The Case for Un-Electing Obama in One Chart

January 27, 2012 | Filed under 2012 Presidential Race,Barack Obama,Economics | Posted by

He has made a bad situation much worse.

Recovery Doesn’t Feature Typical Snapback in Growth

By Ben Casselman and Josh Mitchell | The Wall Street Journal

The U.S. economy has taken more than two years to claw its way back to producing the amount of goods and services it did just before the last recession.

But what about all that “lost” growth? After slumps, growth usually sprints forward—allowing the economy to not only regain its previous peak but also add enough on top to make it seem as if no recession ever happened. After the early 1980s recession, for instance, the U.S. notched five straight quarters of over 7% growth, quickly putting the economy back on its previous expansion path.

That hasn’t happened this time. On Friday, the government releases its preliminary snapshot of economic growth in the final three months of 2011 and most economists expect it to show gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of about 3%.

That would be the fastest quarterly growth the U.S. has managed since mid-2010. And indeed, the economy has shown signs of accelerating. But to make up for growth lost during the recession, the economy has to shift into a much higher gear. Economists note that while output, adjusted for inflation, is finally back to its pre-recession level, it still falls short if adjusted for population growth.

“We’re still in a hole, and the hole’s just as deep as it ever was. It’s just it’s not getting deeper,” said Justin Wolfers, a visiting professor of economics at Princeton University

Obama has said that if he didn’t have things turned around in three years, he’d be a one term President.  Let’s help him keep that promise.

Hat Tip: Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds

« « “I accuse you, Mr. President”
Wisconsin School Punishes Christian Kid for Being a… Christian Kid » »

Shortlink:

Posted by on January 27, 2012.
Filed under 2012 Presidential Race, Barack Obama, Economics.
Tagged with: .


Both comments and pings are currently closed.
  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen

    You forgot this graphic… which makes the case even stronger … Take a look at what happens as soon as Obama enters office.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Glenn Reynolds has a message for stephen:

      IF YOUR FACEBOOK FRIENDS HAVE BEEN SHARING THIS DUMB CHART, YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON: A bogus chart on Obama and the debt gets a new lease on life. I’ve noticed it reappearing lately. From the WaPo:

      This chart, originally created by the office of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, is as phony as a three-dollar bill. Our friends at PolitiFact did a pretty thorough takedown of it in May, giving it their worst rating: “pants on fire.”

      They even caught the Pelosi people in a bad mathematical error, based on the fact that the Democrats calculated the numbers as if Obama took office a year later than he did. But it still circulates. Note: If you’re passing this on, you can’t make fun of birthers. . . .

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen

        Stephen has a message for Rodney.

        Wrong chart, moron. The chart flagged by Glenn Reynolds is a different chart… something to do about the debt.

        http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/135882/

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          Oh my Heaven!

          It’s one of those one in one-thousand-four-hundredred-forty cases where stephen is right (and a similar one in 1440 where I am wrong).

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen

            lol.. thanks for admitting you’re wrong. Mistakes happen.

    • PBunyan

      The problem with your graphic Steven, is that it a very small snapshot that shows the brunt of the Obama-and-the-Dems-took-over-congress-Recession of 2008 and the first couple years of the current Fascist regime. 

      What you need for perspective is to compare this “recovery” (or lack thereof) with historic recoveries from other recessions in the past (which is what the chart in the original post does).  Reagan “inherited” as bad, if not worse, economy that Obama did, but because he wasn’t a Fascist-Marxist like Obama and unlike Obama Reagan understood how freedom and liberty create properity, the ecomony quickly recovered.  Same thing in 2001 when Bush “inherited” the recession from Clinton, but turned it around.

      What Obama is doing with his Fascist-the government must control everything- style of goverment is not unlike what FDR did and the results so far have been the same– a recession turned into a depression.  Lets just hope we don’t make the same mistake and re-elect Obama or we will likely continue down the FDR path to the inevitable world war.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

        Wow. The alternate reality some of you guys live in is astounding.

        I’ll note that Reagan tripled the National Debt. Which is in addition to how Reagan actually raised taxes and increased the size, power, and scope of the Federal government. All of which are horrible proof of fascism and bad government – if you’re a Democrat.

