Conservatives, would it kill you to admit Obama did a good job?

[Indian Giver]

Translation: He was a Republican, and that's all that matters as far as I'm concerned.

He wasn't Hillary. If she won we would be living in Nazi Germany now.

 

[TurtleDude]

Translation: He was a Republican, and that's all that matters as far as I'm concerned.

lets see-you claim we support Trump because he is a republican. And opposed Obama because he's a dem. Don't you do just the same on the other side?

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

TARP would have happened with or without Obama. QE would have happened with or without Obama.

Let's be clear about a few things:

1. I do believe presidents get too much blame or credit for the economy

But if we're going to give credit to Trump after one year where he started taking credit the first month, then we have to give Obama credit for a massive turnaround from the worst recession since the Great Recession.

2. TARP would not have happened without Obama. The first TARP attempt didn't pass. Obama backed TARP and pushed Democrats to vote for it. Lots of Democrats didn't want to bail out Wall Street. Bernie Sanders voted against TARP. Obama had massive political power to push Dems to vote for it. So your claim is clearly false.

3. Republicans complained about QE and wanted the Fed head removed.

Republicans blame Obama for Fed action

You can't rewrite history. You can give credit to the Fed today while blaming Obama for Fed action yesterday. The GOP opposed QE. They were dead wrong. Thank God Obama didn't listen to them.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Like every other President to have existed Obama did good things. And bad. People tend to focus on negatives far more than positives. I doubt that anyone can honestly say that X President did a "good job" or "bad job" in totality. And even then a person would base their belief on what they personally wanted more. IE: Immigration vs economics or equality vs equity etc etc.

IMO Obama did fairly decent economic wise. Social wise he sucked.

Thread!

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

He wasn't Hillary. If she won we would be living in Nazi Germany now.

You mean the Nazi Germany that blamed all it's problems on minority groups? You mean the extremely nationalistic uber patriotic Nazi Germany? You mean the Nazi Germany that greatly ramped up military spending? You mean the Nazi Germany that believed in racial purity? You mean the Nazi Germany that was led by a tough talking idiot?

Hillary Clinton believes in racial purity?

 

[lurchadams]

So it's not okay to be white being white is racist and being a liberal which is what a Libertarian is is bad.

Go ahead and write me off there can be no discussion with you you're too much of a bigot.

Why would I want to write you off? I'm having so much fun with you, you're so easily triggered!

 

[CLAX1911]

Why would I want to write you off? I'm having so much fun with you, you're so easily triggered!

Triggered? My signature triggered you.

 

[lurchadams]

Triggered? My signature triggered you.

I don't understand why you're so mad at me. I promise you I'm white and straight!

 

[CLAX1911]

I don't understand why you're so mad at me. I promise you I'm white and straight!

Who said I was mad at you?

 

[Neomalthusian]

Let's be clear about a few things:

1. I do believe presidents get too much blame or credit for the economy

But if we're going to give credit to Trump after one year where he started taking credit the first month, then we have to give Obama credit for a massive turnaround from the worst recession since the Great Recession.

So you want to give both of them credit? Or neither?

2. TARP would not have happened without Obama.

That is an astounding claim. Do you have any concept of what would have happened had there been no TARP?

3. Republicans complained about QE and wanted the Fed head removed.

Same question. Do you have any concept of what would have happened had there been no QE? Congresscritters will always grandstand against whatever the opposing party's President is supporting.

 

[jaeger19]

Under Obama, we had the longest streak of private sector job growth in history. That's a fact.

U.S. enjoying its longest-lasting streak of jobs growth

When Obama took office we were losing more jobs than any time in 34 years. The economy was a disaster. The DOW was bellow 8,000 and falling. That's a fact.

The economy changed directions under Obama. We recovered from one of the biggest recessions in our history under Obama.

Why can't you swallow your pride and admit Obama did a good job?

Well.. just to point out.. a true conservative generally doesn't believe that the government is responsible for the economy.

For the most part... Obama managed to not screw up the economic recovery, and perhaps gave it a bit of a boost with ARRA.. but thats debatable.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

That is an astounding claim. Do you have any concept of what would have happened had there been no TARP?

What are you talking about? I'm fully aware of how disastrous it would have been had we not passed TARP. Hence my claim that Obama suppoted TARP. TARP or "bailing out Wall Street" was not politically popular.

Same question. Do you have any concept of what would have happened had there been no QE? Congresscritters will always grandstand against whatever the opposing party's President is supporting.

Same answer. Of course, I'm aware. Again, I showed you links where Republicans were complaining about QE and insisted that Obama was keeping the economy afloat by printing money. Did you forget that whole episode? They BLAMED Obama for QE. Now they credit QE and give Obama no credit for supporting QE. LOL.

