# Obama and the economy: appropriate disapproval? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 5, 2012, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-the-economy-appropriate-disapproval/633790 "2012-09-05T20:38:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-the-economy-appropriate-disapproval/633790/41 "2012-09-09T03:06:52Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > After a recession there is usually catch up growth as the economy reverts back to trend. In the previous eight recoveries economic growth has averaged over 15% for the three years after the end of the recession. In this recovery growth is about 6.5%. Unusually deep recessions also usually have quicker catch up growth, but this time growth has unusually slow even for a mild recession. And, there are good reasons for this, as Krugman has explained in his column that I linked to: > [@](#): > > This return to financial normalcy did not, however, produce a robust recovery. Fast recoveries are almost always led by a housing boom — and given the excess home construction that took place during the bubble, that just wasn’t going to happen. Meanwhile, households were trying (or being forced by creditors) to pay down debt, which meant depressed demand. So the economy’s free fall ended, but recovery remained sluggish. And that’s not to mention the fact that this recession has also been accompanied by severe cutbacks in government spending at the state and local level which have offset a reasonably significant fraction of the stimulus spending at the federal level. Obama could have done better if he had succeeded in getting a larger stimulus and his subsequent other stimulus measures enacted. However, there is no economic science whatsoever to support the notion that Ryan and Romney’s ideologically-driven, factually-challenged ideas for helping the economy would have accomplished anything…and their desire to do less stimulatively (i.e., to have less federal spending increase and have tax cuts that are geared to the rich, and hence to produce as little stimulus as possible) would have meant we’d be considerably worse off. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-the-economy-appropriate-disapproval/633790/42 "2012-09-09T23:44:49Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Given that he had full control of the house and senate when the stimulus passed he has to take responsibility for the failure of the stimulus. Full control? Not remotely. He’s not a PM, the Democrats in Congress (especially the Senate) were not taking orders from him, and he spent his first two years trying to negotiate with the “Blue Dogs” who were not about to take orders from that “kid” in the White House. > [@jshore](#): > > If voters disapprove of Obama’s not doing as much as he could have, they should overwhelmingly vote to kick the Republicans out of Congress in addition to denying them the White House, so that Obama can do more to help the economy and the Republicans can do less to sabotage it. Yeah, if Obama has failed by insufficient government action, then voting for the party that want less government action is voting for more failure. What would a GOP answer look like, and would it have looked better? Probably not. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-the-economy-appropriate-disapproval/633790/43 "2012-09-10T00:19:25Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > I think you misunderstand the criticism. He isn’t blamed for _causing_ the crisis. He’s blamed for failing to pull the U.S. out of it. And I’m not well-versed enough in the doublethink and denial required to refute that charge. Because he hasn’t done anything to actually make the economy better. I’ve already have this exact argument with two different people in the elections forums, and I’m more than willing to have it here, too. The only argument those who think Obama has done a even decent job of fixing the U.S.’ economic woes use is that we’ve had X months of jobs added. The thing is that such an argument doesn’t mean anything in of itself. The U.S. is actually-- by most metrics-- doing worse post recession than pre-recession. This isn’t propaganda or distortions; it’s a simple cold hard fact. Edit: And speaking of those two people, one of them is in this thread! Funny that. ---
**Author:** ![Bigbooger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/958977/32.png) [@Bigbooger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bigbooger)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-the-economy-appropriate-disapproval/633790/44 "2012-09-10T00:39:16Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Because he hasn’t done anything to actually make the economy better. I’ve already have this exact argument with two different people in the elections forums, and I’m more than willing to have it here, too. The only argument those who think Obama has done a even decent job of fixing the U.S.’ economic woes use is that we’ve had X months of jobs added. The thing is that such an argument doesn’t mean anything in of itself. The U.S. is actually-- by most metrics-- doing worse post recession than pre-recession. This isn’t propaganda or distortions; it’s a simple cold hard fact. > > Edit: And speaking of those two people, one of them is in this thread! Funny that. Train Wreck in Progress Bureau of Labor and Statistics Unemployment rates starting in 2007 2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0 2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3 2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9 2010 9.7 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4 2011 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.0 8.9 8.7 8.5 2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.1 ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-the-economy-appropriate-disapproval/633790/45 "2012-09-10T14:52:29Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The best that can be said of Obama is that he \*\*misunderestimated \*\*how bad the economy was and what needed to be done to fix it. The worst is that he misdiagnosed the problem and made things worse. Either way it is appropriate to disapprove of his job handling the economy, Is misunderestimated even a word? There are two issues here. One is regarding Obama’s policies. What policies should he have or have not enacted over the past 4 years to improve the recovery? The second issue is regarding leadership. Regardless of his policies, I feel like he has not done a great job of crafting a narative that people can understand regarding what he is doing and why it is working. For someone who is such a great communicator, I don’t feel like he has done much communicating. That is not a vote for Romney or the Republicans though. