Well, Obama did say “I will be held accountable.… If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” This was back in 2009 when discussing his plan to turn the economy around (that’s the “this” in that sentence). If we’re at where we are now (or worse) in 3 months, I suspect the Republican ads playing that quote will not be fun for Obama to watch.
I don’t believe this is true, whether you use election day or inauguration day:
Nov 2008: 896
Jan 2009: 826
Jun 2012: 1,278
I guess it’s true if you use “4 years” as June 2008, but I’m not sure why you would do that.
In the end it will have an effect if it’s tied to a longer summer-long contraction. Otherwise it will be a continuation of the same “weak recovery” mode we’ve been in. Obama can win in that mode, but it will be close. If it goes into full-on contraction (and public perception matters more than reality on this) then he’s likely in bigger trouble.
I think Republicans need to be careful of being seen publicly masturbating over bad economic news.
Most people don’t care about the stock market. They care about the price of gas, the value of their home, and unemployment rate and their salary. That’s what they are going to use to judge “the economy”.
And there’s a world of difference between focusing on the economy as a campaign issue (especially using Obama’s own words) and “publicly masturbating” over bad economic news. I actually think it’s a miracle, largely due to Republican incompetence, that Obama is doing as well as he is in the polls, given the economic conditions we’re seeing.
Too early to have much of an affect. This race will come down to the economy though and if the bad news keeps coming, Romney has a serious chance of winning.
I used four years from the post date because the poster referred to four years ago. If we move up to election or inaugural day then sure, the S&P 500 becomes the one measure that I gave that will (probably) have improved over the subsequent four years.
I note that InterestedObserver has not been back to substantiate his incredulity that people could believe we were better off four years ago.
Sorry for the delayed reply; my internet has been going in and out all week and I have only been able to get (and STAY) on-line sporadically. Damned frustrating! New modem on the way which I hope will fix the problem.:smack: Don’t particulary care for the insinuation that I was intentionally avoiding supporting my thesis.
Anyway, I base my conclusion that we are better off now than when Obama took office on multiple metrics/measures which, overall, imo, support that conclusion.
On the economic front, we have had, to date, 27 consecutive months of private sector job growth (and 20 consecutive months of overall job growth).
The Wall Street Journal regularly publishes a graph of private sector job growth from Feb. 2007 to the present. It illustrates what economists call a “V-shaped recovery”. this link has one like it, right at the top of the page, based on the same data:
In fact, fewer jobs were created under all 8 years of the Bush administration than have been created in the past 3.
This link
http://mediamatters.org/research/201205080001
Summarizes a great deal of data and notes that GDP, private sector job growth, and exports (up 34%) are all higher than when Obama took office. The economy has grown for 9 consecutive quarters (after shrinking by 4% in the first quarter of 2009).
Please note that I selected this source for its concise summation and visual representations, not as a primary source. My primary sources are the BLS, the monthly job reports (both government and private sector), and other “non-partisan” agencies and institutions.
There is a reason those critical of Obama cite the unemployment rate rather than the numbers on job creation; one measure gives the impression of dismal failure while the other reveals steady improvement.
As I mentioned, according to the data, virtually all of the “excess” unemployment rate is due to public sector job losses as local and state governments eliminate such jobs. The President correctly pointed out recently that if Congress had approved federal aid he had proposed for the states, 10,000 teachers in New York alone would still have their jobs, which would not only have benefited the unemployment rate but stimulated private sector growth through consumer spending.
While the recovery has been slow, it has also been steady, and in terms of job growth it is basic math to demonstrate that, yes, we are better off than we were 3 years ago, with over 4 and a quarter million new private sector positions gained.
