-
Obamacare Implodes
May 15, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Obama’s Rising Inequality
May 8, 2013 | 101 comments
-
Downsize the Liberals
May 1, 2013 | 53 comments
-
Fight Back! Privatize the FAA!
April 24, 2013 | 65 comments
-
Fallacies and Charades
April 17, 2013 | 14 comments
The Obama Watch
The Worst Economic Recovery Since the Great Depression
And all of it a preview of the Great Reelection Crash of 2013.
The record of President Obama’s first three years in office is in, and nothing that happens now can go back and change that. What that record shows is that President Obama, with his throwback, old-fashioned, 1970s Keynesian economics, has put America through the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression. The American people are much poorer now because of that, and will remain poorer, falling farther and farther behind, until we change course and restore traditional American prosperity.
The recession started in December, 2007. Go to the website of the National Bureau of Economic Research to see the complete history of America’s recessions. What that history shows is that before this last recession, since the Great Depression recessions in America have lasted an average of 10 months, with the longest previously lasting 16 months.
Dude, Where’s My Recovery?
Yes, the economy was in recession when President Obama
entered office, which he never tires of telling us. But that was
not unique to Obama. There have been 12 recessions in America since
the Great Depression. The American people have forgotten what that
was like because President Reagan and his Reaganite Republicans
gave us a 25 year economic boom from 1982 to 2007 with no serious
downturn.
President Obama’s responsibility was to manage a timely, robust recovery to get America back on track again. His record in achieving that is not to be measured from the worst of the recession, but to previous recoveries in U.S. history. And, no, President Obama cannot say that his recovery is so bad because the recession was so bad (worse than he thought he now tells us, after spending all of 2008 telling us it was the worst recession since the Great Depression). The American historical record is that the worse the recession the stronger the recovery, as traditional, long-term, American prosperity has always been restored.
Based on that historical record, we should be in the third year of an economic recovery boom right now. That is what we experienced under Reagan, which was the last time we recovered from a recession of similar magnitude.
In the first 2 ½ years of the Reagan recovery, the American economy created 8 million new jobs, the unemployment rate fell by 3.6 percentage points, real wages and incomes were jumping, and poverty had reversed an upsurge started under Carter, beginning a long-term decline. While Obama crows about 227,000 jobs created last month, in September, 1983 the Reagan recovery less than a year after it began created 1.1 million jobs in that one month alone. In the second year of the Reagan recovery, real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.
In contrast, under President Obama, unemployment actually rose after June 2009, when NBER counts the recession as officially ending, and did not fall back down below that level until 18 months later in December 2010. Instead of a recovery, America has suffered the longest period of unemployment this high since the Great Depression. Even today, 51 months after the recession started, the U6 unemployment rate counting the unemployed, underemployed, and discouraged workers is still nearly 15%.
And that doesn’t include all the workers who have fled the workforce under Obama’s economic oppression. Under Obama’s supposed recovery, the number of working age Americans not in the labor force rose by 7.14 million. As John Lott and Grover Norquist recently observed, “There is no comparable post-World War II ‘recovery’ where this type of exodus has occurred.”
While in the second year of Reagan’s recovery the economy boomed with real economic growth of 6.8%, the highest in 50 years, last year the American economy limped along with real economic growth a paltry 1.7%. The first quarter of this year will be similar.
Today, over 4 years since the recession started, there are still almost 24 million Americans unemployed or underemployed. That includes 5.6 million who are long-term unemployed for 27 weeks, or more than 6 months, the highest since the Great Depression. The number of Americans employed part-time for economic reasons was still 8.1 million. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) says, “These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.”
Another 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. The BLS says, “These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.”
African Americans have been suffering an outright depression under Obama, with unemployment today, 51 months after the recession started, still over 14%. Black unemployment has been over 14% for Obama’s entire term in office. Black teenage unemployment today is still nearly 35%, where it has persisted for Obama’s entire term as well.
Hispanics have also been suffering a depression under Obama, with unemployment today still in double digits at nearly 11%, where it has also persisted for Obama’s entire term. Over one fourth of Hispanic youths remain unemployed today, which also has persisted for years.
The Census Bureau reported last September that more Americans are in poverty today than at any time in the entire 51 year history of Census tracking poverty. Americans dependent on food stamps are at an all time high as well. White House spokesman Jay Carney recently tried to blame the Republicans for that, saying that it was their policies of deregulation that caused the recession. But actually it was liberal policies of overregulation forcing the looting of the banks for subprime loans under threat of discrimination suits that caused the recession. See, e.g. Paul Sperry, The Great American Bank Robbery.
Moreover, it was Obama’s responsibility to foster a timely, robust recovery restoring traditional American prosperity. Where is that? The absence of that is because Obama doesn’t believe in traditional American anything.
About the Author
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (242) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Peter Ferrara
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/14/the-worst-economic-recovery-si
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
POST American| 3.14.12 @ 6:31AM
"America better watch it or
in a couple of decades we're going
to be a minstrel show ---for RED China."
-Gore Vidal
1986
(the heyday of Reagan/Bush)
------The CFR-Rockefeller RED China handover,
TREASON, 'De-IN----DUST---realization'
and FINAL EUGENICS OP
---------------------------------IS REAL
---------------------------------------AND IT'S HERE.
"---And listen to this: RED China is now
calling the US on accounting fraud and
demanding 'an international examination
of the US dollar'."
-Informed online
(yesterday)
As we said, full-blown, boots to the ground,
Globalist 'managed', RED Chinese receivership
of America within three years ----
----BACK to the CFR-RED China TREASON OP----
The Bushes/ Clintons/ McCains/ Gingrichs and
Rockefellers presided and directed this
nightmare.
'BAR-Rockefeller' Obama may, just may very well
be an Averell Harriman stealth clone ---a sort of
EUGENICS homage to a century of capstone
creep treachery -er- we mean 'social engineering'.
WHY are these people STILL AT LARGE???
--------WHY ARE YOU DOING NOTHING?!!!------
----------------------------WHY????????????????????
Jack in Wi.| 3.14.12 @ 7:00AM
Well I agree with Peter here on most of what he has written. I believe gas prices are more a result of the talk of attacking Iran. It kind of reminds of what I have read about the 1936 election. The recovery wasn't very robust. Yet the Repubicans lost in a landslide. The reason was that the people still blamed them for the depression. An other reason is that the Republicans ran an extremely negative campaign, with a terrible candididate.
Now you all tell me why any American should be excited about voting for either Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney? Their whole program consists of more wars and more of the same. We have the chance of a lifetime to put up a positive program for real change in this country. Instead we are putting up a failed governor or failed senator who hasn't got a clue how to get us out of the mess we are in. I don't much like it, but Obama will probably be re-elected and if Santorum is the nominee he will be re-elected in a landslide. But even if one of these birds win, how will we be better off? In my opinion we have a lot of bad years ahead of us. This country is headed to an economy like Japan which hasn't had a real recovery in over 20 years or if Obama is re-elected welcome to hugo Chavez's Venzuala del norte.
PolishKnight| 3.14.12 @ 9:31AM
While the talk of attack on Iran has helped push prices up, it's clear that a shortage of supply caused by both Obama and amazingly GW's failure to open up new sources of oil and gas.
All the talk of "taking the country back" both figuratively and literally is nonsense. Amnesty advocates such as Gingrich and H1B apologists such as Romney have ensured both strong electoral votes for Democrats AND an anemic economy. Simultaneously, we live in a post feminist era that makes an easy rollback to the 1950's impossible.
It's looking more and more like the Bolsheviks are going to win, folks.
Max| 3.15.12 @ 9:18AM
"While the talk of attack on Iran has helped push prices up, it's clear that a shortage of supply caused by both Obama and amazingly GW's failure to open up new sources of oil and gas."
Nothing could be further from the truth.
1) The percentage of oil that comes from imported sources has plummeted.
2) America's #1 export product is gasoline (which helps explain the price rise) and we are using less gasoline today than we have in years.
There is not a supply problem at all, and every article on the subject states so. We are swimming in both oil and gas.
TrueBlue | 3.15.12 @ 10:42AM
Most of it drilled on private land and not federal, since they are STILL stalling on issuing licenses to do so. That said, yes, we have increased oil production. The problem is that we share it with the rest of the world. Gas prices are based on consumption around the world, not just here at home.
Honestly I think we should restrict oil sales to countries we have actual treaties with. One of the few things the government can do is affect inter-country commerce for the purposes of security for the nation. An economic collapse is a pretty big security risk imo.
Will it piss people off? Probably, but most of those countries don't like us anyway.
Max| 3.15.12 @ 12:18PM
"Honestly I think we should restrict oil sales to countries we have actual treaties with. One of the few things the government can do is affect inter-country commerce for the purposes of security for the nation. An economic collapse is a pretty big security risk imo."
I have to laugh at the spectacle of a comment like this on a "conservative" message board. You're going to "restrict" sales, huh? You think Exxon-Mobil is going to let that happen? You can't here the cries of "Marxist!" when the President intervenes in the "free market" (sic) this way?
It has been proven that more supply is not going to help the matter, so forget the "Federal lands" meme.
The CFTC will be putting a collar on allowed leverage on oil futures this summer. Barring any more sabre rattling, that should have a salutary effect on these unwarranted price swings. Even the CFTC ackowledges that speculators are responsible for a large piece of the price swings.
Vicky BEnnett | 3.14.12 @ 9:59AM
Gas prices are high because of Obama. His refusal to let us drill, and his lying about him taking credit for what we are now getting from private lands. He can't take credit, he has done nothing. I believe a conservative GOP pres will help bring the gas prices way down.
John Nail| 3.14.12 @ 12:59PM
Think about this. Repubs have held the Presidency for 20 of the last 32 years. Why didn't they "drill baby drill"?
We have had an oil crisis in this nation since the 1973 oil embargo.
Reagan did nothing. Bush I did nothing and W did a little but not much. Why do you think now a conservative will act differently?
