?

How do they explain the recovery in the 20's after spending was cut, and the non-recovery in 30's when it was raised?

Anonymous said...

Should I explain the almost immediate impact of the 1937 fiscal switch on the U.S. economy, as distinct from the surrounding six years? Is there any point in mentioning thriving Germany's recent series of stimulus bills, including its largest since World War 2? How about the fact that Germany is the leading voice advocating stimulus for Greece? Or that 97% of Texas' budget shortfall was plugged by the stimulus? Would there be any value in quoting that loony liberal economist Milton "Tax and Spend" Friedman on the effectiveness of New Deal relief and recovery?

But what's the point? Some people simply prefer their fairy stories, and don't want to hear the other kind

So I'll just quote Woody Allen, who said, "Well, I have to go now, Duane, because I'm due back on the planet Earth."

Eric said...

At 9.1% unemployment the "it could have been worse!" argument is great since it's utterly unprovable. What is mathematically true is that the $800 billion in stimulus produced jobs at - what? - a quarter-million a pop or so.

What a bargain. And of course those jobs would never have been created without the stimulus. Worth every penny...to be paid back by future generations.

Bram said...

By 1937, FDR had utterly destroyed the private economy.

Why would I want the Texas shortfall plugged with my federal tax dollars? Or billions borrowed against my kids' future earnings?

Anonymous said...

Enjoy

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/economics/the-rahn-curve-economic-growth-and-level-of-spending/

Anonymous said...

At 9.1% unemployment the "it could have been worse!" argument is great since it's utterly unprovable.

I gotta admit, I’m starting to waver. You should seal the deal by saying 9.1% again. It’s an incredible, airtight argument. Too bad those smoke-and-vapor moonbats at the ratings agencies, the CBO, and the Chamber of Commerce don’t have your level of understanding.

Remember, kids: tax cuts for the rich create jobs, and voter fraud keeps stealing election after election from the GOP... but the stimulus' role in arresting the unemployment rate is "utterly unprovable."

By 1937, FDR had utterly destroyed the private economy.

Oooh, goody, another fairy story!

Ever seen a chart of the U.S. gross domestic product from 1929-1941, including the 1933-37 period when the private economy was being "utterly destroyed"? Ever see the chart for industrial production over the same period? (SPOILER ALERT: You won't liiiiike them.)

Any idea what happened in 1937-38 after the government finally cut the tax rate on capital gains, and slashed federal spending? Feel like taking a wild guess?

Wanna speculate how FDR responded to the result? And what happened next?

Inigo Montoya said...

Eric: At 9.1% unemployment the "it could have been worse!" argument is great since it's utterly unprovable.

Bram: By 1937, FDR had utterly destroyed the private economy.


You keep using this word, "utterly." I do not think it means what you think it means.

Anonymous said...

Everyone agrees Obama saved the nation and is doing a great job on the economy! Well, by everyone I mean the 26% that think he is doing a bang-up job!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149042/New-Low-Approve-Obama-Economy.aspx

Oh, and everyone knows that all the problems are really the Republicans fault! They have controlled one-half of one branch for nearly 8 months now. Well, their fault and the earthquakes and arab spring and....

Anonymous said...

Too true! Everyone DOES know that, Mr. Poll!

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/07/voters-still-bl.php

http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-republicans-recession

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/14/poll-americans-blame-bush-for-bad-economy-by-wide-margin/

(...and so on, and so on)

Got any "Who do you trust on the economy: the President or the GOP" poll numbers you want to tout?

Bram said...

How about completely?

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/581850/201108171839/Dark-Parallels-Not-With-Carter-But-With-FDR.htm

He spent and taxed us into ever deeper recessions. Overspending, invasive, and mind-boggling income tax rates. The top rate was 25% when FDR was elected. By 1938, it was in the 70's and still rising.

Given how long he was President, how compliant Congress was during most of that stretch, and how dismal the results were - defending FDR's economic policies is impossible. Easier to defend Stalin's human rights policies.

Anonymous said...

What a bad column that was. Not that you or Walter Williams will give a hoot, but:

June 1933: NRA enacted
June 1933-December 1933: industrial production goes up, then drops down (to mid-April 1933 level)
Jan 1934-June 1934: industrial production goes back up, reaches slightly higher point than in June 1933
July 1934-December 1934: industrial production goes back down again (again, to mid-April 1933 level)
Jan 1935-May 1935: industrial production goes straight up, surpassing pre-NRA level
May 1935: Supreme Court strikes down mandatory NIRA codes that had been overseen by the NRA
June 1935-September 1935: production stagnates, dipping slightly
July 1935: National Labor Relations ("Wagner") Act enacted, restoring and/or correcting many NRA provisions
October 1935-May 1937: uninterrupted rise in production, finally surpassing July 1929 peak in December 1936
June 1937: Roosevelt makes large cuts to program spending
July 1937-July 1938: production plunges more than 30%
April 1938: FDR overrules his Treasury's austerity recommendations and gets a $5 billion spending program passed
August 1938-December 1939: production soars, passing the December 1936 peak in late 1939

Unemployment (annual averages):
1933: 24.9%
1934: 21.7%
1935: 20.1%
1936: 16.9%
1937: 14.3% ("By 1937, FDR had utterly destroyed the private economy")
1938: 19.0%
1939: 17.2%

Only by shifting goalposts from production figures to unemployment, and back to production, then back to unemployment, can Walter Williams create a timeline of doom that suits his Randian heart. Alas, if only all of the actual events could have cooperated.