In 2011, the U.S. exported more petroleum products than it imported for the first time since 1949. I suppose it is debatable whether or not this is, overall, good news, but I’ll toss it in as a presumed improvement:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-29/u-s-was-net-oil-product-exporter-in-2011.html
“The U.S. exported more gasoline, diesel and other fuels than it imported in 2011 for the first time since 1949, the Energy Department said…Refiners are expanding on the Gulf Coast and in the Midwest, even as unprofitable plants along the East Coast were shut. Operable capacity in the U.S. climbed 0.8 percent to 17.7 million barrels a day in December from a year earlier.
U.S. refineries in the Gulf Coast, where about half of U.S. capacity is located, operated at 88.8 percent last year, up from 88.6 percent in 2010. “
Re’ the debt, this:
“Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.
Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.
Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:
• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. …

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. …
Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.”
PolitiFact verified the calculations, and went further, adjusting for inflation and calculating a NEGATIVE “growth” in federal spending under Obama.
On other fronts, say, foreign relations and policy, few would argue that we were better off with bin Laden still at large, Gadafi and Mubarak still in power, and the war in Iraq still raging (some would, maintaining that the removal of dictators and the ending of the war “destabilizes” the region, as if eternal war and the propping up of despots and sponsors of terrorism was preferable to an end to hostilities and the support of democratic uprisings. Whatever. :rolleyes:)
This poll, from 2010, found that global opinion of the U.S. has “improved sharply” since President Obama assumed office. 2010 was the first year since 2005 that more respondents viewed the U.S. positively than negatively. I submit that this is a GOOD thing, and an improvement from the damage done during the previous administration, which alienated our allies and antagonized much of the rest of the world community with its approach to foreign policy.
If illegal immigration is your pet issue, the data show that this administration has done more to enforce our immigration laws than the previous one did:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/188241-ice-announces-record-breaking-deportations
“The U.S. deported more people — nearly 400,000 — who were in the country illegally in fiscal 2011 than ever before, according to the latest numbers released Tuesday by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) bureau….
Of the 396,906 people removed from the U.S., more than half — 216,698 —had been previously convicted of felonies or misdemeanors, according to the ICE numbers, which represent a 90 percent increase in the number of criminals deported over those for fiscal 2008. The numbers mark a 10 percent increase over criminals removed in fiscal 2010 — about 195,000.”
And this despite steeply falling numbers of people immigrating illegally in recent years:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/01/AR2010090106940.html
“Wednesday, September 1, 2010; 10:15 PM
A deep recession and tougher border enforcement have led to a sharp decline in the number of immigrants entering the United States illegally in the past five years, contributing to the first significant reversal in the growth of their numbers in two decades, according to a new report by the Pew Hispanic Center. The number of illegal immigrants entering the United States plunged by almost two-thirds between 2005 and 2009, a dramatic shift after years of growth in the population, according to the report. “
All in all, I agree with the way Obama summed the situation up a while back when he was here in town: The previous administration/8 years of Republican rule drove this nation off a cliff. It has been a slow, tedious process to pull it back up, get it back on the road, facing in the right direction, and running. NOW, they want the keys back. I would add to his analogy, “and they’re STILL DRUNK!” (meaning they are proposing more of the same policies that sent us over the cliff to begin with).
It doesn’t matter how many jobs were created if the unemployment rate is higher. And we’re not talking about what Bush did. We’re asking why you think most people should feel better off, economically, than they did when Obama took office. I’m just thrilled as heck for the oil producers that they’re selling so much oil, but I’m still paying > $4/gal at the pump. And telling me what might have happened if Obama could have gotten his legislation through Congress doesn’t make the actual economic situation any better.
But Obama has been president for 41 months. The last 20 months have not lifted us back to the starting point yet.
If you stated “2 years ago” rather than 4, I would agree with you.
Remember to take into account that job creation needs to be positive just to keep up with the increasing population. The job recovery following the recession has been dismal. Just how responsible (or not) Obama has been for that, I do not know. My objection is simply that in no way can we claim not to be worse off on the job front than when he took power (not 20 months ago).