QE is against conservative ideology. Our economy was saved by socialist government interventions. The government took over the means of production. A shocking defeat for the idealogues.

 

[maxparrish]

Wrong, recoveries can take decades if not handled properly by politicians.
Japan's Lost Decade: Brief History and Lessons

You should have written "recessions and subsquent recoveries can take decades if caused and handled improperly by politicians". Japan's Lost Decade, while mostly unique among developed nations, is a lesson in failed Keynesianism.

In any case, real business cycles exist. And absent government interventionism, which often causes downturns and delays recoveries, that natural cycle occurs on its own. IN FACT, the entire basis of Old Keynesian economics was the supposition that with timely and targeted fiscal policy intervention (before the natural downturn) the cycle can be mitigated or eliminated.

Also in fact, activist and discretionary interventions often trigger recessions and are ineffective or harmful to recoveries. The great recession was much deeper and more prolonged because of such interventions by Bush and Obama policies, and the 800 billion dollar "stimulus" AFTER the cycle had bottomed was completely ineffective (EVEN Keynesians had stressed such stimulus has to occur on a timely basis).

Moreover, if that were the case, wouldn't stock values anticipate these recoveries? Are you saying that people who were selling DOW stocks at 8K knew that a few years later it would be at 17K? They knew that they could more than double their money in 5 years and they sold their stocks anyway? I call BS on that.

Because stock values also anticipate near term losses, the risk of bankruptcy, and the effects on the trader's quarter and year end balance sheet. In 2008 Jim Cramer warned his viewers that if they needed their money in the "next five years" they should get out of the market ASAP. Traders expect an eventual recovery, but prices reflected unnecessary risk (especially if bonds or fixed investments offer safety).

What if Bush hadn't passed TARP? Could Bush have passed TARP if Obama had opposed it and encouraged Democrats to oppose it?
Does anyone still think it would have been a good idea to let GM fail and be bought out by foreigners? Do you give Obama credit for that?
Government is the biggest customer in any economy. What politicians do with the budget has a huge effect on the economy. Obama increased spending to boost the economy. It worked.

Whether or not TARP was necessary is a matter of controversy. However, it is now clear it addressed the wrong problem, because while it appeared that there was a liquidity crisis, in actuality it was a risk crisis. And, as John Taylor and others have shown, Obama's spending did zilch (other than increase the deficit).

So you admit that it was an "unusually deep" recession?

Of course. It was the worst since the Great Depression. Which makes the poor recovery all the more perplexing because sharp downturns almost means equally sharp recoveries (e.g. the Reagan recovery).

Many people didn't want TARP. There are fools who still complain about us "bailing out the banks." Fortunately, Obama didn't listen to them. Saving Wall Street is not what liberals typically do. How many times did I hear conservatives complaining about Fed policy and QE? How many times did we hear them saying the dollar was going to become worthless and inflation would be out of controls.

Actually it was Bush that started TARP, and Obama continued it. It was likely more harmful than helpful. In any event, you are correct about inflation. It turned out the money given the banks were never loaned and did not enter the money supply. They kept it in reserves, to meet the new capitalization requirements (and make money on interest).

That's been the core complaint. The recovery was slow. But the recession was severe. It's just common sense!

Your "common sense" is economically illiterate. The long-standing empirical correlation has been sharp downturns are normally followed by sharp upturns. When that does not happen, you can look to benighted government actions (e.g. in the Great Depression and recent Great Recession).

Yes, he did, would it kill you to admit it instead of all this partisan spin?

Yes, it would kill me to lie, just to make you warm and fuzzy.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Like every other President to have existed Obama did good things. And bad. People tend to focus on negatives far more than positives. I doubt that anyone can honestly say that X President did a "good job" or "bad job" in totality. And even then a person would base their belief on what they personally wanted more. IE: Immigration vs economics or equality vs equity etc etc.

IMO Obama did fairly decent economic wise. Social wise he sucked.

I think socially he was excellent, economically speaking, he did the best he could under massive obstruction. It was Obama's work in foreign policy which was, to be kind..."weak and scattershot".
He conveyed a good image abroad, other leaders loved him, but nevertheless they grimaced and winced at some of the uninformed decisions he made, and he was rightly taken to task on a couple of occasions by conservatives for poor judgment.

Lastly, it needs to be repeated that Obama did not run as a very liberal candidate, more like a centrist. That annoyed a good many true blue liberals who wanted him to be more like FDR and less like G.W. Bush on some issues.

His foreign policy judgment might have been a good bit better than Dubya's but not as good as it needed to be. We needed, and still do need, someone who excels in foreign policy's now drastically changing landscape, someone who is exceedingly up to date and well informed and who has the stomach to make informed decisions.

 

[Fenton]

Under Obama, we had the longest streak of private sector job growth in history. That's a fact.

