For 8 years I listened to people debate whether W should take the blame for the bad things that happened in the US on his watch. Enron, the war in Iraq, shady Halibuton contracts, and the god-awful Patriot act for example.
For 3 years I’ve listened to people debate whether Obama should get credit for good things happening (getting out of Iraq, catching Bin Laden) or whether he should be blamed for not turning around the Bush policies fast enough and for not fixing the economy in a week.
I’m going to have to say Obama is a step in the right direction IMO. Best president ever? No, but way, way, way better than more of the same mismanagement.
Osama bin Laden, Qaddafi, Iraq, Afghanistan, our relationship with the world. I think its impossible for Republicans to attack him on foreign policy. Its monday morning quarterbacking of the worst sort, the kind where you argue that you could have won by 3 touchdowns instead of 2 if they had done what you would have done.
Here’s the thing. He KNEW where Osama bin Laden was in AUGUST 2010. I doubt it takes a week for DEVGRU/SADSOG/SFOD to get its act together for a raid (they only had a few hours notice before the rescue mission of the hostages in Somalia and I don’t think they had that long before they kille4d those Somali pirates on that boat) and it doesn’t take but an hour to brief a B2 bomber crew on where to drop the bombs. Yet, instead of bombing the compound or running a raid during a difficult election for the Democrats, he built a scale model of the compound and ran drills for months before he authorized the missions so that there would be no mistakes or casualties.
For a guy that coldly calculated his presidency since he was born to the point where he planted a phony birth certificate in the records of the state of Hawaii, it was awfully apolitical of him.
My expectations of him were much higher. He’s definitely a win but he didn’t really cover the spread. I guess you can’t fire the coach for winning just because he didn’t cover the spread tho.
So people under the employ of the federal government said the stimulus is responsible for “saving jobs” while at the same time saying it is " impossible" to tell if the jobs would have been created without the stimulus. Sounds like concrete evidence.
Economists who believe in stimulus say it worked while those who don’t believe in stimulus say it did not work. Perhaps we could go back to a time when stimulus wasn’t attempted during an economic downturn. In 1920 the depression lasted about a year. Nearly 3 years after the stimulus and we’re seeing shitty growth.
The people who support stimulus can never lose the argument. If the economy improves its because of the stimulus, if the economy stagnates its because the stimulus wasn’t big enough.
I’ve been contemplating starting a thread to debate the assertion that conservatives have been making about Obama “making things worse” since taking office. Perhaps this thread makes my idea redundant.
I just can’t think of a single objective metric that they could point to in support of such a claim, especially in regards to the economy, which is most often the context I’ve heard it in.
Even Romney was going around noting that things have improved under Obama, until he flipflopped on that a few days ago.
For me, I liked Darmuri Ajashi’s description above. Definitely a win for the US, but Obama failed to cover the spread. I blame this on too much punting to the opposition early in the first half.
This is what is wrong with America, too many football metaphors. Back in the good 'ol days baseball metaphors were good enough for everyone. In those days we “hit home runs”, we “knocked it out of the park” and even when things were bad we would “slide into home” for the win. I was hoping Obama could at least shift us to a basketball based metaphor system. Maybe in his second term.
This can go both ways. Thus the people who were against the stimulus can also never lose an argument. If the economy stagnates, it’s because of the stimulus. If the economy improves it’s in spite of the stimulus. BrainGlutton linked to info that supports the efficacy of the stimulus. I would be interested in a link that refutes his info, because frankly I don’t know who is right.
I don’t know if it’s true or not. I don’t know enough about economics to figure it out. I do know a little something about human nature, though. When someone devotes his entire career to learning that economic stimulus works, he is not likely to change his mind. The same goes for the opposite position.
What he posted is one view. Hereis another. Anotherone along those lines.
Reread the quote once again. Those aren’t ideological liberal organizations.
As for your quotes below, both are by the same dude, John Cogan, who is an ideological conservative working at a Koch Brothers funded think tank focused on deregulation. Both are opinion pieces, without the complex examinations the above quoted groups did. So you are choosing to believe a highly ideological opinion piece over nonpartisan analysis, why?
