Obama's rose colored economic glasses

[BeAChooser]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53381


The Obama administration’s updated budget forecasts--which anticipate that the federal government will run up $9.05 trillion in new debt over the next decade--is predicated on the assumption of a robust rate of economic growth during that entire period, claiming that the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will grow at an average rate of 2.8 percent between 2009 and 2019.

... snip ...

The administration predicts that while GDP--a measure of all goods and services produced in the economy--will shrink 2.8 percent this year, it will begin growing again sharply by 2011, reaching 4.3 percent by 2012 before leveling out at around three percent through 2019.

However, data from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) suggest that this may not turn out to be the case. While the economy typically rebounds after a recession, it rarely maintains that higher level of growth.

For example, following two years of economic contraction in 1974-75, the economy grew by 5.4 percent the following year. It maintained robust growth until 1980, when it contracted again by 0.3 percent – in all, a growth period of only four years.

A similar pattern occurred in the 1980’s when, after contracting in 1982, the economy rebounded, growing by 7.2 percent in 1984 before leveling out to a growth rate of between 3.5 and four percent. Then it began to shrink again between 1989 and 1990.

It moved from a growth rate of four percent in 1988 to a mere 1.9 percent in 1990 before shrinking in 1991. That constituted a growth period of five years, according to BEA data.

The longest period of sustained growth since 1960 lasted from 1992 to 2000, when the economy grew at an average rate of 3.8 percent, a nine-year period of sustained growth. That period was followed by a sharp contraction in 2001 and 2002, when growth dropped from 4.1 percent in 2000 to 1.1 percent in 2001.

The primary difference between the strong growth period of the 1990’s and today apparently was the federal government’s commitment to modest spending and a balanced budget. That commitment no longer exists, said Cato Institute Director of Tax Policy Chris Edwards, because neither Obama nor his GOP counterparts seem committed to fiscal responsibility.

[oldhat]

Nice advertisement for that guy's book news article.

[Tricky]

Every president has rose-colored economic glasses, to some extent. Bush's first budget was based on the predictions that the budget surplus would continue. But Obama did say that tough times were ahead. He did not promise pie-in-the-sky like some previous candidates. True, some things are worse than he predicted. He's not immune to the disease called Calculated Political Optimism. Neither is he the poster boy for it.

[BeAChooser]

Every president has rose-colored economic glasses, to some extent.

True. But Obama's are a shade or two more pink ... or should I say red. :)

He did not promise pie-in-the-sky like some previous candidates.

He promised a max of 8 percent unemployment if Congress passed his stimulus bill. That was pretty pie in the sky, it turns out. :)

And please understand that the stimulus is only a fraction of the budget deficit projection. As the CBO stated in March, Obama's budget programs will cause the 10 year cumulative deficit to skyrocket by another 5 trillion (before we add in a bunch of other spending that's been added since) over what it would have been had we left Bush's policies in place. And now we are going to add even more to it, in order to promise pie-in-the-sky health care?

[Tricky]

True. But Obama's are a shade or two more pink ... or should I say red. :)
You should... if all you want to do is turn this into a routine partisan squabble. Why you would want to do that when there are so many other threads devoted to it is beyond me.

He promised a max of 8 percent unemployment if Congress passed his stimulus bill. That was pretty pie in the sky, it turns out. :)
If you believe campaign promises, then you deserve to be disappointed. I would call it a prediction, not a promise. Obama at least said that recovery would be slow and difficult. That's more realistic than most campaign talk.

And please understand that the stimulus is only a fraction of the budget deficit projection. As the CBO stated in March, Obama's budget programs will cause the 10 year cumulative deficit to skyrocket by another 5 trillion (before we add in a bunch of other spending that's been added since) over what it would have been had we left Bush's policies in place. And now we are going to add even more to it, in order to promise pie-in-the-sky health care?
As has been shown many times before, it is difficult to predict what the economy will do past a year or two. My own feeling is that many of Obama's programs are things that cost money, but actually save money in the long run. Repairing the infrastructure, (and I consider the health of citizens part of the infrastructure) has a long-term benefit. Ignoring it is a recipe for tragedy. It is our infrastructure that has made the US the economic juggernaut that it is. As always, IMO.