Why focus on just private sector jobs? Don’t public sector employees count when considering whether we are worse off? What if there was one more private sector job than in January 2009 but 50 million fewer public? By your logic we could claim to be better off.
It is good news overall, but is just one product type. Actually, the total trade deficit in 2011 was better than in 2008. However this is because there was a huge decrease in purchasing of imports in 2009 when the recession struck. The deficit has worsened each year since.
But the debt has increased. Anyway, who points to the level of government spending as a measure of how well off they feel?
Not terribly relevant to the economic position, but I do agree that the foreign situation has improved.
It isn’t. It’s also not very relevant to how people feel (unless you are one of said immigrants).
Ah, that’s it. I feel so much better off hearing that our economy is so bad that even the Mexicans don’t want to come here any more…
You can try make arguments that:
- it’s all Bush’s fault
- it would have been worse under McCain
- Obama has done a good job under the circumstances.
But I do not see that you have any real argument that we are better off now than 4 years ago (or 3 years and whatever, if you prefer to use election day or inauguration day as your starting point).
Disagree. GDP growth during the first 3 quarters of the election year dominates other considerations, especially after controlling for incumbency. “The economy” matters a great deal: the only tricky part is that economic variables tend to be correlated with one another so picking out the most important single indicator is difficult. FWIW though, unemployment apparently doesn’t track as well, though arguments could be made that it becomes more important during downturns.
The latest job report was not only weak, it also revised the figures of past months downwards. GDP and national income data is only available with a lag and is subject to repeated revision, so this jobs report casts a harsh light on the current state of the economy. Obama’s chances of re-election took a major hit this week, IMHO, especially given the emerging crisis in Europe. The only silver lining is that the odds of a muscular response by the Fed rose slightly, though whether that would make a difference in Sep/Oct/Nov is unclear.
-
Washington Republicans eschew textbook economics in favor of crackpot theories of economic growth that lack empirical basis. That said, Romney’s economic advisers tend to be from the reality based community. However… it’s not clear whether Tea Partiers will revolt in the face of proposals conventional economic counter-cyclic spending. Romney himself has made noises from all over the map, so thinking that his policy will be fact-based takes a leap of logic.
-
Historically, Democratic administrations tend to have superior job growth as well as superior stock market performance. Admittedly why this is so is a bit of a mystery. Though again modern Republicans favor crackpot theories like tax cuts don’t have to be paid for or offset with spending cuts.
On this link there’s a chart of stock market performance during various administrations: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/04/why-does-wall-street-dislike-obama-so-much.html
- Finally, that the Republican Party has been taken over by wackos bodes ill for rational economic and science policy. Bruce Bartlett: In my opinion, it no longer bears any resemblance to the party of Ronald Reagan. …
I think the Republican Party is in the same boat the Democrats were in in the early eighties — dominated by extremists unable to see how badly their party was alienating moderates and independents. The party’s adults formed the Democratic Leadership Council to push the party back to the center and it was very successful. But there is no group like that for Republicans. That has left lunatics like Glenn Beck as the party’s de facto leaders. As long as that remains the case, I want nothing to do with the GOP.
I will know that the party is on the path to recovery when someone in a position of influence reaches out to former Republicans like me. We are the most likely group among independents to vote Republican. But I see no effort to do so. All I see is pandering to the party’s crazies like the birthers. http://delong.typepad.com/egregious_moderation/2009/08/bruce-bartlett-why-i-am-anti-republican.html
I wonder: while the economy will obviously be a key factor in the election, how safe is it to say that it’s the overwhelming factor, overshadowing all else? IOW, how safe is the simplistic assumption I (and others) make: economy good/neutral = Obama wins, economy bad = Obama loses, and that’s that? Because if it is, some of the latest numbers (not just the jobs report) seem to indicate that the election’s already over…
I understand that approval ratings in October are a superior predictor. Approval ratings in June aren’t bad either.