Nick| 3.14.12 @ 1:21PM
John [Dumb-As-A-Door]Nail,
You shouldn't embarrass yourself on public forums like this.
President Reagan did enact a Drill-Baby-Drill policy. Oil was $10 a barrel until the mid-1990s, brainiac.
Dick Nome| 3.14.12 @ 1:50PM
More realistically in the last 68 years Democrats has occupied the WH for 36 of them. They had the House for 40 straight years. In that time their progressive Socialism have finally brought us to our knees. The great Ronald Reagan set an example of how to reverse the decline and Reagan loved this country like few others. The latest occupant (Socialist/ Marxist/ Alinskyite) has inflicted an accelerated plan TO DESTROY THIS COUNTRY THAT HE HATES SO Vehemently.
Nardfathe| 3.14.12 @ 2:45PM
YOu can;t be a socialist and a marxist at the same time. You post shows you really don't know much about what you are talking about. He also doesn't hate the country, that is just right wing echo chamber talking point garbage. It is the posts after these articles that show the true decline of this country. People who dont know much or think for themselves and spit out what they hear on the radio and cable news.
George True| 3.14.12 @ 4:50PM
Nardtard: Of course one can be a Marxist and a socialist at the same time. You are splitting hairs semantically. Marxism, socialism, communism, fascism, etc are all slightly different names for the same thing: collectivism or totalitarianism. Marxism happens to be the name of the Soviet style of communism/socialism.
People who don't know much or think for themselves tend to just spit out what they hear on the Democrat Media Complex stations such as NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc.
Renaissance Nerd | 3.14.12 @ 5:24PM
Collectivism and totalitarianism (and socialism, marxism, communism, fascism, Nazism, social democracy, progressivism etc), are all throwbacks to the earliest form of civilized governments: theocratic monarchy. The fact that the gods are different is irrelevant; Obama (and even Nixon for that matter) has more in common with Hammurabi or almost any Pharaoh than with George Washington. How much does the democratic party worship of their infallible lord and master resemble the government of a priest-king (cult of personality) ruling a nation through a priesthood of some national god or other (leftist elite) and demanding worship and absolute obedience in every possible matter? The differences are in rhetoric; in substance they're exactly equivalent. The reason fascism works better than communism is because it's more realistically rooted in the prejudices and traditions of the host culture, it's the same reason Akhenaton failed to reform Egypt and the priests of Amon managed to bring back Amon-worship the moment he died. The 'communists' in China are really fascists, and Stalin embraced fascism the moment Hitler overran his borders. Suddenly international socialism became engaged in the Great Patriotic War and out came the propaganda about mother Russia. Fascism and every other brand of socialism are difficult to tell apart, of course, because nobody wants to call themselves fascists any more, but that's the closest approximation of what Obama and the Democrats are up to, as they've rooted many their socialist arguments in American cultural traditions. Fortunately they're moving too quickly. Thank heaven for Rahm Emmanuel!! Without his urging 'never let a crisis go to waste' they might've been able to make it happen without any of us noticing. Still could I suppose, but I think, as well as hope not.
Gr0w1er601| 3.14.12 @ 5:08PM
Birds of a different feather, MORON.
Bobloblaw| 3.14.12 @ 6:40PM
How many times did 41 DEM Senators between 1995-2006 block ANWR????
Nite| 3.14.12 @ 7:36PM
I agree with your comments. Obama is the worst President ever in the history of this country. I agree that a conservative President is needed, but retaining control of the House and taking control of the Senate is extremely important if we are to get this country going again.
Max| 3.15.12 @ 9:20AM
We are producing more than ever, and unless any of you can produce some EVIDENCE or DATA that backs up these supply claims, I suggest you deal in reality.
The price rise is NOT demand driven. Not in the slightest.
Melvin| 3.14.12 @ 12:03PM
People, won't be so much worrying about Iran being attacked, it will be Washington D.C. when enraged Americans throw out the Communists.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.14.12 @ 3:43PM
Spot on Melvin. Keynesian economics is not what the socialist promote. Keynes would never increase taxes during a recession.
But socialist figure the average guy does not understand this and claim that their statism and tyranny is an application of economic theory.
But even the dullest are figuring out they have been robbed.
Jane Ehrlichman| 3.14.12 @ 12:13PM
It is hard to see how a hapless nitwit like Barrack Obama could be reelected, but you can't expect much from the American electorate.
SpiralArchitect| 3.14.12 @ 1:10PM
Free Stuff
President Free Cheese has made so many dependent upon his Gov assistance that they will flock to re-elect him.
Corruption is a major sponsor in (D) politics, never underestimate the power of corruption.
Who has been blocking every Voter ID law brought up...
Bobloblaw| 3.14.12 @ 6:39PM
""Well I agree with Peter here on most of what he has written. I believe gas prices are more a result of the talk of attacking Iran. It kind of reminds of what I have read about the 1936 election. The recovery wasn't very robust""
1.Gasoline prices because too money liquidity is chasing too few barrels of oil Jacck, not because of the Jooooos.
2. Go check your Great Depression history. From 1934-36 GDP grew 15% per year and unemployment fell 10 percentage points. The bull market of 1932-36 was the greatest bull market in US history. The Dow rose from 40 in June 1932 to 160 by Oct 1936.
Bobloblaw| 3.14.12 @ 6:44PM
The US economy has not grown more than 4% in even one quarter since 1Q 2006 and since the recession ended 10 quarters ago has only grown 3% or more in 3 quarters. Peter Ferrara correctly points out the Reagan boom, but he can also compare Obama to another Dem President: Clinton. From 1Q93 to 4Q94, the US economy grew an average of nearly 4% annually and created 7m new jobs. While the 1993-95 recovery wasnt as strong as 1983-85, it was more than twice as strong as 2009-12.
Appleby| 3.14.12 @ 7:23AM
I think Americans are sick and tired of people telling them that they are too stupid to know what they themselves think or what is best for us, and that Daddy Knows Best and we should just bow down and shut up. This is not and never has been the American Way. Besides which, America needs a President who representsw ALL the people. Mitt Romney's pathetic tour of the South (which even he admitted was an "Away Game" for him, that is -- going into alien territory in which most of the people in the stands were against him) showed that he is Not One Of Us in the most glaring of all terms, and having Big Daddy tell us we are too stupid to know what's good for us is only rubbing salt into the wound.
The more Mitt is shoved in our faces and we are told we are too stupid to know he's really Obi-Wan Kenobi -- our only hope -- the less likely we are to vote for him...because we know it's time to stop believing that we are too stupid to know what we want.
Vicky BEnnett | 3.14.12 @ 10:00AM
ABO... any GOP over Obama for another 4.
Tommy| 3.14.12 @ 10:18AM
Rick Santorum is perhaps the worst candidate I've ever seen, and if Obama gets re-elected because the GOP can't field a decent candidate---idiots like you will be to blame. thanks for nothing
Teaghan| 3.14.12 @ 11:24AM
He and his wierd-ass family make my teeth itch.
Skippy| 3.14.12 @ 12:20PM
Normal people do that to you all the time.
I feel the same way about The Martian Ron Paul.
SpiralArchitect| 3.14.12 @ 1:11PM
Agreed.
Don Limpio| 3.14.12 @ 10:28AM
Obama has an outstanding austerity program which he will impose during his second term.
SpiralArchitect| 3.14.12 @ 1:13PM
The Forced Poverty plan has already been implemented.
Brian Mc| 3.14.12 @ 7:28AM
So, this monstrosity of a government drags us kicking and screaming towards a hope and change that none of us want. And that it's happening here, in America...we are on a collision course of unimaginable proportions as this bleak article proves to anyone who can read.
Unless we rid ourselves of the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments we are fighting a losing battle.
Vicky BEnnett | 3.14.12 @ 10:01AM
So, what should we do?
Vote conservative 2012. And make sure we get CONGRESS.
1blumutt| 3.14.12 @ 11:09PM
VickyB......Are you forgetting that with all Obama's worker bees in place, that with pen poised, he can sign on to laddle out more of his socialistic slop faster than most of our politicians can count backwards from the numeral 20. Work like heck for whoever makes Republican candidate, besides supporting Tea Party conservatives in Congress. Too much is at stake!
Micki| 5.20.12 @ 5:31PM
What in the world are you saying.. Yea right now were in a tough spot but all projections are actually pretty good and solid. Heck our GDP will hit $16trillion faster than we thought in 2014, even with the recession. Were the largest producer and seller of foods, biggest producer of natural gas, and have plenty of untaped resources and many things to be envious about. there is so collision course with anything, stop being so freaking negative and shut the hell up.
POST American| 3.14.12 @ 7:59AM
------Scacely a week or two away from
the Breitbart 'natural' death
--------and just the day after the RED Chinese
regime passed its own 'disappearance' act
--modelled on the Globalist NDAA1021
--------------------------UH------------------------------
could we PLEASE DEAL with the REAL
issues unfolding?
THANKS!
Indy| 3.14.12 @ 8:00AM
Good piece -
"Now on the horizon is the revival of inflation, thanks to the Keynesian cheap dollar, negligible interest rate, monetary policies pursued at the Fed"
I would argue inflation is already here, each trip to the grocery store and gas station is a reminder of the weak dollar.
Willard's consultants tell him to talk about eating catfish and grits instead, he should be talking about Fed policies (here is where I agree with Ron Paul). Bernake is playing politics...promising low interest rates through 2014 (historic to use one of Barack's favorite words) and printing and endless flow of money. A perfect storm is brewing for 2013 / 2014 when taxes go up and ObamaCare fully kicks in - the CBO costs are now $1.76 TRILLION v. the $940 Billion dollar lie we were told.
Greece here we come, this is the most predictable financial crisis yet we continue full speed ahead over the cliff.