[tyr_13]

As always, IMO.

You left off the H!

[Tricky]

You left off the H!
It would be a lie.

[BeAChooser]

If you believe campaign promises, then you deserve to be disappointed.

Sorry, but the 8% unemployment prediction wasn't a campaign promise. It's what Obama's administration claimed (POST election) would be the unemployment if Congress passed his stimulus package.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/50521


The predictions came from a Jan. 10, 2009, report issued by Christina Romer, now chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, and Jared Bernstein, currently Vice President Joe Biden’s chief economist. The administration used the report as both a blueprint and a justification for the $787-billion spending package Obama signed in February.


Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009. Looks like the administration's economic advisors are not to be relied on. So if they tell us something about healthcare, beware. :)

I would call it a prediction, not a promise.

I would call the language Obama used to sell the stimulus more than a prediction. In fact, here's what Obama said in selling the stimulus:


"Now, I know that there's some who, despite all evidence to the contrary, still don't believe in the necessity and promise of this recovery act."


And I wasn't the only one to see it as a promise. For example:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/06/news/economy/arra_stimulus_payouts/


In February, Obama promised that funds would be paid out quickly and save or create 750,000 jobs by early August.

Further, the boost to the economy would keep the unemployment rate from surpassing 8%, according to a January study by Obama administration economists Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein. Without it, the study said, unemployment could rise to 9% in 2010.


But in any case, we can certainly see that Romer and Bernstein were wrong. Now I wonder what they are saying about healthcare and if Obama is basing anything concerning healthcare on what they say? :)


As has been shown many times before, it is difficult to predict what the economy will do past a year or two.

True. Especially if one can't even get right what the CBO said in a report about the budget, deficits and debt (now there's a topic that certain partisans don't seem to want to discuss)? :)


My own feeling is that many of Obama's programs are things that cost money, but actually save money in the long run.

Isn't that the same thing that was claimed about the War on Poverty, War on Drugs, Public Education, etc? :cool:

It is our infrastructure that has made the US the economic juggernaut that it is.

No, something came before that infrastructure ever existed. ;)

[joobz]

Interesting argument.
BAC previously argued that Obama was a liar for calling the ressesion worse the one we've seen in decades, by predicting 8% unemployment. Now that we've gone past that, you say he's wearing "rose colored glasses".

As been stated, He admitted to the recovery being slow and tough and even admitted that the predictions on unemployment were wrong. So, what's the issue here? that we have a president who honestly admits mistakes and is willing to state things are not easy?

[JihadJane]

I doubt that Obama is wearing any glasses at.

It's more likely that he is just doing his job i.e: Lying.

[BeAChooser]

BAC previously argued that Obama was a liar for calling the ressesion worse the one we've seen in decades, by predicting 8% unemployment.

There you go misrepresenting what I said, AGAIN. :rolleyes:

I didn't call Obama a liar for saying the recession was worse than any "we've seen in decades". Here's what I actually said:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135124

I called him a liar because he focused on job losses and told the American public back in February (to sell his stimulus package) that "By now, it's clear to everyone that we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression."

He did that at a time when all the indicators were no where near as bad as they were during the 1981-82 and 1973-75 recessions. The decrease in Real GDP and Industrial Production, the Unemployment Rate, the Rate of Inflation, the Misery Index and the 30 year Mortgage rate ... all were much smaller than they were during those two recessions.

As I noted back then, "Obama must know these things ... unless he's surrounded himself by total incompetents and is an incompetent himself ... and I don't think either he or his staff are THAT incompetent." Hence, the only other option was that Obama was deliberately trying to manipulate the American people by lying. The same argument I noted when I pointed out that Obama and his staff, based on what he said during his Health Care Press Conference speech a month ago, were either incompetent to understand the March CBO report or were deliberately lying to the American People in order to justify yet another trillion dollar spending program.