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-the-economy-appropriate-disapproval/633790/46 "2012-09-10T15:39:45Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > Isn’t that oversimplifying it? Obama made the decision to bail out the auto industry and the banks, against pressure even from some of his advisors. Maybe there were problems with administering the bailouts, but without keeping those industries afloat, the U.S. and the world be in much worse shape than it is today. Not giving him credit for the bailouts, and concentrating only on how they could have been better, shortchanges the job he’s done. How do you know this? You assume that things would have been worse without the bailouts, but they could have been better. We do not know what things would have been like, but we do know how things are. Things are going very poorly, labor force participation rates are disastrous, unemployment is terrible, and growth rates are very poor. All of the excuses for Obama and the poor recovery are trying to find a justification for what happened. All of the characteristics of the crisis were known when Obama took office, yet no one predicted a recovery this bad. If you look back at Obama’s budgets they were predicting 4% catch up growth. The prediction that the White House gave for the unemployment rates if the stimulus was passed was that it would never go over 8%. Clearly the administration was expecting a recovery like was typical during past recessions. Krugman predicted above average growth rates in the recovery and instead we got lower than average. [Other](http://reason.com/archives/2009/02/13/why-the-stimulus-plan-wont-wor) people expected the stimulus to fail as it did. But clearly those people are just blinded by ideology. We could double down on failed policies or we could try a new approach. ---
**Author:** ![Smitty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Smitty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smitty)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-the-economy-appropriate-disapproval/633790/47 "2012-09-10T15:40:02Z")
As long as Obama wants to take credit for anything good, he has to accept blame for the bad. You can’t stand there saying you created 4.5 million jobs and that you are responsible for pulling the economy back from the brink unless you are also willing to take responsibility for unemployment being over 8% for your entire term and for falling incomes. Not that this is unique to Obama in any way. Every President wants to have it both ways. Any honest assessment would acknowledge that an economy as vast and complex as America’s is almost entirely unaffected by the President. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-the-economy-appropriate-disapproval/633790/48 "2012-09-10T16:04:18Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Because he hasn’t done anything to actually make the economy better. I’ve already have this exact argument with two different people in the elections forums, and I’m more than willing to have it here, too. The only argument those who think Obama has done a even decent job of fixing the U.S.’ economic woes use is that we’ve had X months of jobs added. The thing is that such an argument doesn’t mean anything in of itself. The U.S. is actually-- by most metrics-- doing worse post recession than pre-recession. This isn’t propaganda or distortions; it’s a simple cold hard fact. > > Edit: And speaking of those two people, one of them is in this thread! Funny that. How are we doing comapred to every other industrilized nation on earth? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-the-economy-appropriate-disapproval/633790/49 "2012-09-10T20:24:07Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > As a Canadian, I have never been able to figure out why Obama is [criticized for the country’s poor economic performance under his watch](http://www.gallup.com/poll/156698/americans-continue-give-obama-low-marks-economy.aspx), when it actually tanked during the GWB era (late 2007 - late 2008). I’m going to go out on a limb here and say it’s because he’s the President of the United States, and so blame tends to be given to him because the President is blamed for everything. Look, you live in CANADA, the same country I live in, right? Have you not heard people blame Stephen Harper for every economic problem Canada has? He’s blamed by millions - if you don’t believe me, read The Toronto Star - and yet by any objective analysis almost none of the recession had anything to do with Stephen Harper. You can quibble over some of the government’s response but for the most part the fiscal crisis was not of Canadian origin and the government did the best that could have reasonably been expected to deal with it, and yet from what I hear it’s all Harper’s fault. Or it’s all (insert the name of provincial premier)'s fault, depending what political argument you’re having. How’re we any different? The guy on top takes all the crap. It’s part of the job description. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Lurker\_Above](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@The\_Lurker\_Above](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Lurker_Above)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-the-economy-appropriate-disapproval/633790/50 "2012-09-10T21:58:14Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The guy on top takes all the crap. It’s part of the job description. This is no doubt true. Even though, rationally, an American president should be able to point to the legislature and say ‘they won’t pass the budget I want’ and share the blame. A PM doesn’t get to say that, except when explaining his resignation to the the governor general. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-the-economy-appropriate-disapproval/633790/51 "2012-09-10T23:10:01Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Have you not heard people blame Stephen Harper for every economic problem Canada has? He’s blamed by millions - if you don’t believe me, read The Toronto Star - and yet by any objective analysis almost none of the recession had anything to do with Stephen Harper. You can quibble over some of the government’s response but for the most part the fiscal crisis was not of Canadian origin and the government did the best that could have reasonably been expected to deal with it, and yet from what I hear it’s all Harper’s fault. Or it’s all (insert the name of provincial premier)'s fault, depending what political argument you’re having. How’re we any different? > > The guy on top takes all the crap. It’s part of the job description. Indeed. I can’t counter what you’ve said. You’re right - there will always be those who blame every failure, every problem, on the most readily identifiable leader. In the US, of course, that’s Obama, and in Canada, Harper (and, yes, I do read the Star. But only online; I would never willingly pay a cent to support it). I guess my OP was based on an assumption, i.e. that notwithstanding the inevitable and ubiquitous tendency to blame the guy at the top (for everything), discussion regarding the US economic situation was at least one area where that might possibly be done semi-objectively, and, maybe, even informed by real world data. In other words, this is one issue that should be (or, could be) resolved without resort to propaganda, character assassination, conspiracy theories, and baseless accusations. And, to a fair extent, that’s actually what happened in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-the-economy-appropriate-disapproval/633790/52 "2012-09-10T23:13:12Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > [Other](http://reason.com/archives/2009/02/13/why-the-stimulus-plan-wont-wor) people expected the stimulus to fail as it did. But clearly those people are just blinded by ideology. We could double down on failed policies or we could try a new approach. I read that \*Reason \*piece. Funny how it comes back to, “cut marginal tax rates,” the economic right’s monomania. I can’t take that seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-the-economy-appropriate-disapproval/633790/53 "2012-09-10T23:39:14Z")
> [@Bigbooger](#): > > Train Wreck in Progress > > Bureau of Labor and Statistics > > Unemployment rates starting in 2007 > > 2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0 > 2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3 > 2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9 > 2010 9.7 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4 > 2011 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.0 8.9 8.7 8.5 > 2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.1 Instead of rewriting out what I’ve written out before, I’ll just direct you to my post [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15469523&postcount=26). The fact that you celebrate a decrease in the unemployment rate when that decrease is driven by people simply dropping out of the labor force is rather astonishing. Would you celebrate the unemployment rate plummeting to, say, a healthy 4% due to millions of people giving up looking for work? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-the-economy-appropriate-disapproval/633790/54 "2012-09-10T23:50:42Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Krugman predicted above average growth rates in the recovery and instead we got lower than average. Can you show me where Krugman predicted this? As I recall, Krugman predicted that the stimulus would be too small…and even he probably underestimated the extent to which cutbacks at the state and local level offset the stimulus. By the way, [here](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/opinion/krugman-cleaning-up-the-economy.html) and [here](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/opinion/krugman-obstruct-and-exploit.html) are two recent columns where Krugman has discussed issues related to this, including the Republican obstructionism that has slowed the recovery. > [@](#): > > [Other](http://reason.com/archives/2009/02/13/why-the-stimulus-plan-wont-wor) people expected the stimulus to fail as it did. But clearly those people are just blinded by ideology. Can you find the error in their reasoning? Let me give you a big hint; it’s in this passage: > [@](#): > > But the biggest problem is that the government can’t inject money into the economy without first taking money out of the economy. Where does the government get that money? It can either borrow it or collect it from taxes. There is no aggregate increase in demand. Government borrowing and spending doesn’t boost national income or standard of living; it merely redistributes it. The pie is sliced differently, but it’s not any bigger. So, explain this to me: How did the government take money out of the economy? They didn’t cut taxes and the government doesn’t have to “borrow” in the sense that they need to take the money from others…They have control of monetary policy. The only possible mechanism that makes any sense for how a stimulus is ineffective is this: Government increase in borrowing causes a rise in interest rates that crowd out private sector borrowing. (Or, government borrowing & spending produces inflation which reduces the value of the money?) Now, are you going to seriously make the case to me that interest rates, already at historically low rates, would have been significantly lower if not for the government spending? Are you seriously going to make the case that inflation, already at historically low rates, would have been significantly lower if not for the government spending? The whole point is that in a depressed