And of course, Williams can't cite GDP at all, because that had an uninterrupted upward run from March 1933 to February 1937, including a record 14.1% in 1936. GDP dropped only after Roosevelt cut the budget, but went back up following the 1938 stimulus... one of those crazy, inexplicable coincidences that no trickle-down historian can explain.

Incidentally, it was Hoover who raised the tax rate from 25% to 63%. The hike took effect in 1933. But don't let small details like that throw you. It's just a mere blip in that creative alternate history you're having such a good time in.

Bram said...

I stand corrected. FDR led us to incredible prosperity. He got unemployment all the way down to 17.2% after WWII had started in Europe. Wow, congratulations.

Hoover was a Progressive fool. Calvin Coolidge called it right on him. He should have stuck to managing mines because he was as bad as FDR at managing the economy.

Eric said...

Sorry I'm late - I had to work and everything.

So, I was talking about the 9.1% unemployment rate, which Obama promised would never rise above 8% if we just passed his stimulus bill.

So, about that 9.1% unemployment rate: I may have erred when I said it's "utterly unprovable" that the stimulus helped. In fact, I think it's quite provable the "stimulus" had the opposite reaction. After all, in every previous economic recovery (which the Obama White House assured us started a year ago) employment came roaring back. The Obama "recovery" is atypical in that employment has not bounced back but has remained quite tepid.

Golly, what's different about this Keynesian intervention? Undoubtedly it's because those "shovel-ready jobs weren't shovel-ready."

Eric said...

9.1% unemployment. Down from 9.2% last month. But 9.1% now.

In other news, I hear that sales of Obama merchandise has plunged while Bush's "Miss Me Yet?" poster has spiked in sales.

Atypical.

Anonymous said...

FDR led us to incredible prosperity. He got unemployment all the way down to 17.2% after WWII had started in Europe. Wow, congratulations.

The 1930s unemployment numbers - much worse than the concurrent data - were cited because they were part of the complete economic reality. Acknowledging statistics that don’t prop up the narrative? How weird that must seem to you, or Mr. Williams. (Prior examples: “FDR had destroyed private business by 1937”; “The courts overturned the NRA and as a result unemployment fell.”)

And yet, the unemployment statistic historically lags behind national recovery, rather than going hand in hand with it. Narrative rescued! That was a close one!

Shock of shocks, you jumped right past the chronological progression of economic events, which put the lie to your and Williams' imagineering of FDR's incomparable villainy. Nevertheless, your comeback was serious-minded and so astute: “17.2%, tee hee, BURN!”

Yup, 17.2% sure did happen. So did 19% the year before, and 14.3% the year before that. Remember the 1937 budget cuts? Or their immediate economic belly punch to a previously growing economy? But who are we kidding here - this is futile. You can’t teach an old dog New Deal. You did get one thing right, though. You do stand corrected.

Fun-time project! Try laying the yearly unemployment rates over that list of actual things that happened, and see if you can spot any more uncanny "first this, and then that" suppositions.

Anonymous said...

I was talking about the 9.1% unemployment rate, which Obama promised would never rise above 8% if we just passed his stimulus bill.

That rascally ol' promising promiser! He also promised me a pony. Not in so many words, but I just KNOW he did.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/09/eric-cantor/Cantor-and-other-republicans-say-obama-promised-s/

When you were discussing unreasonable patriotism rhetoric the other week, only the former Commander-in-Chief’s personal words would do for you, and not those of “some White House aide.” But for the unemployment rate? A hypothetical estimate that warned of an unknown margin of error approved by economic advisers? That's an official Obama promise.

I may have erred when I said it's "utterly unprovable" that the stimulus helped. In fact, I think it's quite provable the "stimulus" had the opposite reaction.

As mentioned upthread, you appear to know better than the CBO, the Chamber of Commerce, all competing ratings agencies, and the preponderance of business and economic experts that have analyzed this exact topic. This confidence should serve you well elsewhere in life.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/feb/17/stimulus-report-card/

This economic downturn has been different in many ways from past ones. The duration of the average unemployed person's joblessness has already extended far beyond past patterns, and it hasn’t stopped yet. Job turnover rate (both starting new ones, and especially leaving existing ones) is also at historic lows, as proportionate to the unemployment rate.

Also, overall unemployment continued to rise from September 2006 until its ultimate peak in October 2009, a much lengthier upward slope than the usual model from previous recessions. Subsequent recovery has been negligible. That’s also a change from past recessions.

How the Bush-Obama stimuluses caused these things to happen, when previous, larger stimuluses did not spark remotely similar scenarios, is a question that will require all your confidence to answer.

Anonymous said...

I hear that sales of Obama merchandise has plunged while Bush's "Miss Me Yet?" poster has spiked in sales.

Really, now. I thought that pointing fingers back, back, through the distant mists of time at poor Dubya (who tried ever so hard) had been declared an act of desperation. Perhaps “We’re #1!” fingers are the exception.

Let’s hope that the Republican Party shares your wise perception that the public has seen the light about Mr. Bush’s reputation. Let’s hope they run in 2012 on a message of reviving its ideals and successes.