U.S. enjoying its longest-lasting streak of jobs growth

When Obama took office we were losing more jobs than any time in 34 years. The economy was a disaster. The DOW was bellow 8,000 and falling. That's a fact.

The economy changed directions under Obama. We recovered from one of the biggest recessions in our history under Obama.

Why can't you swallow your pride and admit Obama did a good job?

And why cant Liberals simply educate themselves instead of relying on regurgitating empty talking points ?

Conservatives are usually informed enough to read through the kind of BS propaganda we were indundated with under the Obama administration.

The Obama economy WAS a disaster, no getting around it. 8 years of a economy that was so anemic, it had to be propped up with 8 years of unprecedented Fed inflationary policies.

A very relevant and descriptive economic indicator existed for the entirety of Obama's Presidency that was absolutely ignored by the Media and Democrats and their supporters.That was the Fed discount rate.

Im guessing they simply didn't understand its signfigance. This is the rate the Fed charges member banks for money borrowed to meet Fed reserve requirements.

The Fed uses the discount rate as a tool to control and manipulate the money supply in response to other economic indicators

A low rate means its cheaper for banks to borrow funds, meaning they have more money on hand to lend.

A higher rate means its more expensive for Banks to borrow funds, which means they have less money on hand to lend. The Fed enters into a contractionary policy when they want to head off rising inflation

The Fed lowers the rate in slow economies to incentivize lending, to make it cheaper for banks to lend, which also makes it cheaper for bussiness to borrow. This increases economic activity, or its suppose to


The worse the economy is, the lower the discount rate.

For 8 years under Obama the Fed had their discount rate nearly zeroed out, and still trillions of dollars in excess liquidity sat stagnant. So no, I wont admit Obama did a good job on the economy, because Im not one of his uniformed minions.

Obama did everything in his power to damage the economy, to suffocate it and restrict economic growth, and you cant brag about a great economy that needed 8 years of 0 interest Fed discount rates to prilop it up, and expect to be taken seriously

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Conservatives are usually informed enough to read through the kind of BS propaganda we were indundated with under the Obama administration.

Answer me a very simple question. Let's assume you are right and the recovery was "anemic." The DOW was at point under 8,000 under Obama. If you bought an index fund at that point and waited 5 years you would have doubled your investment.

If people knew that the economy would recover in 5 years and the DOW would double in value why would they sell?

That proves for a FACT that the total knowledge of the market did not expect the recovery would be as quick as it was.

Do you know why they didn't expect it? It was because the recession was such a catastrophic economic disaster. The recovery was slow because the disaster was severe. It took a long time to clear the books of the excess housing inventory from the bubble collapse.

You can't deny that Obama entered while we were losing 500k jobs a month and left with the longest period of job growth in history. Those are just facts, not talking points.

You're only argument is the economy should have recovered faster. That's just pure fantasy speculation. Do you deny that you're just speculating?

And the idea that conservatives are informed about economics is laughable. Ben Bernanke left the Republican party because he said they were stupid.

It's the stupid economics. That's why he's no longer a Republican, former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke tells us in his new memoir. Bernanke says he "lost patience with Republicans' susceptibility to the know-nothing-ism of the far right." Here's part of his indictment:

"They saw inflation where it did not exist and, when the official data did not bear out their predictions, invoked conspiracy theories. They denied that monetary or fiscal policy could support job growth, while still working to direct federal spending to their own districts. Tey advocated discredited monetary systems, like the gold standard."

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/econ...bernanke-has-had-it-with-stupid-gop-economics

The Fed and Obama saved the economy. Republicans are a bunch of morons when it comes to economics. I can go on forever about how absurd Republican economic policy is but I don't have the time. But thank God the Fed is independent.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Your "common sense" is economically illiterate. The long-standing empirical correlation has been sharp downturns are normally followed by sharp upturns. When that does not happen, you can look to benighted government actions (e.g. in the Great Depression and recent Great Recession).

I'm economically illiterate? Is the IMF economically illiterate too? Let's look at what the IMF said in 2009...

IMF Survey: Global Recession to Be Long, Deep with Slow Recovery

The study goes on to determine whether there have been important differences between the recessions associated with financial crises and the others. Using the dates of financial crises, a recession is said to be associated with a financial crisis if the recession starts at the same time or after the beginning of a financial crisis.

Of the 122 recessions, 15 are associated with financial crises. Recessions associated with financial crises are longer and generally more costly than others. They are also followed by weak recoveries: the time taken to recover to the level of activity reached in the previous peak is as long as the recession itself, whereas cumulative GDP growth in the four quarters after the trough is typically lower than following other types of recessions.

Why are financial crises different? Evidence indicates that the expansions that preceded these recessions have often been associated with credit and house price booms involving overheated goods and labor markets and, frequently, a loss of external competitiveness.