So joobz, if you are going to tell folks my views on this forum, I would at least appreciate your stating them correctly. Or do you misrepresent them deliberately? :D

Now it is worth noting that in that February thread there was no mention of the administration saying that the maximum rate of unemployment, if we didn't pass the stimulus bill, would be 9%. So apparently Obama was told by his economic advisors at the time that even without the stimulus package, unemployment would not exceed the 1982 recession (10.8%). Given that fact, wasn't Obama being a bit dishonest in what he told the American public at the time? Is Obama given to hyperbole and hysteria?

I didn't know about the 8% and 9% figures at the time I started the February thread and I suppose neither did any of you Obama defenders. Because if you folks had known that, it would be a little silly to have made some of the comments that were made about unemployment and where it was headed on that thread. In fact, those comments would then have suggested you didn't trust the Obama and his advisors. :D

[ksbluesfan]

Even the Wall Street Journal has a pair of rose colored economic glasses.

Government efforts to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars into the U.S. economy appear to be helping the U.S. climb out of the worst recession in decades.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125185379218478087.html

[lomiller]

It's what Obama's administration claimed (POST election) would be the unemployment if Congress passed his stimulus package.


The numbers he would have been working with at the time to make those projections still came from the massively incompetent Republican administration that preceded him.

[joobz]

There you go misrepresenting what I said, AGAIN. :rolleyes:
I paraphrased. but certainly didn't misrepresent.

I called him a liar because he focused on job losses and told the American public back in February (to sell his stimulus package) that "By now, it's clear to everyone that we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression."
Which was discovered to be true. Your only complaint now is that it was worse than Obama claimed.

[BeAChooser]

The numbers he would have been working with at the time to make those projections still came from the massively incompetent Republican administration that preceded him.

No, as the articles CLEARLY STATE, the numbers on which he based his proposals came from his current economic advisors (and they weren't in the Bush administration). From that report they issued on what the economy and unemployment would do both with and without a stimulus package. You really need to learn to read or take those obama-is-wonderful blinders off.

[BeAChooser]

I paraphrased. but certainly didn't misrepresent.

Now you are just lying because what you *paraphrased* isn't remotely close to what I actually said.

[joobz]

Now you are just lying because what you *paraphrased* isn't remotely close to what I actually said.
People can read. If others agree with you, I'll apologize. However, clearly the content of my post holds true.

Interestingly, you avoided my other point that your only real complaint is that Obama's original statement was true just worse than he thought.

[BeAChooser]

Interestingly, you avoided my other point that your only real complaint is that Obama's original statement was true just worse than he thought.

What's the point in trying to debate a liar?

[brodski]

What's the point in trying to debate a liar?

:D

[joobz]

What's the point in trying to debate a liar?
I didn't lie nor am I a liar.

Your accusations and insults expose your baseless position.

[JihadJane]

Even the Wall Street Journal has a pair of rose colored economic glasses.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125185379218478087.html

No, Wall Street, with which Obama is allied (as was Bush) , aren't wearing glases either. They are also lying in the hope of extracting more wealth from suckers on the way down.

"The Worst of All Worlds": Don't Believe the Recovery Hype, Ortel Says (http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/316690/%22The-Worst-of-All-Worlds%22-Don%27t-Believe-the-Recovery-Hype-Ortel-Says?tickers=%5EDJI,%5EGSPC,SPY,DIA,XLF,EEM,FXI)

[BeAChooser]

I didn't lie nor am I a liar.

And yet you stated as if it were fact that


BAC previously argued that Obama was a liar for calling the ressesion worse the one we've seen in decades, by predicting 8% unemployment.


when I said nothing of the sort.