George Maynard| 3.14.12 @ 3:12PM
i think this writer is lying to u..most of what is said is not true..for example..he equates this recession with that of Regan..this is probably the worst recession since the Great depression...Regan had no housing crisis and no banking crisis and no automotive crisis...this is what amkes it so ahrd for recovery..there is no comparison woth Regans...Regans was just a depression!
Yashmak| 3.14.12 @ 3:22PM
"Regan had no housing crisis and no banking crisis and no automotive crisis"
And Mr. Ferrara refuted the "it's different this time" claims quite well in his article. I just don't understand why folks keep feeling the need to defend Obama's blatant and obvious incompetence in the field of the economics.
By his own standards, laid out in the oh-so-very-hated-by-the-left chart his administration presented of how the stimulus would dampen unemployment, he has failed. Worse, not only has he failed, but he doesn't seem to recognize it, and is constantly calling for more of the same failed policy actions (i.e. additional stimulus, etc. etc.).
Von Mises Jr.| 3.14.12 @ 3:33PM
George Maynard Keynes writes like he is hitting a crack pipe. This is the kind of dependent mooch that eeds a EBT card.
'Reagan', Not 'Regan', Idiot| 3.14.12 @ 5:16PM
The Carter term:
21.5% interest rate
14.8% inflation rate
7.6% unemployment rate
Reagan created 25 million jobs from this starting point.
Indy| 3.14.12 @ 5:27PM
I hear you, when a comment is posted by someone so clearly uninformed or a drone, I just ignore it and move on, why respond, some people cannot be de-programmed. You must be willing to do some homework before coming to class.
God Bless President Reagan!
Max| 3.15.12 @ 2:30PM
Right- after Carter inherited inflation from Gerald Ford, (whose Whip Inflation Now buttons strangely had no economic effect) he hires Paul Volcker who ratchets up short term rates to near 20%, and bleeds the inflation- and any semblance of economic growth- out of the economy. Reagan takes office, and two years into his first term, Volcker takes his foot off the brake pedal, and rapidly declining interest rates start mortgage, auto and business lending percolating again. Reagan is then proclaimed an economic miracle worker by people who are shocked- SHOCKED-that a 1300 basis point decline in overnight bank rates should be in any way responsible for spurring the economy.
These narratives are laughable, and fodder for fools.
http://www.moneycafe.com/libra.....istory.htm
WIN| 3.15.12 @ 3:33PM
Laughable fodder of fools:
The cited link above contains the Fed Reserve Open Markets Operations Archive going all the way back to 1990.
Under 'About' at 'MoneyCafe.com':
"About Us:
Why are we here?
* To help you get information, find great products and services; and ultimately make or save more money."
Max| 3.15.12 @ 3:38PM
Brilliant reply. The kind you get when someone can't answer to the data.
O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 3.15.12 @ 4:05PM
Even sheep know archives on interest rates going all the way back to 1990 are a little difficult to explain interest rate changes in 1980.
Even sheep know anonymous web sites that are self-described as a place to find great products and services is not an ideal source of information.
And even sheep are not fodder to be fooled by those with the grave - that is, unlaughable - proclivities that interest ewe.
Ovines For
A Nation
Absent Species Sodomization
Max| 3.15.12 @ 7:08PM
Excuse me- the data is accurate, and besides, I LIVED through those days, and remember when Bank CD's paid over 15%. The facts are the facts, and your infantile deflection is meaningless. It is amazing how people who frequent boards like this fancy themselves politically and economically astute, but are little more than dumbed down parrots.
Max| 3.15.12 @ 7:19PM
Here ya go, mutt. The official site of the St. Louis Federal Reserve, no doubt a nest of liberal perdition.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/DFF
O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 3.15.12 @ 7:49PM
Even sheep know the most recent link is less informative than the initial link.
Even sheep know liberals such as ewe are a fool which would be laughable but for the reality all liberals have become nothing more than fodder for the tree of liberty.
Ovines For
A Nation
Absent Species Sodomization
Max| 3.15.12 @ 8:24PM
"Even sheep know the most recent link is less informative than the initial link.
Even sheep know liberals such as ewe are a fool which would be laughable but for the reality all liberals have become nothing more than fodder for the tree of liberty."
Put down the crack pipe.
O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 3.15.12 @ 9:23PM
We sheep thank you for the brilliant fanciful accurate data of the facts that are the facts that those that are politically and economically astute amazingly can frequently unperditiously answer to that are the facts that are the facts that are the accurate data that are brilliantly fancied.
Even sheep know sheep are smarter than liberals.
Ovines For
A Nation
Absent Species Sodomization
Mark in LA| 3.22.12 @ 1:12PM
Max these people are too stupid to even waste your time with. As for the other nonsense claim of 25 years of growth without a serious recession. Maybe you forgot the recession induced by the S&L crisis that Reagan gave us with his lax oversight of Wall Street and the banking industry in 1989-1993 that cost Bush reelection. It was there that Greenspan, the serial bubble blower, first decided to keep rates artificially low to get us out of the recession that some thought would be a depression. This induced the first massive bubble called the dot com bubble. We have been in this world of boom and bust ever since Reagan. The problem is now that you can't lower interest rates below zero.
Mark in LA| 3.22.12 @ 1:16PM
Sorry Max, I meant to say maybe the author forgot about the recession after not you.
O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 4.2.12 @ 11:32PM
We sheep thank you for the even less brilliant fanciful accurate data of the astute facts you have provided than your co-sodomizer Max.
Even sheep know sheep feces is smarter than liberals.
Ovines For
A Nation
Absent Species Sodomization
Mark MacInnis| 3.14.12 @ 8:07AM
I would agree that inflation is already here, and any agency or individual who says anything to the contrary is a fool, a liar, a Liberal or all three....guess that last part is self-evident and redundant.
Jack London| 3.14.12 @ 8:34AM
An ignorant article and one clearly designed to talk down the improving economy and connive with the rich. Another useless waste of bandwidth from AmSpec.
Jack London's inner thoughts| 3.14.12 @ 8:54AM
Oh no. We are so totally screwed. We should have done so much more when we had the House. If we are going to get our butts handed to us it should have been for maximum effect. Why are we so gutless? Gitmo, drone murder, assassiantion and every other unconstitutional aberation is now part of our mantra. How did this happen? We are nothing more than a bunch of hypocrites. I hope the public never finds out how connected we are to Wall Street. It sure is hard getting Americans used to European growth, regulation and unemployment. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I'm melting.
Bob Grant's Inner Thoughts| 3.14.12 @ 11:36AM
Heh!
Nick| 3.14.12 @ 10:43AM
The only waste of bandwidth, here at AmSpec, comes from the stupid comments by stinking liberals, like yourself, Jack Moscow.
Are you one of the idiotic 20% who actually approves of President Downgrade's handling of the economy, according to the latest WaPo/ABC poll? Or, are you one of the 14% who approve of O'Bama's handling of gas prices?
Could you really be this moronic, Jack?
Yeah, the economy is improving. Would you be interested in some beach-front property for sale?
John Nail| 3.14.12 @ 1:01PM
The stock market sure has been unhappy under Obama hasn't it? Highest NYSE, NASDAQ and S&P ever...they must be really dumb
Nick| 3.14.12 @ 1:17PM
John [Dumb-As-A-Door]Nail,
It was the election of President Downgrade that sent the Dow-Jones to plummet to the 6,000s to begin with, remember?
The double-dip recession begins this summer.
Are you one those moronic 20% who still support O'Bama's disastrous economy?
The Bruce| 3.14.12 @ 1:29PM
You mean the same NYSE, NASDAQ, and S&P that's been artificially propped up by the Fed's printing press?
Put the bong down. You'll need to be sober to understand the gravity of the global crash coming this year.
Yashmak| 3.14.12 @ 3:27PM
John, you realize that most economists are saying that stocks are vastly overpriced right now, and that a severe correction is coming, right?
I also wonder how many times you yourself have, when the market WAS very low (early in Obama's term), argued out of the exact opposite side of your face. . .that the market itself isn't a good indicator of economic health. If you did, you were definitely more correct then, than you are now.
Drunken Sailor| 3.14.12 @ 4:14PM
Highest NASDAQ ever
5048.62 in March, 2000
Highest S& P
Highest close 1,565.15 October 9, 2007
SNAKESRULE| 3.14.12 @ 11:43AM
The "improving" economy may in fact be the market looking forward to the poseurs deposing...lol...there hasn't been a democrat with a clue about the economy since JFK....BJC takes credit for the forcefeeding he got from Newt and the gang...
Yashmak| 3.14.12 @ 3:31PM
Yeah, I still remember how the NYSE took a hit immediately after the announcement that Obama had won.
Seems some investors had a notion what was coming.
Alex Hill| 3.14.12 @ 1:39PM
I completely agree. There is really no use in rebutting this kind of stuff. If the right actually had ANY plan to make america better there might be some reason look to the right. No matter how pissed you are that Obama screwed up America (which is laughable given the mess he inherited and projections of flat employment throughout his term from the majority of economists), he remains the best man for the job.
George True| 3.14.12 @ 2:02PM
ALex Hill: Oh, it's all Bush's fault, right? QE1, QE2, QE3, all Bush, huh? Three 1.5 trillion dollar deficits in a row not, bu that's Bush's fault too. Trillion dollar stimulus that stimulated only Obama's cronies and donors. Obamacare that is already bankrupting small business and is set to bankrupt our country to the tune of almost two trillion dollars. That's GWB's fault too, right? Purposely making it impossible to drill or refine oil here in the US. Intentionally refusing to build pipelines, shutting down production in the Gulf in direct violation of the law. All Bush?
You leftists are the biggest retards on the planet.
Yashmak| 3.14.12 @ 3:39PM
Alex, you are really a perfect modern lefty. Completely and willfully unaware that the House has passed numerous alternative plans on to the Senate, where the Democrat majority refuses to even allow them to come to debate. Now, that may be your fault, because while the NY Times, WaPo, MSNBC, etc. etc happily print all the stories of Obama blaming the right, they never reported on any of these alternative plans.