        Second, I’ll just note that the majority of economists and economic historians agree that FDR’s policies helped us out of the Great Depression, and all arguments to the contrary that I’m aware of have been thoroughly debunked.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          jb talking of “alternate reality” while steadfastly ignoring the graph from the article which clearly shows the recovery from the POR recession is unprecedented (in a very bad way) in terms of recoveries since 1945.

          Projection has seldom been more vividly demonstrated.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

            So, since we’re looking at the same graph,

            1. you ignore all my other points re: PBunyan’s misinformed historical comments re: Reagan

            2. you ignore my point re: how FDR actually got us out of the Great Depression

            3. you rhetorically point to the graph, which actually shows that the current shift into the current depression actually happened before Obama was President – in 2008 (and not 2010, which is the next date the graph misleadingly presents, even though the line itself falls before 2010).

            ..and yet according to you I’m guilty of projection and “alternate reality”.

            How interesting!

            I await your explanations re: all 3 points.

            The proper judgement re: projection awaits confirmation re: data.

            : )

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            You can shorten that to “Rodney is ignoring me.”

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen

            Or “Looks like Rodney ran off crying again rather than answer”….

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Only in stephen’s benighted world is
            48 letters and 15 syllables less than 17 letters and 7 syllables.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

            OK.

            By the way, forfeiting the argument means I win.

        • PBunyan

          Wow, That’s quite an alternate reality you Marxist-Fascists live in Jb.  You’ve even got you’re own definition of “debunked”.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

            My definition is “proven wrong by impartial experts”.

            What’s your definition of “debunked”?

    • jim_m

      Since many economists estimate that it takes ~120,000 new jobs created per month just to keep pace with the number of people reaching the age of entering the workforce. obama would have had to create ~1.45 million jobs just to keep pace with the growth of the population.

      He failed.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        “And (he) never failed to fail – it was the easist thing to do…”

        Obama’s like a blackjack player with someone else’s money.  Double the bet each time you lose, how can you NOT eventually make money for the people who fund you?

        Problem is, no matter what cards are dealt he goes ahead and hits until he goes bust…

    • herddog505

      Yes, by all means: let’s compare the last thirteen months – the worst months – of the “Bush economy” to two years of Barry’s.

      How about this:

      Average unemployment rate, Jan ’01 to Jan ’09: 5.3%

      Average unemployment rate, Jan ’09 - present: 9.3%

      http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

      • jim_m

        Wait… Are you saying that despite the stimulus that unemployment went over 8.8%?!?!?!

        But obama promised that it wouldn’t!

        • herddog505

          Yeah.  He also promised green jobs.  So far, these seem to consist of jobs closing down bankrupt green companies.

          Go figure.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Pfft.  Green was always a bubble.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Jay opines: “Pfft.  Green was always a bubble.”

            Then why are 0bama and company still throwing taxpayer dollars at it?  Are they too dense to realize they are reinforcing failure or is failure their plan?

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            It’s not about failure per se, it’s about putting the money in the ‘right’ places, and making sure it doesn’t go to the ‘wrong’ places.

            That they’re reinforcing failure doesn’t register.  The money’s going where they think it should, so it’s all good. 

            Just remember – RESULTS don’t matter one little bit.  INTENTIONS are the most important criteria…

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

          Sigh!

          I guess I’m just going to keep repeating the facts and hope they sink in.

          Once again, impartial economist and the CBO agree that the Stimulus saved jobs, and without it we’d be in a much worse place.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/economy/17leonhardt.html

          I don’t understand the resistance to facts here. But I’m just going to keep trying ’til they get through.

          • herddog505

            And, once again, I am going to have to repeat that claiming “it might have been worse!” after claiming that things wouldn’t even get as bad as they are is thoroughly dishonest.

            I also repeat that we’ve learned hard lessons about how CBO works (garbage in, garbage out) and how “nonpartisan” has a very elastic definition for the left.

            I note finally that you are citing the NYT, hardly a bastion of independent, non-partisan, unbiased (ahem) news.

            In short, these claims are more full of shite than a constipated Michael Moore.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

            I am going to have to repeat that claiming “it might have been worse!”
            after claiming that things wouldn’t even get as bad as they are is
            thoroughly dishonest.

            And then I’m going to have to point out that what you’re claiming – that because a prediction wasn’t completely accurate in a number detail, that automatically means a) the predictor is dishonest AND b) the predictor’s solutions actually didn’t make things better – is simply not rational.