If you bothered to read the cites in the wikipedia page you posted [84] you would have found out about the authors of those editorials and their work. The author of [84] seems to think that while one criticism of the stimulus is off base, the other is valid.
Once again your reliance on hastily read wikipedia entries has done you no service.
What if someone spends his career learning how macroeconomics work, and based on a particular set of models, makes predictions about the future? What if these predictions are reliably correct? Would you accept that there is some utility in that model?
I don’t know anything about Cogan and Taylor, but in just looking over that second link, I’d say it is so misleading as to be overtly mendacious.
They say
Clearly they intend to suggest that Reagan’s “permanent” tax reduction program led to economic prosperity. What they omit is that between 1982 and 1984, Reagan raised taxes four times, including the 1982 “Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982,” the largest tax increase in modern American history, as a percentage of the economy.
Reagan increased taxes in seven of his eight years in office. Do you think the article you linked to accurately depicts Reagan’s tax policies?
Then your argument seems to be along the lines of “I’m ignorant of how economics work, but my mind is made up just like those other guys who do know how economics work. So nobody knows who is right.”
Forgive me if I take sides, but I will go with several independent macroeconomic firms, including Moody’s and IHS Global Insight, along with the Congressional Budget Office over a guy who has admitted that he does not know much about economics.
I don’t personally know what effect the stimulus had on jobs and other economic measures. On the other hand, it’s easy to prove that there are serious economists who doubt its usefullness. For staters, there’s Thomas Sargent, winner of Nobel Price for economics in 2011. Here’s an interview with him, regarding how he felt about projections for stimulus results in 2009:
Interviewer: A January 2009 article quotes you as saying, “The calculations that I have seen supporting the stimulus package are back-of-the-envelope ones that ignore what we have learned in the last 60 years of macroeconomic research.”12 What calculations had you seen?
Sargent: I said something like that to a reporter. I had just read an Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers document e-mailed to me by my friend [Stanford University economist] John Taylor.13 I agreed with John that the CEA calculations were surprisingly naive for 2009. They were not informed by what we learned after 1945. But I suspect that the council was asked to do something quickly, and they did what they thought was “good enough for government work,” as some of us said during my days at the Pentagon in 1968 and 1969. Back-of-envelope work can be a useful starting point or benchmark. But it does mischief when it is oversold. In early 2009, President Obama’s economic advisers seem to have understated the substantial professional uncertainty and disagreement about the wisdom of implementing a large fiscal stimulus. In early 2009, I recall President Obama as having said that while there was ample disagreement among economists about the appropriate monetary policy and regulatory responses to the financial crisis, there was widespread agreement in favor of a big fiscal stimulus among the vast majority of informed economists. His advisers surely knew that was not an accurate description of the full range of professional opinion. President Obama should have been told that there are respectable reasons for doubting that fiscal stimulus packages promote prosperity, and that there are serious economic researchers who remain unconvinced.
In his answers to the following questions, Sargent goes on to give specific reasons why claims about the stimulus and job creation are doubtful. So if the most recent Nobel Prize-winner feels that way, it’s hardly reasonable to suggest that only wingnuts doubt whether the stimulus was effective.
Yeah, I can’t believe how many liberals are trying to tell us that we should like Obama because he “got us out of Iraq”. One major flaw in that argument is the one Grumman pointed out here. Another equally important one is that “we” are not out of Iraq, if we means heavily armed people paid by the U. S. government. There are still several thousand such people in Iraq. They are not members of the U. S. military, but they are hired by private contractors, they’re still quite able to shoot at Iraqi civilians much as they have been doing for the past nine years, and as far as I know Obama has made no mention of ending that situation.
It is, of course, true that Obama has engaged in slightly less warfare than W did, but that’s like saying that someone is slightly less creepy than Michael Jackson was. The truth is that Obama is one of the best friends that the military-industrial complex has ever had, and that as long as he’s in office we can expect lots of expensive overseas deployments and little change for foreign countries whose people wish to be free from American interference.
Yup, Obama’s civil liberties record is atrocious as well.