Also, I think you must've missed that what he inherited is irrelevant. Obama has failed, over a much longer period than ANY prior recession, to bring us into a significant recovery. You realize Reagan inherited a pretty crappy economic situation as well, right? Unemployment was even higher then than when Obama took office. He turned it around in less than HALF the time Obama has had.
If that's the "best man for the job", we're all truly screwed.
Tim the Enchanter| 3.16.12 @ 12:28PM
He may be the best man for the job, but I don't need another guy to unblock my septic tank.
Yashmak| 3.14.12 @ 3:23PM
A dishonest response from an individual who obviously did not even READ the article.
Jack, exactly what point(s) made in the article do you find ignorant?
. . .or did you read just far enough to note that it was critical of this administration, and then dismiss it out of hand on that basis?
albert constantine jr.| 3.14.12 @ 5:19PM
"An ignorant article and one clearly designed to talk down the improving economy and connive with the rich. Another useless waste of bandwidth from AmSpec."
Yet, you showed up to read and comment anyway. It must be a drag to have a job with Media Matters to go and post at a place you detest so. Might I suggest something more in line with your skill level, such as the food service or housekeeping industry? *
*paraphrase credit to Bill Murray in the Ghostbusters franchise
Bobloblaw| 3.14.12 @ 6:46PM
Dispute the article with facts Jack. Even your buddy Clinton had a recovery in 1993-95, that was more than 2x as fast as Obama's.
Bobloblaw| 3.14.12 @ 6:48PM
GDP growth right now is less than ti was in 1992 when GHW Bush lost his re-election, though job growth is slightly better
Louis Jenkins| 3.14.12 @ 8:44AM
Inflation is slowly eating away at my paycheck. Rephrase-devaluation is slowly eating away at my paycheck. The middle class is on the ropes. What will it be like in four years? We don't need much of an imagination to figure that out. So go ahead people, re-elect Obama, you think the welfare people are angry? Rip Obama out of the office he holds, otherwise...
Mimi| 3.14.12 @ 8:57AM
Thanks Peter...Again you give us the "brutal" facts. The Republicans even NOW should be assembling the 'THINK TANKS" to unravel the striking demolition of our economy accomplished by this administration....We have ton's of work to do and first on the list is to defeat the DEMOCRATS top to bottom. We WILL get the nation restored....What will become of the Democratic Party...( their greatest failure being their SUPPORT of this deliberate destruction) is not known, but does not bode well for them!
John Nail| 3.14.12 @ 1:07PM
How is it so many of you on here forget that W 's policies, unfunded wars and the biggest entitlement giveaway ever, unfunded Med. D are all but $1.2T of the deficit growth?
Or that we had a major oil spill nearly destroy life on the gulf coast due to poor oversight by W's administration?
America's problems didn't all of a sudden start when Obama was inaugurated. And he has made things better NOT worse.
Why has the recovery been slower than others. First the hole was deeper and systemic. In all prior recessions housing and auto sales have led us out.
This time the housing bust that caused this mess is still there and autos are up nicely but cannot lead completely.
George True| 3.14.12 @ 2:15PM
You are a liar. A willful, intentional, stone cold liar. Everything you just said is an intentional bald-faced lie.
You criticize Medicare Part D which costs billions, but you are all for Obamacare which costs trillions. You talk about unfunded wars, but the reality is that both the Iraq and Afpak wars during the GWB years was never more than a tiny fraction of overall government expenditures, and that the biggest deficits during those years were about one fifth of the average annual deficits under Obama.
THe Gulf oil spill happened because of BP's culture of taking risks and NOT following existing industry practice, NOT due to a 'failure' of oversight on government's part.
America's problems of course did not start when Obama was elected, but they sure have been made ten times worse since then. Yes, that's right, Obama and his socialist/communist regime have made things an order of magnitude worse than ever before. The hole was NOT deeper than any other recession. But Obama's sad and tragic devotion to the fundamentally flawed and thoroughly discredited Keynesian theories have now created a hole such as we may never be able to climb out of.
The economy is most assuredly NOT improving. Just because the Democrat Media Complex is trying to spin it that way does not make it so.
You are a liar, and not a particularly good one.
Yashmak| 3.14.12 @ 3:45PM
Now Now George, I understand your fury, (and your points are absolutely correct), but some of these folks have truly never been themselves exposed to the actual facts, instead swallowing the editorials on places like Mother Jones/HuffPo hook, line, and sinker.
Even if what John said were true (and it demonstrably is not), it still paints Obama as a failure, for he made no move to get us out of Iraq or Afghanistan (the latter which he referred to as "the good war").
The fact that John is unaware of the drop in the participation rate in America's workforce, the failure of Obama to live up to his OWN claims on the effect of his stimulus on unemployment, the raw numerical data of comparative debt increases during the two administrations. . .well, if he's not aware of it, he's not lying.
He's just willfully blind.
George True| 3.14.12 @ 4:59PM
I used to think so too Yash, but anymore my conclusion is that if they have come here to TAS to peddle their fraudulent wares, then it is most likely for the purpose of trolling. That is, parroting the leftist false narrative on conservative sites in order to hijack the threads, for the purpose of preventing any meaningful exchange of ideas. They are not innocent.
Drunken Sailor| 3.14.12 @ 2:15PM
Huh, So W. was responsible for the BP oil spill? Even Obama says he should bear responsibility.
"In case you were wondering who's responsible," Obama told the nation, "I take responsibility." Sounding chastened, he acknowledged that his administration had failed to adequately reform the Minerals Management Service, the scandal-ridden federal agency that for years had essentially allowed the oil industry to self-regulate.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/po.....z1p7Gafros
Hell even the liberal paper "The rolling stones" says the current administration shares the blame.
"It's tempting to believe that the Gulf spill, like so many disasters inherited by Obama, was the fault of the Texas oilman who preceded him in office. But, though George W. Bush paved the way for the catastrophe, it was Obama who gave BP the green light to drill. "Bush owns eight years of the mess," says Rep. Darrell Issa, a Republican from California. "But after more than a year on the job, Salazar owns it too."
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/po.....z1p7H1pMAI"
Seek| 3.14.12 @ 4:30PM
The Heritage Foundation seems to be doing a good job explaining the issues.
Drek| 3.14.12 @ 10:08AM
If there was a Republican president right now, with this kind of "recovery" occurring, would the Democrats and the media be calling it a recovery at all?
Of course not!
That being the case, Republicans should stop even referring to any type of recovery presently taking place.
They should simply state flat out, and endlessly repeat, that there isn't any growth occurring in America outside of the federal government.
No recovery is happening!
And NO recovery is going to happen until a real conservative is in the White House, and that isn't Mitt Romney.
Blue in Texas| 3.14.12 @ 10:24AM
750,000 jobs lost a month When President Obama came into office. 250,000 jobs created last month. A turn around of almost 1,000,000 jobs a month. Eat crow bubba boy...
sonofagunny| 3.14.12 @ 11:24AM
Did you even read the article??
SNAKESRULE| 3.14.12 @ 12:02PM
LOL....man, you are sucking big koolaid...take a trip over to DoL and see if your little brain housing can see the light...if not, then try to explain the food stamp numbers to me...people who work don't need a government crutch....
The Bruce| 3.14.12 @ 1:44PM
In February, while the administration was touting that 241,000 jobs had been created the previous months, 1.2 million people "left the workforce." Do you understand what that means? It means that people out of work whose unemployment benefits ran out were no longer counted toward the unemployment rate. Convenient for the President, no?
There are 3 million fewer people working today than when Obama took office. How exactly is that an improvement?
The Bruce| 3.14.12 @ 1:45PM
Sorry, "month" not months.
Yashmak| 3.14.12 @ 3:49PM
Blue, you didn't read the article. Unemployment hasn't measurably fallen. In fact, it's set to tick back up this month. Labor participation rate is at its lowest rate since the census started recording it (meaning the overall percentage of the population that is working). Poverty rate is still increasing, inflation is kicking in, housing values are still falling.
All you've said is that he's managed to 'turn it around' until ALMOST as many jobs were created in one month of his 3 year presidency to cover the number of people entering the job market THAT MONTH. But not quite. Wow, that's one hell of an accomplishment there bucko.
SUBVET| 3.14.12 @ 11:35AM
DREK........you just hit a grand slam when you said "conservative" today's GOP is just a LIBERIAL "a communist with a college education thinking negro thoughts".
John Nail| 3.14.12 @ 1:09PM
The size of the federal government in terms of people is smaller than W and equal to Reagan. That is NOT the problem
Dick Nome| 3.14.12 @ 1:21PM
I've some whacked BS in my life but right now you have just moved close to the top with that tall tale... no, it's an out and out fantasy.
The Bruce| 3.14.12 @ 1:48PM
John, what exactly are you smoking? Just last year alone, 250,000 new federal hires went to the EPA alone. We're not talking about new employees to replace those that left or retired, we're talking about new hires in addition to those already there.
Where the hell do you get your numbers? Certainly not from the Department of Labor.
Yashmak| 3.14.12 @ 3:52PM
If you pay attention to his posts, he doesn't HAVE any numbers. He just makes a demonstrably incorrect statement, and provides nothing to back it up.
Seek| 3.14.12 @ 4:32PM
EPA hired 250,000 people for new slots? That's got to be a misprint.
Earth to Seek| 3.14.12 @ 5:21PM
Someone who is both conservative and a PhD has no problem finding this out himself.
Let us know the results of your research.
Thanks,
Conservatives
Bobloblaw| 3.14.12 @ 6:50PM
size of govt is defined as a % of GDP. Today govt is 26% of GDP, up from 21% at the end of GW Bush's term and 18% at the end of Clinton's.
Bruce Anderson| 3.14.12 @ 10:14AM
What this article fails to reveal is that this recession is unlike any that we have experienced since the Great Depression because it was the result of a financial crisis, not a business cycle. The real estate bubble burst and caused home prices to decline rapidly -- back to their real value. Households then had (have) to somehow work off all that excess debt before they can begin consuming again. It just takes time, and there isn't a damn thing the president can do about it.