economy, you don’t have enough private sector investment because there is not the demand to support it. To claim that the money that the government borrowed would otherwise go towards private sector investment is bogus. So, yes, you are right: We are going to say that they are blinded by ideology. In fact, those people are so blinded by ideology that they didn’t even check to see if there is any empirical support for the mechanisms by which their theory could supposedly works actually occurring. > [@](#): > > We could double down on failed policies or we could try a new approach. There is no evidence that the policies have failed. There is evidence that to the extent that they were tried (i.e., to the extent that the stimulus was not offset by state and local government cutbacks and to the extent that the later attempts at stimulus were not blocked by the Republicans), they did work. And, there is no new approach out there at least on the Romney/Ryan side unless you believe in ideological platitudes that have no basis in economic science. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-the-economy-appropriate-disapproval/633790/55 "2012-09-10T23:59:02Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Instead of rewriting out what I’ve written out before, I’ll just direct you to my post [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15469523&postcount=26). The fact that you celebrate a decrease in the unemployment rate when that decrease is driven by people simply dropping out of the labor force is rather astonishing. Would you celebrate the unemployment rate plummeting to, say, a healthy 4% due to millions of people giving up looking for work? We are not celebrating an decrease in the unemployment rate. We are celebrating an economy that has gone from destroying 3/4 million jobs every month to one that is creating 100,000-200,000 jobs every month…and would be higher by most economic analysts estimates if the Republicans had not blocked Obama’s additional stimulus. The fact that the participation in the labor force is so low is a reflection of the Great Bush Recession and bursting of the housing bubble that left a huge hole in the economy from which we are slowly recovering. We won’t recover more quickly by embracing the very economic policies that got us into that hole! [To be fair, the recession is not all Bush’s fault, since some Democrats were complicit in policies of not regulating the financial markets (and Bush did abandon rigid ideology and even take some of the necessary steps to avert disaster…although it is unclear that the new radicalized Tea Party Republicans would have allowed that today). However, it is the Republicans who are advocating a solution of less regulation to an economic disaster that should have totally discredited the stupid and immature “market fundamentalist” principles that have taken over the economici mantra of the Republican party.] ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-the-economy-appropriate-disapproval/633790/56 "2012-09-11T00:01:57Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > So, explain this to me: How did the government take money out of the economy? They didn’t cut taxes and … Sorry, that last part should have read “They didn’t raise taxes” (and actually cut taxes as part of the stimulus package was tax cuts). ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-the-economy-appropriate-disapproval/633790/57 "2012-09-11T18:28:10Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Can you show me where Krugman predicted this? As I recall, Krugman predicted that the stimulus would be too small…and even he probably underestimated the extent to which cutbacks at the state and local level offset the stimulus. By the way, [here](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/opinion/krugman-cleaning-up-the-economy.html) and [here](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/opinion/krugman-obstruct-and-exploit.html) are two recent columns where Krugman has discussed issues related to this, including the Republican obstructionism that has slowed the recovery. The link to where he predicted higher than average growth is in my previous post. I am sure he is good at explaining why his hero’s policies have failed since he has had so much practice, but at the time he expected higher than average growth rates > [@](#): > > Can you find the error in their reasoning? Let me give you a big hint; it’s in this passage: > > So, explain this to me: How did the government take money out of the economy? They didn’t cut taxes and the government doesn’t have to “borrow” in the sense that they need to take the money from others…They have control of monetary policy. The only possible mechanism that makes any sense for how a stimulus is ineffective is this: Government increase in borrowing causes a rise in interest rates that crowd out private sector borrowing. (Or, government borrowing & spending produces inflation which reduces the value of the money?) > > Now, are you going to seriously make the case to me that interest rates, already at historically low rates, would have been significantly lower if not for the government spending? Are you seriously going to make the case that inflation, already at historically low rates, would have been significantly lower if not for the government spending? > > The whole point is that in a depressed economy, you don’t have enough private sector investment because there is not the demand to support it. To claim that the money that the government borrowed would otherwise go towards private sector investment is bogus. > > So, yes, you are right: We are going to say that they are blinded by ideology. In fact, those people are so blinded by ideology that they didn’t even check to see if there is any empirical support for the mechanisms by which their theory could supposedly works actually occurring. What you miss is that fundamental fact of government borrowing, it will eventually have to be paid back. Thus unless the economy starts growing again, tax rates will have to be raised to pay the money back. Higher taxes in the future will depress economic activity