The rapid growth in credit, oftentimes following financial deregulation, typically leads to a deterioration in the quality of balance sheets. The turnaround in household savings behavior—in an attempt to restore their balance sheets—leads to sharp declines in consumption, which persist through the recovery phase.

I guess the IMF doesn't agree with your deep recession quick recovery nonsense. And yes, it is common sense that it takes longer to recover from a severe trauma.

And I don't waste my time arguing with those who claim the Great Depression would have been shorter if this or if that. It's all speculation. Yet you present it as some kind of fact. No one can predict how an economy will respond. These are complex systems.

So you go from speculating about the Great Depression to speculating the Great Recession. You're insisting that your anti-government ideology would have made things better. Yet where are all the countries following this do-nothing-let-the-market-fix-itself philosophy? Without government intervention, the entire global economy would have collapsed. The free market just doesn't work without government intervention.

The problem is government rescuing the failing free-market counters with your ideology. All your arguments are just a distortion of reality to suit your ideology. Where are the countries that practice your ideology of not intervening during a recession or depression?

I doin't have time to go into all the absurd inacuracies in your post.

 

[maxparrish]

I'm economically illiterate? Is the IMF economically illiterate too? Let's look at what the IMF said in 2009...

IMF Survey: Global Recession to Be Long, Deep with Slow Recovery

I guess the IMF doesn't agree with your deep recession quick recovery nonsense. And yes, it is common sense that it takes longer to recover from a severe trauma.

A reminder: I stated that there is a long-standing empirical correlation that sharp downturns are normally followed by sharp upturns. That is true "normally". For example:

"it seems to fly in the face of the record of U.S. business cycles in the past century and a half. Indeed, Milton Friedman noted in 1964 that in the
American historical record “A large contraction in output tends to be followed on the average by a large business expansion; a mild contraction, by a mild expansion.” (Friedman 1969, p. 273). Much work since then has confirmed this stylized fact"... http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/Bordo-Haubrich-Steep-Paper-SNB 9_7.pdf

Hence your claim that the severe recessions are normally followed by slow recoveries is incorrect.

But now you are shifting arguments. You pointed out the IMF study - it says of the 122 recessions studied by the IMF, confirms that the "unnormal" ones (the 15 that involved financial crisis) seem to have slow recovery rates. This, and your mention of the housing crisis, are the alleged exceptions to the general rule of recessions.

However, even this popular factoid and Obama administration excuse is misleading. To enumerate:

1) Reinhardt and Rogoff's paper "The Aftermath of Financial Crises" is the primary source for this pass around "truthie". And though I have nothing but respect and admiration for these two economists, it is important to note what they actually wrote. In their study of recent downturns in a collection of countries, they noted that financial recessions tend to be longer and deeper than the average recession. However, they also noted a wide disparity in outcomes, and frequently does not always and inevitably lead to long recessions.

2) More relevant evidence from the United States economy over a longer time period suggests something quite different. In the Atlanta Fed, Gerald Dwyer and James Lothian went much further back than R and R, and found no difference between recessions with financial crises and those without. Some, like the Great depression and now, last a long time. The others don't.

Michael Bordo and Joseph Haubrich wrote an even more detailed study of US history concluding:

"recessions associated with financial crises are generally followed by rapid recoveries. ...In contrast to much conventional wisdom, the stylized fact that deep contractions breed strong recoveries is particularly true when there is a financial crisis. In fact, on average, it is cycles without a financial crisis that show the weakest relation between contraction depth and recovery strength."

3. This is consistent with what has been taught in economics and grad schools: "The further it falls, the quicker it rises (growth). Financial crises give sharper and deeper recessions, followed by sharper recoveries, but not, on average, longer ones."

As a part of you pursuit of learning, and links to the afore-mentioned papers, I suggest you read this link to a well-known economist: https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2012/05/slow-recoveries-after-financial-crises.html

And I don't waste my time arguing with those who claim the Great Depression would have been shorter if this or if that. ...

While economists might disagree on what Roosevelt should have done, almost all agree that he followed the wrong policies. To say otherwise is, indeed, a waste of your time.

...You're insisting that your anti-government ideology would have made things better. ...The problem is government rescuing the failing free-market counters with your ideology. All your arguments are just a distortion of reality to suit your ideology. ...

Pointing out government failure is not being "anti-government", it is pointing out where government could do much better job if it respected the first principles of free markets and ceased pursing short-term and expensive bromides that backfire. After all, there were plenty of sharp downturns and quick recoveries in the 19th century, long before government intervention and the Fed even existed (an impossibility in your paradigm).

In any event, my point has been that Obama did not follow the optimal long term policy, and should have let most of the short-term take care of itself. I will return to that proposition in my next post.

I doin't have time to go into all the absurd inacuracies in your post.

Excellent, it will save me time in not having to correct them.