Bob Grant| 3.14.12 @ 10:33AM
If that were the case then why did obama treat it like it was a standard recession by using cheap Keynesian stimulus tricks?
Why, in 2009, did he did he attempt to push through Landmark legislation - in a cheap attempt to ensure his legacy sits alongside Lincoln and FDR - such as Obamacare, Cap and Trade, and Comprehensive Immigration reform INSTEAD of dedicating his entire first year addressing "this most unusual recession"?
The golf outings, the vacation, the non-stop campaigning, the demagoguing of the opposition 24/7...
Even if this recession was "unusual" like you state, he fails MISERABLY considering he had a huge majority in the house and a filibuster-proof senate majority.
You can't have it both ways!
The Bruce| 3.14.12 @ 1:58PM
Nonsense. Ever heard of the crash of 1920? It was more spectacular than 1929. That recession only lasted 4 months. Do you know why? Because the President at that time (Calvin Coolidge) rightfully understood that it wasn't the government's role to "do" something, unlike 9 years later, where Hoover/Roosevelt, who used the crash of 1929 as an excuse to turn the economy into their personal science experiment, turned a recession into a Depression.
Same with Carter in the 1970s, and same with Bush/Obama with this recession. The more they mess with the economy in an effort to "do" something, the more of a mess of things they make of it.
Drake| 3.14.12 @ 4:18PM
Actually it was Harding (and Coolidge as VP) who was inaugurated in 1921. But yes, his Administration paid down debt, cut spending, and reduced the size of government. The recovery from that deep recession was called the "Roaring Twenties".
martin j smith| 3.14.12 @ 10:22AM
Bruce Anderson aside from the notion that you are full of crap, your last sentence offers this idea: Then who needs Obama --what use is he to us ? And explain why GWB is being blamed for his policies continuously if a President can do a damn thing about the economy. I think you are an fool Obama BOT or just plain stupid jerk to make such a remark. But it is refreshing to hear what some one like you really thinks. In my view--if you are the President the buck stops with you or else get out !!!!!!!!!!!
Blue in Texas| 3.14.12 @ 10:22AM
Pete you have to be the biggest sophomoric idiot on the planet. The simple reason why this is the slowest recovery since the Great Depression, is because it was the worst economic collapse since the Depression. The result of Conservative economics. Now you dufuses want to apply Hoover's policies to our current recovery. Boy that is intelligence for you!!! Idiots...
jkendal| 3.14.12 @ 10:35AM
"The result of Conservative economics."
No, the result of leftist policies that forced banks to make home loans to people that everyone knew wouldn't be able to pay them back. By the way, it wasn't the worst economic collapse since the great depression - maybe since the Carter administration, but not since the great depression. Also, you might want to look at a mirror before throwing around the word "idiot".....
sonofagunny| 3.14.12 @ 11:27AM
"you have to be the biggest sophomoric idiot on the planet" Not while you're still breathing buddy!
Drunken Sailor| 3.14.12 @ 11:32AM
Blue,
You know if you pull your head out of your ass, your color will improve.
Troll
John Nail| 3.14.12 @ 1:12PM
Actually it is because housing and autos have always been the engines of growth and since the housing bubble and mortgage crash caused this mess and is still in a depression car sales alone cannot pull the train alone.
George True| 3.14.12 @ 2:21PM
No, Mr Dumb as a Nail, it is because of the most massive printing of money and the most massive government spending in the history of planet Earth on the part of the Keynesian Communist Obama regime.
Drake| 3.14.12 @ 4:26PM
This recovery is the worst since the Great Depression because the economic policies are the same.
First the sitting Rino President (Hoover / Bush) tried fixing the problem with government intervention. And failed miserably.
Then a Democrat ran circles around them. Obama / FDR criticized the deficit spending while also claiming that "not enough was being done" when in fact, too much had already being done.
As soon as the leftist was elected, he went hog wild with spending, regulation, big government, etc... The result was no recovery and a series of recessions.
History repeats itself because we keep electing idiots.
Bobloblaw| 3.14.12 @ 6:53PM
""The simple reason why this is the slowest recovery since the Great Depression, is because it was the worst economic collapse since the Depression""
WRONG...historically the deeper the recession the stronger the recovery. 1934-1936 had 15% annual GNP growth. The 1981-82 recession had 6.5% GDP growth. The 1973-75 recession had 4% growth. The deeper the recession, the stronger the snap back. Everytime but this time.
Shallow recessions like 1960, 1970, 1991 and 2001 are followed by slower recoveries.
jkendal| 3.14.12 @ 10:27AM
I don't believe in the author's Rip Van Winkle theory. Keynesian economics was and always has been promulgated by elitists who know full well that it does nothing to stimulate economic recovery but in fact does much to destroy the middle class and enslave everyone who isn't an elite to a life of government dependence. In effect, under Keynesian economics, the rich (including those in political power and their cronies) get richer and the middle class, along with the poor, become poorer - BY DESIGN. Look at any country in history that has done this (whether under socialism, fascism or communism) and the evidence is irrefutable.
Shamus| 3.14.12 @ 12:22PM
What passes for Keynesian economics these days is merely a version of crony capitalism, whereby politically favored clients receive government largesse at the expense of unfavored producers. One wag said that crony capitalism should be abbreviated to crapitalism, because is what it really is.
Bob K.| 3.14.12 @ 10:32AM
You are right, Mr. Ferrara!
It is the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression but the people still re-elected Roosevelt in 1936 and 1940 despite it.
But, of course, it started with the Republican Hoover, not Roosevelt, so that may have been a factor.
The people are blaming this one on Obama the Democrat. Is there a Republican Roosevelt on the horizon? If so, things won't get much better!
Bob| 3.14.12 @ 12:23PM
Yeah, but it beats things getting much worse if a Republican Roosevelt or an Obama does get elected. We can have a recession that lasts four years, or a depression that lasts ten or twelve years like it did under Roosevelt.
Obama has implemented regulation after regulation, bailout after bailout, "investment" after "investment" trying to turn the economy around, wasting billions of dollars in the process. The ball is absolutely in his court now, and he must accept the blame.
Bobloblaw| 3.14.12 @ 6:54PM
""The people are blaming this one on Obama the Democrat. Is there a Republican Roosevelt on the horizon? If so, things won't get much better!""
Gov Scott Walker
Bob Grant| 3.14.12 @ 10:50AM
I'm a bottom line guy and the bottom line to me is he's failed miserably on both addressing "this most unusual" recession and implementing an effective recovery plan.
The only question I have at this point is was this failure by design or was it due to epic incompetence?
Teaghan| 3.14.12 @ 11:31AM
I ask myself everyday Bob. Nobody can be that dumb, so that leaves us with it being a deliberate action by the progressive/liberals to kill off the middle class to make us ALL but the rich elites, dependant on daddy obama.
Russel| 3.14.12 @ 11:24AM
He has inflicted over 9000 new regulations on the business sector which has resulted in an 86 Billion cost to US , the taxpayer and consumer . All it takes is one reg to stop a business cold . To get me more angry than I already am , today we read the $$ slated for transportation will go to Soros and his ilk . I doubt the marxist has researched any sort of model or ' plan ' at all . His goal is whatever it takes to ruin our business system , and one very handy way to do it is remove our energy sector using the handy EPA as a battering ram .
Richard Cranium| 3.14.12 @ 11:49AM
B*ll S**t. Why do we have to suffer through this rubbish like you just spewed out? Go back to the Tea Party meeting and drink your cool aid. Idiot
Melvin| 3.14.12 @ 12:09PM
Then F-ing get the hell out, Ya F-ing Communist. We need to go back to the old way of dealing with Marxists.
John Nail| 3.14.12 @ 1:37PM
Nice mouth. Now go get your guns and stock up on ammo since Obama will be coming for both when re elected and be sure to get your survival shelter stocked as well, that way you will help the economy and keep yourself busy while the adults solve the nations problems.
Tim the Enchanter| 3.16.12 @ 12:41PM
The "adults" won't be in charge until after the election. The petulant brats who are in charge now created most of the problems, and have no intention of solving any of them-the just plan on taking more taxpayer-paid vacations and lining their pockets with other people's money.
Bob| 3.14.12 @ 12:19PM
Obama's regulations cost $46B per year.
http://www.heritage.org/resear.....-year-mark
But, you can be a typical liberal and ignore the facts and hard research presented and continue spewing out your own brand of rubbish.
John Nail| 3.14.12 @ 1:14PM
And what did regs under W and other past Presidents cost for a fair comparison?
Methinks there will not be a lot of difference
Stan REdmond| 3.14.12 @ 3:10PM
Read the article lazy person. It has a nice clear figure for you. 8 billion per year under the previous administration. But I can't blame you for not reading. I doubt this will get much coverage on MSNBC
George True| 3.14.12 @ 2:24PM
Mr Small Cranium: You are the idiot. Either that or a stone cold liar. Liars and useful idiots, the Democrat-Communist party is populated with them.
Richard Cranium| 3.14.12 @ 11:46AM
Peter,
The worst recovery since the great depression? And how did we get there? Where was your clarity and prose in 2007 and 2008 as the ship was rapidly sinking. I think your article should read "it was the worst recession since the great depression" and this last three years has done a remarkable job to pull us out of spiralling into a depression, even with the GOP saying NO at every opportunity. Stop trying to talk down the recovery and get on board with some constructive suggestions on what we should do. Oh and by the way tax cuts across the board were tried by GWB and we ended up in the recession in 2008 .... remember?
ncatty| 3.14.12 @ 11:58AM
Ah, blame Bush.
John Nail| 3.14.12 @ 1:37PM
No, state facts.
Purp| 3.14.12 @ 5:36PM
Nah, blame Obama ...
