Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Rewriting economic history against Obama (Romney's lying AEI/Bush crony hacks)
Rewriting economic history against Obama
By Robert Shapiro
Robert Shapiro, chairman of the economic advisory firm Sonecon, was undersecretary of commerce for economic affairs in the Clinton administration and advises members of the Obama administration.
Two respected economic advisers to the Romney campaign launched a new line of criticism of President Obama’s economic stewardship on this page this week (“Obama’s faulty math; his economic arguments contradict themselves,” op-ed, Aug. 16). The case offered by Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute and Glenn Hubbard of Columbia Business School contained three bold claims.
Two of the three are demonstrably wrong as matters of economics, and the other is off-point.
<...>
The Romney campaign’s notion that the 2007-08 financial crisis should have been followed by a rapid, strong recovery — and, by implication, would have been but for Obama’s policies — ignores other well-known economic evidence. The data show, for example, that the current recovery is comparable to the one that followed the 2001 recession, when Hubbard chaired George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. In the three years following the end of the 2001 recession, which did not involve a financial crisis, real gross domestic product grew only modestly faster than it did in the past three years. Moreover, in the 37 months since the end of the 2007-09 recession, U.S. businesses created nearly 3.9 million new jobs. Recall that fewer than 1.1 million were created in the first 37 months after the 2001 downturn.
<...>
Finally, the Romney advisers claim that if Obama had expected a slow recovery, he should have known that stimulus would produce only a temporary lift, to be followed by a comparable decline. There is an economic theory called “rational expectations”; it holds that stimulus never works. Almost all economists dismiss it because the overwhelming consensus is that stimulus often does work. In any case, there is no theory or evidence to support the peculiar claim that the expectation of a slow recovery will disarm Keynesian stimulus. In fact, within two months of Congress passing Obama’s stimulus, our sickening slide toward a depression halted, and growth and job creation resumed — albeit at the moderate pace characteristic of recoveries following a financial and broader economic crisis.
Yes, growth has slowed periodically since then, but not to anything like the degree the Romney advisers claim. According to their notion, we should be in a deep recession today. In any case, the president asked repeatedly for additional measures to bolster the recovery, which Republicans in the House of Representatives have repeatedly rejected.
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rewriting-economic-history-against-obama/2012/08/16/465aa06e-e7d5-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_story.html?wprss=rss_opinions
By Robert Shapiro
Robert Shapiro, chairman of the economic advisory firm Sonecon, was undersecretary of commerce for economic affairs in the Clinton administration and advises members of the Obama administration.
Two respected economic advisers to the Romney campaign launched a new line of criticism of President Obama’s economic stewardship on this page this week (“Obama’s faulty math; his economic arguments contradict themselves,” op-ed, Aug. 16). The case offered by Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute and Glenn Hubbard of Columbia Business School contained three bold claims.
Two of the three are demonstrably wrong as matters of economics, and the other is off-point.
<...>
The Romney campaign’s notion that the 2007-08 financial crisis should have been followed by a rapid, strong recovery — and, by implication, would have been but for Obama’s policies — ignores other well-known economic evidence. The data show, for example, that the current recovery is comparable to the one that followed the 2001 recession, when Hubbard chaired George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. In the three years following the end of the 2001 recession, which did not involve a financial crisis, real gross domestic product grew only modestly faster than it did in the past three years. Moreover, in the 37 months since the end of the 2007-09 recession, U.S. businesses created nearly 3.9 million new jobs. Recall that fewer than 1.1 million were created in the first 37 months after the 2001 downturn.
<...>
Finally, the Romney advisers claim that if Obama had expected a slow recovery, he should have known that stimulus would produce only a temporary lift, to be followed by a comparable decline. There is an economic theory called “rational expectations”; it holds that stimulus never works. Almost all economists dismiss it because the overwhelming consensus is that stimulus often does work. In any case, there is no theory or evidence to support the peculiar claim that the expectation of a slow recovery will disarm Keynesian stimulus. In fact, within two months of Congress passing Obama’s stimulus, our sickening slide toward a depression halted, and growth and job creation resumed — albeit at the moderate pace characteristic of recoveries following a financial and broader economic crisis.
Yes, growth has slowed periodically since then, but not to anything like the degree the Romney advisers claim. According to their notion, we should be in a deep recession today. In any case, the president asked repeatedly for additional measures to bolster the recovery, which Republicans in the House of Representatives have repeatedly rejected.
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rewriting-economic-history-against-obama/2012/08/16/465aa06e-e7d5-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_story.html?wprss=rss_opinions
Oh, the stimulus worked fine, just ask Mini Mitt.
Paul Ryan did request stimulus funds, but says retroactively he would not have done that (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021146616
A decade of jobs numbers
By Steve Benen
Just for fun, I thought I'd post one more jobs chart, following up on the earlier item. This one shows job growth by year going back to 2001. The blue columns point to President Obama's term, while the red columns point to the Bush/Cheney era, and just as importantly, the lighter color refers to the overall jobs picture, while the darker color points only to the private sector.