So if I you want to claim you aren't are liar, that only leaves the possibility that you are incompetent. That you either didn't bother to read what I actually said on the subject before you posted, or you didn't understand what you read, or you couldn't remember what you read, or you are having delusions about what other people say on this forum. In any case, you are not really someone worth debating any further. :D

[Skeptic]

Every president has rose-colored economic glasses, to some extent. Bush's first budget was based on the predictions that the budget surplus would continue. But Obama did say that tough times were ahead. He did not promise pie-in-the-sky like some previous candidates.

Yes, indeed, but that didn't force him to raise the deficit to such stratospheric levels to support his pet projects.

That's precisely the problem with Obama. He gives great speeches -- so much more mature, wonderful, forward looking, caring, and soothing than the other guys' bumbling, mistake-filled musing. He warns of tough times; he seems fatherly, concerned; he looks so much more realistic and concerned -- when speaking -- than the other guy.

And then he goes and blows a trillion dollars -- and more -- on pie-in-the-sky schemes which make investing all of one's money in lottery tickets seem reasonable by comparison.

Bush's popularity was hurt because he cannot give a good speech. Obama's popularity is hurting since, it seems, he can't do anything except give good speeches.

[oldhat]

Bush's popularity was hurt because he cannot give a good speech.

I thought it was because he was the worst president we've ever had and everyone hated his guts.

[JihadJane]

"Peak Civilization": The Fall of the Roman Empire (http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50025)



"As many are aware, in March 2008, David M. Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office, resigned his commission 5 years before the end of his 15-year term expired. His reasons for resigning were that he was limited to what he could do and that the United States was in danger of collapsing in much the same manner as the Roman Empire.

'Drawing parallels with the end of the Roman empire, Mr Walker warned there were "striking similarities" between America’s current situation and the factors that brought down Rome…'

For months before his resignation he traveled the country educating Americans about the financial crisis and the pending bankruptcy of the United States."

‘Inflation and the Fall of the Roman Empire’: Why David M. Walker compared the collapse of the United States to the Fall of Rome (http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/09/03/inflation-and-the-fall-of-the-roman-empi#more6230)


This whole Bush/Obama argument is irrelevant. They are two sides of the same coin.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Actually, just to nitpick: It could just be that Obama thinks spending on certain projects is more important than reducing debt.

(It could be he should have taken a much more nuanced position running or actually just damned the torpedoes.. that said..)

[oldhat]

Actually, just to nitpick: It could just be that Obama thinks spending on certain projects is more important than reducing debt.

Yes, it's called Keynesian policy. Paul Krugman and Brad De Long have been writing about it extesnively for the past three or four years.

A similar thing to what FDR tried after another Republican ruined the economy before he took office.

[BeAChooser]

This whole Bush/Obama argument is irrelevant. They are two sides of the same coin.

Perhaps, but Obama is the side of the coin we have to deal with right now. And I don't agree that democrats/republicans are two sides of the same coin.

[BeAChooser]

Yes, it's called Keynesian policy. Paul Krugman and Brad De Long have been writing about it extesnively for the past three or four years.

A similar thing to what FDR tried after another Republican ruined the economy before he took office.

ROTFLOL!

Gee ... what is it that FDR's own treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, said 8 years after the start of the New Deal?


We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started .... and an enormous debt to boot!

[joobz]

And yet you stated as if it were fact that
[snip personal attack]
I sumarized your position. Saying "Worst since the great depresssion" is practically the same as saying worse than any ressession we've seen in decades. It doesn't at all change my point nor does it change the fact that you are upset that Obama was right about the recession.

[BeAChooser]

I sumarized your position

And I've summarized yours. :D

[oldhat]

ROTFLOL!

Gee ... what is it that FDR's own treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, said 8 years after the start of the New Deal?