HE was President in 2008, wasn't he -
oh, wait, no he wasn't... ditz
Nick| 3.14.12 @ 12:02PM
Recovery? What recovery?
You must be one of the moronic 14% who actually approves of O'Bama's handling of gas prices, huh?
Or, one of the idiotic 20% who approve of President Downgrade's handling of the economy?
How can bleeding heart liberals be so stupid?
John Nail| 3.14.12 @ 1:33PM
I don't think we rely on opinion polls to determine economic measures. Never have under any party or Prez.
Nick| 3.14.12 @ 3:11PM
Is this the best straw man that you could invent?
Pathetic.
Drunken Sailor| 3.14.12 @ 12:06PM
F*ckEwe?????
John Nail| 3.14.12 @ 1:34PM
Are you all right? Looks like you messed yourself.
Bob| 3.14.12 @ 12:15PM
Yeah, and millions upon millions of jobs were "saved" too, right?
I remember when my boss was about to fire me. His words were, "you're fi..." and then the phone rang from a Washington DC area code. It was a recorded call from Obama telling him, "This job has been saved. You can keep this job and count on us to pay for the health insurance."
Was the best day of my fake life.
John Nail| 3.14.12 @ 1:31PM
All economists agree jobs were saved and lets not forget the saving of the auto industry and the 3.5 million jobs saved by not letting the industry disappear. if that had happened the 1930's would be looking good right now.
Drunken Sailor| 3.14.12 @ 2:19PM
"All economists "
Really, all of them? Somehow I find that claim dubious at best.
Indy| 3.14.12 @ 2:46PM
Read Recklass Endangerment to educate yourself, the tax cuts did not cause the recession.
http://www.amazon.com/Reckless.....0805091203
The Housing Boom and Bust is also a good book to understand the collapse
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb.....pbooks,182
Stan REdmond| 3.14.12 @ 3:19PM
Get the government out of business decisions and the economy. Go back to liberty based economic policies. You have a automobile company that has ludicrous expenses and you fail as a business? You go out of business. If there is ZERO demand for solar panels don't give billions of dollars of tax dollars to these businesses.
Since I am self employed in manufacturing I am an enemy to everything this president and his minions in OWS stand for. If I were a failing business producing useless products I would probably get a subsidy and my competitors would get regulated out of business.
DRed| 3.14.12 @ 12:03PM
So the worst economic collapse since the great depression was followed. . .by the slowest recovery since the great depression. Duh.
Drunken Sailor| 3.14.12 @ 12:31PM
Apparently you skipped that whole part about the deeper the recession the stronger the recovery.
John Nail| 3.14.12 @ 1:17PM
That would be true if the housing industry which always leads us out of recession had recovered but it is still in the tank. That is the main reason for our slow recovery...oh and the recession was caused by...the housing/mortgage bubble bursting..
Animal| 3.14.12 @ 1:48PM
A bubble that was caused by Democrats, with their insistence that "everyone has the right to own a home."
Those policies forced banks to make high-risk loans to people who couldn't afford them. This artificially raised housing prices. When the deadbeats started to default - which was inevitable - the bubble popped, and housing values crashed - also inevitable.
All this stuff is Economics 101. Figures a leftie doesn't understand it.
DRed| 3.14.12 @ 4:07PM
Except that most of the sub-prime loans weren't made by banks. Now, I don't know if they cover this in Econ 101, but if you're not affected by a law, how does that law govern your behavior?
drED| 3.14.12 @ 10:57PM
Except that most of the readers of AmSpec articles and comments aren't idiot liberals. Now, I don't know if they cover this in Integrity 101, but if you're never credible in a post, how does that make you ever credible?
CYA| 3.14.12 @ 12:06PM
Most politicians live by the idea that perception is reality.
Well, as you write, when 2013 rolls around, it’s quite likely that a new “normal” reality will be so financially wrenching that, at last, perception will be forced to coincide with it. Heretofore, the “missile gap” between perception and reality has been huge---witness the fact Obama got elected,
Personally, I’ve long been the controller of my own expenditures, including the recording of the prices of around one hundred specific food items. I’ll give you a quick and dirty reckoning of ten of the most average staples—
ITEM----2002-----2012-----percent change
Barley .27 .56 107%
Corn meal .31 .59 90%
Millet .37 .60 62%
Rice .34 .56 65%
Wheat .28 .56 100%
Lentils .37 .87 135%
Miso 3.28 5.25 60%
Pinto beans .42 .80 90%
Chick Peas .59 1.22 107%
Sun. seeds .66 1.38 109%
AVERAGE 92.5%
Hmmm? Almost a DOUBLE in ten years.
Also, a closer look at my table of price changes shows that most of the rise happened very recently, especially the last year or two.
Buy gold and stock up on commodities!
John Nail| 3.14.12 @ 1:18PM
Try comparing 2009 to now....likely that will not fit your narrative
CYA| 3.14.12 @ 1:39PM
Here you go---
ITEM----2009-----2012-----percent change
Barley .48 .56 17%
Corn meal .59 .59 0%
Millet .43 .60 40%
Rice .50 .56 12%
Wheat .50 .56 12%
Lentils .67 .87 30%
Miso 4.75 5.25 11%
Pinto beans .67 .80 19%
Chick Peas .77 1.22 58%
Sun. seeds .99 1.38 39%
AVERAGE 23.8%
Stan REdmond| 3.14.12 @ 3:22PM
But not to worry. Some important people from the federal government have stated there is no inflation. If you take out commodities, gold, metals, oil, electricity, clothing, clotton, food, travel, and medical care and the doubling of the 'estimated' cost of obamacare, there's nothing to worry about.
Jim Mulcahy| 3.14.12 @ 12:10PM
Not only is 2013 going to be a disaster if Obama is re-elected due to the higher tax rates , but because of the surge of regulations since he won't be burdened with having to run ever again. The economy this year, one would think, would be relatively robust as firms and individuals hedged against Obama winning by front-loading as much economic activity into this year as possible. (Look at the spike in personal income figures for Dec. 1992 when it became clear that Clinton was going to raise taxes in 1993.) There hasn't been any upswing. The much touted employment figures are the seasonally-adjusted ones. Actual employment fell in Feb. by 2 MM. It is just that it didn't fall by as much as it normally does in Feb. Didn't anyone notice that it was an exceptionally mild month, weatherwise? As gas prices, even if they stay where they are, take huge bites out of people's discretionary income, the economy will sputter further.
Bob| 3.14.12 @ 12:11PM
You won't see this discussed in the mainstream media. They're too busy protecting Obama and diverting attention using the contraception deception, and still attacking Rush.
John Nail| 3.14.12 @ 1:28PM
They discuss the economy daily but with facts not fantasies and false equivalencies like this piece.
George True| 3.14.12 @ 2:28PM
Get real. The MSM pushes the Democrat party line and ignores the real facts. You are either a liar or an idiot. Which is it?
Daniel| 3.14.12 @ 1:52PM
Rush? LOL then he should run for something (dog catcher) to see how good he does.
Bobloblaw| 3.14.12 @ 6:42PM
what and give up $50m per year???
SNAKESRULE| 3.14.12 @ 12:11PM
For the lefties...at what point do we get to blame the poseur? ! year wasn't good, 2 years wasn't good, 3 years till wasn't good..maybe if the loser manages to get reelected and he gets 8 we can blame him then...or, more likely, he gets dukakis or carter treatment and never accepts blame...he can go build houses and bad mouth jews....incompetent now, incompetent when we told you, incompetent after his relegation to the trash heap of history...
davelnaf| 3.14.12 @ 12:12PM
Unless the people of this country have in just the last year or so gone from being center right to center left they’ve noticed. Lost in the discussion of Obama administration ineptitudes—whether by design or real incompetence hardly matters—is the silence of congressional Democrats. They know that voters took their anger at Obama out on their dearly departed colleagues last time around. If anything people are even angrier at the Bamster—the RCP average is inflated with bogus results and even the inflated results aren’t that good. Is party’s solidarity all that important in the face of what is likely to be another shellacking? Democrats are playing a politically foolish game. Once the dust settles in November the intellectually honest ones will be asking themselves why they did it.
John Nail| 3.14.12 @ 1:27PM
You got it. All the poll results are bogus and RCP, a right leaning site in averaging these is selling us all a lie. Go take your meds pla.
davelnaf| 3.14.12 @ 2:25PM
There, there, Nail, if I were a dem I'd be angry at what Obama is doing to my party and I'd probably start misspelling three letter words, too--one can't blame everything on nerves, can we?
Stan REdmond| 3.14.12 @ 3:29PM
The Democrats set the entire precident that the president hi'self is responsible for every single bad thing that happens in the world. From Bush personally crashing planes in to building and creating hurricane Katrina and personally stearing it in to New Orleans with his magical weather machine. Bush was the evil oil man that personally raised the price of oil the first time.
Now democrats are trying to say that presidents (only their president) are only responsible for good things. Never mind the power they afforded Bush for everything bad. I don't think people are buying it anymore.
ShatteredArm| 3.14.12 @ 12:15PM
I stopped reading when he mentioned the "25 year economic boom" started by Reagan. The seeds of the 2007-2008 recession were sown at the start of that "boom," not at the end. Mr. Ferrara seems to be suggesting that the crisis wasn't caused by overly lax regulation. We should've learned from the mistake when LTCM blew up, but we acted like that was the worst case scenario, rather than the best.
No, the economic "recovery" has not been robust, nor has Obama's response been appropriate (free money for the culprits is never the answer), but this article seems to be nothing more than partisan bickering about which horrible economic philosophy is less bad.
Shamus| 3.14.12 @ 12:34PM
The regulation that caused the 2008 crash may have been heinously misguided, but it was not lax. Congress directed that regulators allow loans with no collateral be made to people with no source of income. This was a conscious decision made by people like Barney Frank who thought banks were being far too stingy with loans to poor people.