So far in 2012, from January to July, the overall economy has added 1.06 million jobs, while the private sector has added 1.12 million jobs. Note that in every year of the Obama presidency, the private sector outpaced the overall economy, while in every year under Bush, that notorious Marxist, the private sector trailed the overall job market.
And while job growth has been underwhelming in 2012, the year to date -- which, again, only includes seven months -- has outpaced the first three years of the Bush presidency combined. Indeed, we've seen more jobs created since January than in five of the eight years Bush was in office.
What's more, the chart should also make it obvious that economic conditions have vastly improved since 2009, when Obama took office. In fact, what the hell, let's throw one more chart into the mix. Mitt Romney recently said the first 6 to 12 months shouldn't be held against a new president. If that's true, Obama has created 3.88 million jobs overall, and 4.44 million private-sector jobs.
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/03/13103583-a-decade-of-jobs-numbers
By Steve Benen
Just for fun, I thought I'd post one more jobs chart, following up on the earlier item. This one shows job growth by year going back to 2001. The blue columns point to President Obama's term, while the red columns point to the Bush/Cheney era, and just as importantly, the lighter color refers to the overall jobs picture, while the darker color points only to the private sector.
So far in 2012, from January to July, the overall economy has added 1.06 million jobs, while the private sector has added 1.12 million jobs. Note that in every year of the Obama presidency, the private sector outpaced the overall economy, while in every year under Bush, that notorious Marxist, the private sector trailed the overall job market.
And while job growth has been underwhelming in 2012, the year to date -- which, again, only includes seven months -- has outpaced the first three years of the Bush presidency combined. Indeed, we've seen more jobs created since January than in five of the eight years Bush was in office.
What's more, the chart should also make it obvious that economic conditions have vastly improved since 2009, when Obama took office. In fact, what the hell, let's throw one more chart into the mix. Mitt Romney recently said the first 6 to 12 months shouldn't be held against a new president. If that's true, Obama has created 3.88 million jobs overall, and 4.44 million private-sector jobs.
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/03/13103583-a-decade-of-jobs-numbers
Summary:
In 2011, private sector job creation under Obama was better than seven out of eight years of Bush's term.
Private sector job creation for 2010 and the seven months of 2012 outpaced private sector job creation in five out of eight years under Bush.
Not only is the Obama recovery outpacing the Bush temporary recovery, its doing after Bush's failed policies created the worst economic crisis in more than 70 years.
Oh, and then there is Romney, who promises to be Bush on steroids after defending Bush's record.
FLASHBACK: Romney Economic Advisers Predicted Bush Tax Cuts Would Lead To Huge Job Growth (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021071809
Video: 2004 Mitt Romney Says It’s ‘Poppycock’ To Blame President For Job Market
by Tommy Christopher
Progressive SuperPAC American Bridge has dug up some video of Republican presidential candidate and then-Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, defending President George W. Bush‘s economic record in 2004, that’s spookily resonant to this year’s election. In the clip, Romney not only amusingly uses the word “poppycock” (one of the all-time underrated old man curse words and a delicious snack), he also urges voters not to blame the President for unforeseen catastrophes, and to ask “Do I stay with the president, who is rebuilding the economy, who is creating jobs, or do you want to stop mid-stream and find someone new?’”
In the video, Romney draws several eerie parallels to the current election. While President Obama took office in the middle of what some call an “economic 9/11,” Romney talked about a “perfect storm” that included the actual 9/11: (transcription by American Bridge)
Later in the clip, Romney blames the internet bubble, whereas President Obama had to contend with a Jupiter-sized real estate bubble:
- more -
http://www.mediaite.com/online/video-2004-mitt-romney-says-its-poppycock-to-blame-president-for-job-market/
by Tommy Christopher
Progressive SuperPAC American Bridge has dug up some video of Republican presidential candidate and then-Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, defending President George W. Bush‘s economic record in 2004, that’s spookily resonant to this year’s election. In the clip, Romney not only amusingly uses the word “poppycock” (one of the all-time underrated old man curse words and a delicious snack), he also urges voters not to blame the President for unforeseen catastrophes, and to ask “Do I stay with the president, who is rebuilding the economy, who is creating jobs, or do you want to stop mid-stream and find someone new?’”
In the video, Romney draws several eerie parallels to the current election. While President Obama took office in the middle of what some call an “economic 9/11,” Romney talked about a “perfect storm” that included the actual 9/11: (transcription by American Bridge)
“The people of America recognize that the slowdown in jobs that occurred during the early years of the Bush administration were the result of a perfect storm. And an effort by one candidate to somehow say ‘Oh, this recession and the slowdown in jobs was the result of somehow this president magically being elected…’ people in America just dismiss that as being poppycock. And they recognize it as that.”