            And then I’ll point out, once again, that impartial and independent economists AS WELL AS the nonpartisan and trusted CBO have confirmed that the Obama administration’s policies have kept things from becoming much worse than they have.

            And then I’ll note that the NY Times article is pointing to these studies, and the fact that you consider the NY Times as biased isn’t proof that the studies the NY Times is linking to is wrong.

            And then I’ll further note that your claim that something someone said is biased isn’t proof of bias.

            If the bias is that obvious, you should be able to show it in the actual study itself.

            This is called empirically-based reasoning.

            Now I’ll note that you’ll probably either a) refuse to answer this post at all, or b) come up with some other rationalization to dismiss these arguments rather than actually address them. You may also include some sort of insult in your reply, even though I’ve been nothing but polite to you. All of which is fine; it’s just some ways that I’d also like to be proven wrong.

          • herddog505

            Anwswer:

            You can continue to believe that things are rosy, that Barry blowing through hundreds of billions of dollars kept things from being EVEN WORSE, or that government agencies can be trusted to give the straight dope, or that economists are (A) nonpartisan and (B) can tell us with complete certainty what MIGHT have happened had we done this or not done that.*

            For myself, I juxtapose the unemployment figures with what Barry TOLD us they would be had we not given him one of the biggest blank checks in history.  That tells the tale.

            ====

            (*) Who ARE these geniuses, by the way?  I ask because, obviously, we need to put THEM in charge of the government.  Hell, every major corporation (especially those connected with finance) should be beating down their doors: “You KNOW what will happen if we pursue this or that policy!  You can tell us – BEFORE IT HAPPENS! – what will happen to the economy!  Here’s a blank sheet of paper: write your own contract!  We’ll rush to sign it!”

            /sarc

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

            I will continue to believe the facts, as presented by impartial experts. If you have facts or reasons to prove them wrong – as opposed to your opinion – I’ll be happy to listen to them.

            Until you do, I will go with the nonpartisan experts.

            It is absolutely your right and privilege to choose not to go with the facts as presented by impartial experts. Let’s just have no illusions that that is exactly what you’re doing – choosing what feels right to you rather than what makes sense after looking at facts with an open mind.

            And what you are doing is finding *one aspect* of the predictions that came out wrong, in order to rationalize throwing out the entire model. And the reason you are throwing out the entire model appears to be, that admitting Obama and others were right is too ideologically uncomfortable to you.

            Which I can understand. But the facts as analyzed by the impartial experts are the facts, and feelings don’t change them.

            As to who these geniuses are – they are the ones who kept things from being far worse than they are. According, once again, to impartial experts.

            Again, your choice to believe them or not. I’m just pointing out the choice that you’re making. Probably in a way that’s coming across as pretty dickish, and my apologies for that. It makes it hard to convince you. I just don’t know any other way to punch through the bubble so many here have, where people are ignoring facts to maintain their feelings and the ideologies that give them comfort.

    • iwogisdead

      I’m sure that even Solyndra (which filed for Bankruptcy 9 months after your chart ends) hired somebody with all that government-backed money they got. Besides, Shirley, you’re not claiming that Obumble’s mere presence in the Oval Office made private sector employment get better are you? Obumble and his minions seem to think that anything negative in the economy can be traced back to Bush, even now, three years later. At best Obumble’s “economic” policies would’ve taken at least a year to have any effect, probably longer. Thus, your chart only shows that the economy was in a normal rebound mode for Obumble’s first two years. None of which addresses the point of this thread, which is normal for you.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        Feel free to present evidence to support your supposition.  Otherwise it remains a supposition / unsupported allegation.

  • herddog505

    No, no, NO!

    Barry has CREATED millions of jobs!  He brought us back from the brink!  And… and… and… GREEN JOBS!  And he saved GM!  Health care!  He’s just WONDERFUL!  How DARE you suggest that, as recoveries go, his is pretty pathetic.  He’s the Lightworker, I tell you!  And, anyway, It’s All Bush’s Fault!(TM)

    / sarc

    • Gmacr1

      You forgot the bestest reason of alls!!!

      He’s the Chicago Jesus, all bow towards Mordor on the Lake!

  • 914

    Nobody hates America as well as Barry does Stephen.  Have some more grape and deal with it.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

      Well, Stephen and his leftist pals are right up there with hating America, desiring to see her humiliated, and destroying capitalism which creates wealth which prevents them from seizing total power.