Your argument is that since there wasn't full employment until the outbreak of WW2, the New Deal was a complete failure, blah blah blah, I've heard wingers attempt this argument and I've seen the Morgenthau pull quote a million times before. You have a funny way of selectively picking statistics. You don't say anything about the rising standard of living, the stabilization of the banking industry, the spectacular growth in GNP (8% per year between '33 and '37, 10% per year between '38 and '41), etc. But then again you're a conspiracy theorist and confirmation bias is how your mind works.

[joobz]

And I've summarized yours. :D
You are more then welcome to continue your games. It won't change reality.

You called obama a liar for claiming we were in the worst recession since the great depression. Now that he was proven to be telling the truth, you call him foolish for underpredicting the severity of the recession.

that was my point, the point you continually avoid by using personal attacks.

[BeAChooser]

You are more then welcome to continue your games.

Who is the one who started out playing games here ... by completely mischaracterizing the stated views of another poster? You. That's the reality.

:D

[joobz]

Dodge #6 by BAC.
Who is the one who started out playing games here ... by completely mischaracterizing the stated views of another poster? You. That's the reality.

:D
And yet it's only you saying that I did.

[Tricky]

Please focus on the topic and not each other. No infractions and no movements of posts at this time, but I expect to see this bickering stop.

Thank you.

[joobz]

Sounds Like a good plan:
Back on topic:
BeACHooser
It's interesting that you called obama a liar for claiming we were in the worst recession since the great depression. Now that he was proven to be telling the truth, you call him foolish for underpredicting the severity of the recession.
Which is it?

[BeAChooser]

You don't say anything about the rising standard of living, the stabilization of the banking industry, the spectacular growth in GNP (8% per year between '33 and '37, 10% per year between '38 and '41), etc.

Your argument is that since there wasn't full employment until the outbreak of WW2, the New Deal was a complete failure, blah blah blah, I've heard wingers attempt this argument and I've seen the Morgenthau pull quote a million times before.

It's not just us "wingers" pushing that argument. :)

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., a democrat, acclaimed New Deal historian, and admirer of FDR, wrote in his book "The National Experience" (from 1963), that "Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produced recovery."

And the Brookings Institute (a left-leaning organization even back then) published a 900 page report on the impact of the New Deal's National Recovery Administration and concluded that "on the whole it retarded recovery."

And you mean with that all that supposed GNP growth, the unemployment rate was still almost 19% in 1939 and still over 17% in 1939? Is that what we have to look forward to under Obama's reintroduction of New Deal economics? :D

And don't you know it's not uncommon to see large GNP growth immediately after recessions ... even without the sort of massive stimulus spending FDR and Obama engaged in. For example, look at the 1981-83 recession. The GNP grew almost 7 percent in 1984. In fact, there's a clearer link between recession unemployment and post recession GNP growth, than there is between government spending during recessions and post recession growth. Just look at the rest of the historical data.

http://img.skitch.com/20090503-mctci56ng6iacm27pwf75u5526.render.png

And finally, what do you think was going on in 1940 and 41 when the GNP was growing 10% a year? :rolleyes:

[oldhat]

Nice strawman BAC!

No one, not me, not Krugman, not anyone with any ounce of credibility ever claimed that the New Deal singlehandledly pulled the US out of the Great Depression. Everyone, right, left and conspiracy theorist alike already agrees that it was the full mobilization of the US (i.e. MASSIVE, unprecedented government spending) during WW2 which pushed the US economy over the hump into prosperity.

Orthodox Keynesians made the argument that the government actually didn't spend enough on stimulus during the 30s. I dont't know if they were right but there's a compelling piece of evidence right wingers hate to talk about: the recession of '37 was caused by economic conservatives demanding that the FDR balance the budget and him listening to their advice. As soon as this misguided policy was scrapped and FDR returned to Keynesian policy, the economy began recovering again.

Again, great strawman BAC, perhaps a masterpiece in your Louve-caliber gallery of fallacious arguments, and almost as comic and foolish as the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz to boot. If you only had a brain!

[BeAChooser]

es, it's called Keynesian policy.

Just curious. How firmly do you think we should adhere to Keynesian policy, oldhat?