Later in the clip, Romney blames the internet bubble, whereas President Obama had to contend with a Jupiter-sized real estate bubble:
“They (the American people) also recognize that there was a cyclical recession that rebounded from the extravagance of the period that existed prior to that time where we had irrational exuberance, according to Alan Greenspan, and we had a downturn. They also recognize that the internet bubble burst. These things came together creating a perfect storm that meant a huge job loss.”
- more -
http://www.mediaite.com/online/video-2004-mitt-romney-says-its-poppycock-to-blame-president-for-job-market/
Then there is Romney's own defense of his horrible jobs record as Governor.
Romney Camp Defends Poor Jobs Record: He Inherited A Bad Situation
Pema Levy
Mitt Romney has been dogged by an unfortunate statistic for his entire campaign: When he was governor, Massachusetts ranked 47th in job creation. President Obama’s campaign has ramped up the attack this week in response to Romney’s assertion that he knows how to create jobs — a fact he says is backed up by his record in the private sector. Sunday, Romney’s campaign struck back with a new line of defense: Romney stepped into a serious situation and improved it.
If it sounds familiar, it should — it’s the same line of reasoning that Obama is using to persuade voters to stick with his policies.
Twice on Sunday, Romney’s advisers appeared on television armed with different numbers than the ones wielded by the Obama campaign. On ABC’s “This Week,” Obama’s deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter and top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom duked it out over Romney’s Massachusetts record.
Massachusetts “did fall to 47th out of 50 in jobs creation,” Cutter said on ABC’s “This Week.” “Wages went down when they were going up in the rest of the country. He left his successor with debt and a deficit, and manufacturing jobs left that state at twice the rate as the rest of the country.”
- more -
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/romney-massachusetts-record-job-creation-47th-fehrnstrom.php
Pema Levy
Mitt Romney has been dogged by an unfortunate statistic for his entire campaign: When he was governor, Massachusetts ranked 47th in job creation. President Obama’s campaign has ramped up the attack this week in response to Romney’s assertion that he knows how to create jobs — a fact he says is backed up by his record in the private sector. Sunday, Romney’s campaign struck back with a new line of defense: Romney stepped into a serious situation and improved it.
If it sounds familiar, it should — it’s the same line of reasoning that Obama is using to persuade voters to stick with his policies.
Twice on Sunday, Romney’s advisers appeared on television armed with different numbers than the ones wielded by the Obama campaign. On ABC’s “This Week,” Obama’s deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter and top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom duked it out over Romney’s Massachusetts record.
Massachusetts “did fall to 47th out of 50 in jobs creation,” Cutter said on ABC’s “This Week.” “Wages went down when they were going up in the rest of the country. He left his successor with debt and a deficit, and manufacturing jobs left that state at twice the rate as the rest of the country.”
- more -
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/romney-massachusetts-record-job-creation-47th-fehrnstrom.php
All in all, Mitt is a hypocritical liar pushing failed policies and distortions in an attempt to misrepresent President Obama's records, which is stellar by Mitts own standards.
If the first six months don't count...
By Steve Benen
Mitt Romney sat down with CNBC's Larry Kudlow, and made a curious observation. He said voters who want a strong economy should vote for him, but Americans "ought to give, whichever president is going to be elected, at least six months or a year to get those policies in place."
At first blush, that may sound fairly reasonable. A president takes office, he or she needs time to put a team in place, craft an agenda, and get to work. What's more, we generally don't see the results of economic policies immediately; the agenda needs to time to take effect. In Romney's mind, six months to a year seems fair.
But let's go ahead and apply this standard to President Obama, who took office in the midst of the worst global economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. Hey, look, here's a new chart I put together.
Throughout the presidential campaign, Romney has said the clock should start in February 2009, Obama's first month in office. If that's fair -- if the president deserves the blame for every job lost on his 11th day in office -- it's true that under Obama, the economy is still in a deep hole and hasn't fully recovered from the losses of early 2009.
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/24/12926538-if-the-first-six-months-dont-count
By Steve Benen
Mitt Romney sat down with CNBC's Larry Kudlow, and made a curious observation. He said voters who want a strong economy should vote for him, but Americans "ought to give, whichever president is going to be elected, at least six months or a year to get those policies in place."
At first blush, that may sound fairly reasonable. A president takes office, he or she needs time to put a team in place, craft an agenda, and get to work. What's more, we generally don't see the results of economic policies immediately; the agenda needs to time to take effect. In Romney's mind, six months to a year seems fair.
But let's go ahead and apply this standard to President Obama, who took office in the midst of the worst global economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. Hey, look, here's a new chart I put together.
Throughout the presidential campaign, Romney has said the clock should start in February 2009, Obama's first month in office. If that's fair -- if the president deserves the blame for every job lost on his 11th day in office -- it's true that under Obama, the economy is still in a deep hole and hasn't fully recovered from the losses of early 2009.
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/24/12926538-if-the-first-six-months-dont-count
Krugman: What’s In The Ryan Plan?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021142015
New Obama Ad and Website romneyplan.org is Going to Crush Mittens
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021093897
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