      Birds of a feather – and not eagles.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

        What’s really scary is that you guys seem to believe this is true of this corporate centrist President who is actually to the right of Bill Clinton.

        • herddog505

          He’s not a “corporate centrist”; he’s a crony capitalist.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

            So he’s not a socialist? Have you guys made up your mind? Because he can only be one or the other.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Quite the contrary. Humans aren’t binary creatures – all one thing or another in their thinking. It’s quite possible (as in the ol’ USSR) to be a staunch believer (kind of) in communism, while making sure you get all the possible perqs due to you as a member of the nomenclatura, (that the rank and file wouldn’t have even a sniff of…) and that your friends get the benefit of your position in the party (which would be what… crony communism?) as regards contracts from the State.

            It’s kind of complex – the thing to remeber is that people will ALWAYS act in a way they think will bring them some sort of advantage – even if that advantage is simply the good feeling they get by making sure someone else can’t do what THEY think might be wrong. (See the urge by the left to ‘save the planet’ by forcing their ecological ideologies on everyone else, or the need by some on the right to prohibit booze, drugs, and abortion no matter what.)

            You’d think, after looking at Prohibition and seeing how well THAT turned out that folks would be leery of any group insisting that X must be banned because THEY believe X is harmful – and won’t listen to arguments otherwise.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

            That’s a very elegant attempt to wriggle. Yes, humans aren’t binary creatures. But the ideological systems and economic models they subscribe to often are. Especially systems like socialism.

            And you are attempting to describe Barack Obama’s belief system. Without any presented evidence, as a side note.

            If someone is truly a socialist in their belief system, then they are not a crony capitalist in their belief system. Just as if someone is truly a Christian in their belief system, they are not also an atheist.

            Otherwise words like “socialism” and “capitalism” have no meaning or usefulness at all.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

        But wait. Haven’t you heard? Obama’s not a socialist. He’s a crony capitalist.

        Which is it?

        • jim_m

          Actually there is a word that describes the combination of socialism and crony capitalism:  FASCIST.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

            Actually that’s a completely incorrect definition of FASCISM. Try again.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen

            lol…

  • MichaelLaprarie

    Ha-ha.  Yes Stephen, Nancy Pelosi’s office is ALWAYS the first place I go when I want accurate, unbiased, thoroughly researched economics information.  Followed by Media Matters, of course.

    Rodney this story is datelined yesterday.  The ACTUAL figure that was released to day was 1.7%, not 3%, which is just unbelievably, shockingly bad.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Michael,

      The expected 3.0 was for Fourth Quarter GDP, which actually came in at 2.8 and will undoubtedly be adjusted down to 2.5 or less.  Annual Growth for 2011 is currently estimated at 1.7% but it will be adjusted down as well when Q4 is adjusted down.

  • GarandFan

    Gotta hand it to Barry.  He always talks a good game.  He just doesn’t deliver. He just can’t wrap his socialist mind around the economic fact that people try to get the most for the least amount of cash.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

      You’re gonna have to straighten things out with herddog505. Because according to him Obama’s not a socialist, he’s a crony capitalist.

      Which is it?

      • GarandFan

        “Crony capitalist” is the polite way of saying “using taxpayer money to support your campaign contributors.”

        Barry’s a dyed in the wool Socialist.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

          No, sorry. That doesn’t make it work.

          Either President Barack Obama believes the goverment should take over all industry (=Socialist), or he believes his corporate friends should be compensated in their business ventures (=crony capitalist).

          You really can only pick one.

          • herddog505

            Not really.  The one represents the ideal: what he really wants.  The other is a behavior within the confines of the system as it exists.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            @herddog505:disqus Time to engage the jb screen/filter.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

            By all means, choose to live in a bubble that screens out pesky facts.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

            So you’re saying that until Obama can take over and destroy all of free capitalism so it’s under his socialist yoke, Obama wants to have some people make a lot of money in capitalism through helping them.

            Do you really, seriously believe that?

            And your evidence of Obama’s inner socialism is….?

            And you evidence of Obama’s being more into what you call “Crony capitalism” than other presidents is….?

            I mean, seriously. Why do you guys believe this stuff when there is absolutely no evidence for it?

            Please give me one thing Obama’s done which is so far Left OR so crony capitalist that neither Bill Clinton nor George W. Bush would do it.