Misguided decisions by people like Greenspan and Rubin caused LTCM to bring the cancerous metamorphosis to our financial system. This was actively bad regulation accomplished with great effort. It was not due to laziness or failure to enforce standards, but rather a determination on the part of government authorities to out the financial system at risk through unwarranted support for dubious ventures.
Drunken Sailor| 3.14.12 @ 12:54PM
In other words, if the goverment (read Congress)had not tried to steer the bank system in regards to home loans and left it to the free market there would have been no bubble, no crash, no recession, and most likely no Obama.
John Nail| 3.14.12 @ 1:19PM
And W was the biggest pusher behind home ownership if you recall
Drunken Sailor| 3.14.12 @ 2:08PM
I also seem to recall him saying we needed to address the fannie/freddie issue but Barney and company would not listen.
George True| 3.14.12 @ 2:33PM
Liar!! During the Bush years, Republicans, including GWB himself, went before house and senate committees on SEVENTEEN different occasions, begging Bawney Fwank and Chris Dodd to rein in Fannie and Freddie before massive damage was done to the housing markets and the economy. It is all in the Federal Register, moron. You are a liar, and not a very good one.
DRed| 3.14.12 @ 11:15PM
Oh wow! They saw this MASSIVE crisis coming, and despite having majorities in both houses of Congress, a conservative supreme court, and control of the presidency, they mentioned the impending doom twice a year! And did nothing! It's all Barney Frank's fault! And he's a lisping homo! Why doesn't everyone realize that?
Seriously, George, that narrative makes sense to you? It's ridiculous.
Reprobate Charlatan Dreadful| 3.14.12 @ 11:41PM
Seriously, George did err a little. Bush, during his 8 years in office, publically warned of the impending housing bubble implosion in each one of his 8 years in office, including 17 public warnings in his last year alone. Each public warning by Bush was met by liberal racist nonsensical prattle by the likes of Frank and Dodd and Schumer and Durbin and Pelosi and Reid and . . . .
You could always look it up yourself if you had any integrity or credibility.
Oops, now I'm being ridiculous.
Idiot.
DRed| 3.15.12 @ 12:32AM
17 during his last year in office? You mean, after the housing market had already imploded? Nice thinking again, Skip.
Reprobate Charlatan Dreadful| 3.15.12 @ 1:51PM
Hi, I am DReadful, and I am a despicable liar.
* * * * * *
DRed:
"17 during his last year in office? You mean, after the housing market had already imploded? Nice thinking again"
Cato Institute:
"As late as the fourth quarter of 2008, home prices remained stable in many parts of the country."
"When financial markets melted down in October 2008"
* * * * * *
DRed:
"But reporting in Jakarta, Indonesia, and Washington D.C., shows the allegations that Obama attended a madrassa to be false."
"CNN dispatched Senior International Correspondent John Vause to Jakarta to investigate."
"How deeply stupid do you have to be to read that article and conclude that Obama went to a madrassa?"
Nice Thinking again:
"It is notable that the notable liar emotionally prattles it is extremely stupid to doubt the reporting of CNN and CNN correspondent John Vause on the Muslim school the liar in chief attended."
"It is notable that the CNN correspondent John Vause is the CNN correspondent who in late July last year reported on the U.S. debt, and showed through bar charts how Bush was responsible for $5.070 trillion of this debt, while Obama was responsible for $1.440 trillion of this debt."
DRed:
"derp derp derp"
"You are clearly wrong, you idiot, and you refuse to admit it."
* * * * * *
DRed:
"First off, Obama never said that he wanted everyone in America to go to college."
Nice Thinking Again:
"That is why it will be the goal of this administration to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education - from the day they are born to the day they begin their career."
DRed:
"It's less radical sounding when you include all the words."
* * * * * *
DRed:
"If you look at the data here it looks like our effective corporate tax rate is basically middle of the pack."
Nice Thinking again:
"Your link has nothing to do with the U.S. corporate tax rate."
"Your link does not show the corporate tax rates of OECD nations."
"The U.S. corporate tax rate is second highest among OECD nations."
"Effective April 1 the U.S. corporate tax rate will be the highest among OECD nations."
DRed:
"Well no, it doesn't show the rates, it shows how much corporations actually pay in taxes as a percentage of gdp."
Nice Thinking Again:
"Your link does not show the corporate taxes paid of the U.S."
"Your link does not show the corporate taxes paid of OECD nations."
DRed:
"Well, if you look at what American corporations pay, as a percentage of gdp, compared to similar countries with lower tax rates you see our corporations pay . . ."
* * * * * *
DRed:
"Here's the inaccurate part. Mr. Ferrara states that the top 1% of income earners paid 40% of federal income taxes in 2007. He uses that to show how unfairly taxed the top 1% are."
Nice Thinking Again:
"You owe Ferrara an apology. He stated in 2007 the top 1% paid 40.4% of income taxes because, try to follow me here, the top 1% paid 40.4% of income taxes in 2007."
"In 2007 the top 1% paid 40.42% of income taxes, while the bottom 95% paid 39.37% of income taxes."
DRed:
"Wake me back up when you can figure out the difference between federal income taxes and total tax taxes."
Nice Thinking Again:
"It is notable in the quotation provided that you stated 'federal income taxes' and not 'total tax taxes'."
DRed:
"Here's the inaccurate part. Mr. Ferrara states that the top 1% of income earners paid 40% of federal income taxes in 2007. He uses that to show how unfairly taxed the top 1% are. But what he knowingly omits is any other form of tax. When you look at the total taxes collected and compare it to income earned, you see that in 2008 the top 1% of income earners took in roughly 22% of the income earned in America. They paid 23% of the total taxes collected."
Nice Thinking Again:
"In 2008 the top 1% earned 20.00% of the nation's total adjusted gross income."
"In 2008 the top 1% paid 38.02% of the nation's income taxes."
DRed:
"Wow. The article claimed that the rich paid a disproportionate share of income taxes in America. Taxes. Not federal income taxes. I wasn't saying that the claim that the rich paid 40% of federal income taxes was inaccurate. I'm saying that using that to claim that the rich pay a disproportionate share of taxes in America is inaccurate. Why? Because it's not true."
Nice Thinking Again:
"The notable liar himself:
"Wow. The article claimed that the rich paid a disproportionate share of income taxes in America. Taxes. Not federal income taxes. I wasn't saying that the claim that the rich paid 40% of federal income taxes was inaccurate."
"Here's the inaccurate part. Mr. Ferrara states that the top 1% of income earners paid 40% of federal income taxes in 2007."
"I'm saying that using that to prove that the rich pay a disproportionate share of taxes in America is inaccurate. Why? Because it's not true."
It is notable the notable liar time and again ignores:
in 2007 the top 1% paid 40.42% of federal income taxes;
in 2007 the bottom 95% - combined - paid 39.37% of federal income taxes;
in 2007 the top 1% paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95% combined"
DRed:
* * * * * *
Indy| 3.14.12 @ 2:54PM
Go back further, Clinton pushed hard for home ownership and remember it was Carter who signed the CRA.
Both parties share in the blame, but when flags were raised by W and others, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, etc all said there was nothing to worry about, all was fine.
Read Recklass Endangerment and search CSPAN for the words of Frank / Dodd and Waters.
John Nail| 3.14.12 @ 1:25PM
The deceit on Wall St. In bundling toxic mortgages is where the real failure was.
ncatty| 3.14.12 @ 3:32PM
Then we agree that Obama should shun Wall Street fundraisers.
ShatteredArm| 3.14.12 @ 2:18PM
While some believe things like CRA, which you referred to, could have had an effect, it was likely minimal. The biggest problem in regulation was repealing Glass-Steagal, and allowing commercial banks to own investment banks, which allowed them to become TBTF, and allowed the same institutions holding huge amounts of FDIC-insured deposits to make risky investments. This was indeed lax regulation, as was allowing them to bundle toxic mortgages into CDOs, as Mr. Nail mentioned, with absolutely no oversight.
If government-mandated loans to borrowers who couldn't afford it was the issue, we would've been OK, as a solvent financial system without absurd amounts of leveraging probably would have had little trouble absorbing just the subprime market going south. (It should also be noted that a substantial amount of Alt-A and subprime loans were not done to meet government regulations, but were only done because they could easily be packaged into CDOs.)
As far as LTCM, whatever the immediate cause, the point was that we had a chance to learn at that point that highly leveraged financial institutions is a bad idea; instead, our policy response dictated that if a financial institution's investments sour and it becomes insolvent, the government will just step in and take care of the problem. We could've, at that point, taken some steps to regulate the risks these institutions could take (like limiting leverage, keeping Glass-Steagal instead of repealing it, etc.).
Sh_tteredBrain | 3.15.12 @ 10:07PM
The consensus among nonpartisan economists is the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act lessened the negative impact when the housing bubble inevitably burst.
The Glass-Steagall Act erected a wall of separation between commercial financing and investment financincing.
The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act made it possible to reduce the risk of commercial financing transactions and investment financing transactions by allowing financial institutions to spread the risk more broadly.
The repeal of liberalism will lessen the negative impact of idiots in all our lives.
John Nail| 3.14.12 @ 12:53PM
Peter this column is so disingenuous it makes me sick. Your cherry picked story misses the real issue here."
You completely overlook the most important difference between this deep recession and all others in our lifetime- the housing crash that caused it.
In all recessions 2 areas lead us out iffy the trough - housing and autos.
With housing still in a depression autos cannot do it alone which speaks to be need for public infrastructure investment to get the construction industry going again.
Housing boomed in the Reagan recession leading to the steep climb out of it.
Now if you and your right wing economists want to agree to massive principal write downs we could heal the foreclosure crisis and recover. Something tells me that is too socialist for you even after we bailed Wall St out for hundreds of billions.
Daniel| 3.14.12 @ 1:55PM
All fast recoveries were in a nicer political enviroment.
O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 3.14.12 @ 2:40PM
We sheep know whose baaack.