This model is relatively optimistic about Obama’s chances. Fooling around with the dial, it seems that dropping GDP growth by 1 percentage point lowers the chances of re-election by about 10 percentage points. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-election-predictor/
That said, the model seems to over-predict Obama’s chances, at least judging from the perspective of Charlie Cook, who gave Obama 50-50 chances before the shit hit the fan. The jobs numbers appear to have caused the intrade odds of re-election to decline from 59.5 to 52.5.
Ah, but see, we DO have to talk about what Bush did; not only is it relevent because he was at the helm when this nation was hit with the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression, but because the GOP is currently campaigning on the SAME policies which arguably (and I would say DEMONSTRABLY) brought about the Recession.
There is a time lag between cause and effect…sometimes very short, sometimes of longer duration.
Step on the rake in the grass and it springs up to hit you in the face almost immediately. Easy to see the connection.
Spend 7 or 8 years enacting tax, domestic, labor, foreign, regulatory, and trade policies which inevitably result in massive debt and the crashing of the economy and for those with eyes to see, the connection is still pretty damned clear.
When you lose 8.8 million jobs, drain the treasury through multiple decade-long wars and the largest expansion of the federal government in history, massive tax cuts (80% of which benefit the top 2%), and other unfunded spending like the Medicare prescription plan (which precludes the federal government from negotiating for the best price on bulk drug buys), the effects are going to carry over into the next (and the next and the next) administration.
It’s going to take TIME to recover. The consequences of those actions don’t just vanish at the stroke of midnight on January 21st as the new President is sworn in.
In fact, I agree with Kevin Phillips when he argues that such effects are INTENDED to carry over into the next (Democratic) administration, and hobble their efforts. Please note that the debt was never considered a problem by Republicans from Reagan to Cheney while THEY were in power and driving it up to record levels. It only becomes a “problem” when the Democrats take over.
Remember, Bush came into office with a budget SURPLUS, and immediately spent us into record debt.
Reagan did the same, taking us from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation in 2 terms.
This is NOT a coincidence. It is an intentional strategy the GOP has employed for roughly a century now.
At any rate, yes, the addition of 4.2 million + private sector jobs DOES mean something, regardless of the unemployment rate. Over 4 million people HAVE JOBS now, compared to when Obama took office.
The loss of public sector jobs, largely at the hands of the Right, DOES matter, as does the obstruction of Democratic policy which stands to further the recovery (like the 2nd stimulus that many economists feel we are overdue for or the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%); these are NOT completely unrelated, isolated factors, but inextricably entwined with the results we are seeing.
What the Bush administration DID and what the same folks are DOING cannot be separated neatly from the results we are seeing now. Just as it took a while for the V-shaped recovery to start the move upwards from the nadir of Bush’s last months, it will take time to get us back to where we were before the crash.
It was a HUGE hole and it takes a hell of a lot more time and effort to climb OUT of a hole than to fall into it.
Personally, I am FAR better off than I was 4, 3, or even 2 years ago, but I don’t base my general conclusions on my “feelings” of being better off. I base them on the facts and the numbers.
Yes, gas prices are still high…And? They were higher than this for a while under Bush, and the Right-wing defended the right of the oil companies to make as much profit as they could in the “free market”. When they rise under Obama, the Right screams that he should DO SOMETHING! What? Nationalize the industry? He is already on record as stating that rampant speculation in oil futures is the main cause of the problem, but all efforts to regulate or TAX such practices have been blocked, rank and file, by the Republican-controlled Congress.
Ultimately, as I have said, I just can’t comprehend how anyone can conclude that a return to the Republican approach being touted by Romney and others will somehow magically FIX or even IMPROVE anything.
I’m interested in trying to understand that logic, since it strikes me as utterly illogical.
Yes, things could be BETTER than they are, but they ARE better than they WERE and I see no evidence that they could be made even better by going back to the failed approach of the Right. Maybe if they had a NEW PLAN, but they don’t. They only have the same old plan that didn’t work before. 