and productive investment in the economy. There is no such thing as a free lunch, to spend is to tax, either now or in the future. > [@](#): > > There is no evidence that the policies have failed. There is evidence that to the extent that they were tried (i.e., to the extent that the stimulus was not offset by state and local government cutbacks and to the extent that the later attempts at stimulus were not blocked by the Republicans), they did work. > > And, there is no new approach out there at least on the Romney/Ryan side unless you believe in ideological platitudes that have no basis in economic science. If you went back 3 and a half years and told people that one possible outcome was unemployment rates over 8% for 40 months, 10 million missing jobs, and growth rates under 2% would anyone have thought that was success? Of course not, look at the claims made for what the stimulus and various bailouts would accomplish and look at the results. By any objective standards that is failure. The only possible reply is that it would have been worse without that stuff. The problem with that is it entirely speculative. We can’t know what might have been, we can only know what we have, and what we have looks exactly like failure. ---
**Author:** ![mbetter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@mbetter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbetter)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-the-economy-appropriate-disapproval/633790/58 "2012-09-11T21:43:13Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > What you miss is that fundamental fact of government borrowing, it will eventually have to be paid back. Thus unless the economy starts growing again, tax rates will have to be raised to pay the money back. Higher taxes in the future will depress economic activity and productive investment in the economy. The depression caused by higher taxes in the future will cause people to contemplate suicide. The increase in people planning to kill themselves will cause a huge spike in sales of guns and hanging ropes. The increased demand for death tools will cause death tool manufacturers to increase hiring and capital investment. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-the-economy-appropriate-disapproval/633790/59 "2012-09-11T23:28:13Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > After a recession there is usually catch up growth as the economy reverts back to trend. In the previous eight recoveries economic growth has averaged over 15% for the three years after the end of the recession. In this recovery growth is about 6.5%. Unusually deep recessions also usually have quicker catch up growth, but this time growth has unusually slow even for a mild recession. > The economy has seriously underperformed expectations over the last three and a half years and that is why people disapprove of Obama’s economic performance. This came with a hefty price tag. there doesn’t seem to be any pressing urgency in restoring jobs. - He’s delaying the pipeline from Canada. - He placed a 6 month moratorium on deep sea drilling in the Gulf (which the court system rejected) - He supported a health care program that saddles businesses with extra expenses during a recession - He wants to raise taxes during a recession. If you just looked at the Gulf oil spill it says it all. He putzed around for over 2 months before allowing foreign skimming equipment in. The environmental and economic damage with this delay was pointless and expensive. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2012, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-the-economy-appropriate-disapproval/633790/60 "2012-09-12T00:25:17Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The link to where he predicted higher than average growth is in my previous post. I am sure he is good at explaining why his hero’s policies have failed since he has had so much practice, but at the time he expected higher than average growth rates You clearly haven’t read Krugman very much if you think Obama is his hero. He was quite openly hostile to Obama in the 2008 primaries and has often been a voice of criticism from the Left since then. He said from the beginning that Obama was making a mistake by not fighting for a bigger stimulus even if he couldn’t get one since it was not economically justifiable to claim the stimulus was big enough to fill the hole in the economy and that claim would come back to haunt him when the recovery was too tepid as a result. > [@](#): > > What you miss is that fundamental fact of government borrowing, it will eventually have to be paid back. Thus unless the economy starts growing again, tax rates will have to be raised to pay the money back. Higher taxes in the future will depress economic activity and productive investment in the economy. There is no such thing as a free lunch, to spend is to tax, either now or in the future. Baloney! There is no evidence whatsoever to support this convoluted viewpoint involving that this sort of far-sighted reasoning. Heck, there isn’t even evidence to support supply-side fantasies in the present, let alone supply side fantasies based on expectations well into the future. It’s just a fairy tale conservatives tell themselves, having long-since abandoned any notion of need for evidence, scientific or otherwise, in discussions ranging from economics, to the Iraq War, to climate change. > [@](#): > > If you went back 3 and a half years and told people that one possible outcome was unemployment rates over 8% for 40 months, 10 million missing jobs, and growth rates under 2% would anyone have thought that was success? Considering the closest comparison we have is the Great Depression, I’d say that sounds pretty modest by comparison. And, if the Tea Party yahoos had been in charge of the economy, we almost definitely would not be calling this the Great Recession but rather the Second Great Depression. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-the-economy-appropriate-disapproval/633790.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-and-the-economy-appropriate-disapproval/633790.md?page=4)