And sheep know the sodomizer of liberty who'd like higher gas prices that is in the oval office is the worst ever.
Ovines For
A Nation
Absent Species Sodomization
matt | 3.14.12 @ 12:53PM
Oh shut up, the republicans have been filibustering ever since Ted Kennedy died.... don't act like this is all on Obama, at least for the roughly 6 months he had a filibuster proof senate, from July 8th to when Scott Brown took over unemployment fell from 10.1% to 9%... only fools don't believe that the republicans have held up this recovery...
Drunken Sailor| 3.14.12 @ 1:00PM
Republicans only control slightly over half of 1/3rd of our federal goverment and THEY are the ones holding up the recovery? (Lets not even mention all the bills the house has passed up to the Senate but Harry won't even bring to a vote).
And we are the fools huh?
matt | 3.14.12 @ 1:10PM
fools is strong, ignorant is more correct... and yes, filibustering the simplest things in government, and not allowing us to meet this crisis after it was fully known how deep it was, is and has been the republicans fault... and the people for electing them
Drunken Sailor| 3.14.12 @ 2:09PM
Yet you don't address all the bills the House and sent up but Harry won't bring for a vote. Care to elaborate?
matt | 3.14.12 @ 2:13PM
ugh, yeah... those bills are political bills not policy bills... we all know that anything that passes has an agreement before one house passes it... republicans passed those bills in the house knowing full well it had no support, they only did it to appease their base and give them an argument in debate... a meaningless argument
Drunken Sailor| 3.14.12 @ 2:23PM
"those bills are political bills not policy bills"
Oh you mean like the Obama budget plans that couldn't even get votes from his own party? Or the 2008,2009,2010, 2011 Senate budget bills? Oh wait a minute, I see part of the problem.
matt | 3.14.12 @ 4:04PM
his last budget was political... of course... these things dont matter... at least you pretty much acknowledge the republican obstructionism, yet you do not correlate it with the lack of growth after the monumental turnaround we had during the filibuster proof democratic senate
Drunken Sailor| 3.14.12 @ 4:23PM
Matt,
I'll give your credit, your civil in your discourse and have your talking points down. We agree on the results, where we disagree in on the cause.
Harry Reid will not bring up any bills to vote. Becuase if he did, it would at least appear Congress is trying to do SOMETHING. And if that were to happen how could Obama run against a do-nothing Congress?
It's political alright, we just see the guilty parties differently. You see it as the bad old Republicans where I see it as the Lying Dems and many of the RINO's that are otherwise known as Democrat-Lite.
matt | 3.14.12 @ 1:12PM
the only fault Obama has in this is not correctly predicting how bad this was... and making the case to congress of how much was needed to get us out... but by the time the republicans gained a filibuster, and boy did they use and threaten to use it liberally, we knew exactly how deep is was... and they obstructed everything to get us out of it...
George True| 3.14.12 @ 2:36PM
Republicans attempting to obstruct the implementation of socialist/communist/keynesian policies is actually a GOOD thing. Too bad they weren't successful.
matt | 3.14.12 @ 3:25PM
we have been keynesian since 1938... or in other words, since we became the premier economy in the world... if you want to block American Exceptionalism in business and economics, then vote republican.... but if you believe in the America that rose to the cream of the crop in standard of living and production, then vote for Obama
thornie| 3.14.12 @ 9:11PM
Vote Barry "I'd like higher gas prices" Obama - for a cream of the crop living standard.
Vote Barry "I'd like higher gas prices "Obama - for a premier world economy.
Vote Barry "I'd like higher gas prices" Obama - for keynesian business exceptionalism.
Vote Barry "I'd like higher gas prices" Obama - for progressive sound investment borrowing.
Vote Barry "I'd like higher gas prices" Obama - for matt who just knows the American economic cream of the crop living standard and the American premier economy is due to the American keynesian borrow and spend exceptionalism that currently has the American taxpayer owing more than $118 trillion - or over one million dollars owed by each American taxpayer - to settle America's debt right now.
John Nail| 3.14.12 @ 1:23PM
What bills? More abortion restrictions? Boehner. Has been the least effective speaker in history and the last Congress ranks among the worst ever.
Why do you think their,approval is at 8 % and Obama is near 50%?
Daniel| 3.14.12 @ 1:33PM
To expect a fast recover in a divided house is no sense. The only way to a fast recovery is a united front from all: poor rich reps dems lib conserv a country so divided cannot expect a fast recovery
Daniel| 3.14.12 @ 1:40PM
Maybe is reps fault or Dems fault but a fast recovery with a divieded nation is absurd. In Spain or in Grece or Italy if all: Poor, rich, liberals, conservatives do not get together behind some economic plan there would be no fast recovery
matt | 3.14.12 @ 12:59PM
he took us from -8.9% GDP growth to +3.8% 1st quarter annualized in 1 year, before your obstinate obstructionist republican party put the brakes on this thing...
so stop your whining or direct it to the true problem... the republicans in congress
George True| 3.14.12 @ 2:38PM
Go away troll. Nobody here will swallow your lies. You are both a liar and an idiot. Your party is filled with such from top to bottom.
matt | 3.14.12 @ 3:23PM
what i said was true... it says more about you in that you call the truth a lie, than me, an intelligent person, posting on a pro-conservative website
Daniel| 3.14.12 @ 1:26PM
A fast recovery only with the country united, with the bitter party fight nobody can expect a fast recovery. Probably other recoveries were better because the country was united behind the president, expecting a fast recovery with the country so divided is nosense.
Daniel| 3.14.12 @ 1:28PM
A fast recovery can only happens with both parties behind the president's economic policy, there has never been a fast recovery with the country so divided
Daniel| 3.14.12 @ 1:30PM
To expect a fast recovery (in any country) when the whole nation is not united behind the president's economic policies is nosense. Anyway is the best recovery among developed countries.
Daniel| 3.14.12 @ 1:37PM
No fast recovery for a divided country. Even if all parts work together is difficult to recover from a depresion, but with a deeply divided country is imposible, I am happy with this small recovery, I expected worst with all the fighting and all the blaming.
Daniel| 3.14.12 @ 1:42PM
Fast recovery? I am surpised that we have a recovery at all after all the infighting among fellow Americans. To expect a fast recovery on this political enviroment is nosense
Rick| 3.14.12 @ 2:36PM
What everyone here fails to look at is that the housing bubble was caused by both Dems and Reps both working for their respective interest groups. Barney Frank wants banks to give loans to poor people well it happened and this was the result, and it was let happen by poor regulation. Problem with both sides is that they claim to have the answer to the problems, but the actual problem is policy implementation. You won't know the effects of a bill until you actually enforce the policy. Sure, some people want a conservative candidate, because of the social issues and because of the outrageous gov't spending, less regulation and so on the list goes on. Some want Dems, because they want the opposite of what the other side wants and the list goes on. But fact of the matter is that this whole thing is a crap hole which is gonna take time, although I would have supported a stimulus package rather then spending billions or even trillions on war in iraq that had no good end result. Congress is a representative of how people vote, and by the looks of it, America is quite dumb truthfully. People need to start voting in people that do not just represent their personal interests but the interest of yourself and others. People need to look at the facts overall, and stop looking at facts in a biased view that supports ones views even though it there are facts that disprove them.
Gas prices going up and conservatives blame Obama for not drilling when the fact is that supply surpasses demand today so drilling is not the solution or the lack of, problem is commodity futures contracts trading, which is supposed to be regulated by the CFTC, but we all know they're not doing their job.
PolishKnight| 3.14.12 @ 3:19PM
It doesn't make sense to blame a problem simultaneously on lack of regulation that is caused by a government mandate. It's like saying a policeman executing bad laws and causing problems is also caused by a lack of laws.
Banks are "unregulated" by default since the Fed is a private agency that can make up it's own rules...
George Maynard| 3.14.12 @ 3:29PM
You are missing the point..it was deregulation which causes the housing crisis and the trading of dereitives..no matter how you spin it!
My Nards Gorged| 3.14.12 @ 9:45PM
No matter how you spin it the housing crisis was caused by the deregulation of dereitives.
The government forced the financial industry to give mortgages to those who could not afford to pay them but that had nothing to do with it because no matter how you spin it the housing crisis was caused by the deregulation of dereitives.
Thanks, genius, for the wisdom.
Politicalpost| 3.14.12 @ 3:54PM
Rick: I agree with you on most part but I like to add a little on on that.
* Housing bubble was mostly due to repeal of Glass-Steagle act that allowed Commercial banks and Investment banks to merge which in effect deregulated the banks and they poured money in the realty market so that they could recoup in equity market that they sold, causing bubble in housing market and Wall Street. This was the main reason Lehman Bros went bankrupt and Merrill Lynch would have too if was not rescued by Bank of America. Note:-Glass-Steagle act was brought in during the depression of 1930s to avoid the same situation from happening again.
*Iraq war was suppose to have cost us about $250 billion until it was declared "misssion accomplished" by Bush but it went until last year that cost over $1.8 Trillion and counting from interest as this was unpaid for war. Besides these cost there had been many contractor frauds there.
* Item that you don't mention is Bush Tax cuts to richest few when there was no need at all for that during war times. This amount comes over $1.2 tillion in 10 years.
Gas prices are going up basically from speculations coming from the drum beat of war against Iran. President Obama has put no restriction on drilling and it has gone up 350% but politics is played on this issue.
Drunken Sailor| 3.14.12 @ 4:29PM
Drilling has gone up on private land on permits granted under the previous administration. This admin has not increased drilling.
As for Obama approved permits. Check out the WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....42182.html
Micki| 5.20.12 @ 6:23AM
Also people always fail to forget that oil is a global commodity sold on the global market. It goes to the highest bidder. Thus a president has little control over most price fluctuations, while demand and supply do.
George Maynard| 3.14.12 @ 3:26PM
For a guy to compare this with the Regan's recovery is disengenous to say the least...Regan had no housing crisis to deal with ,no bank failures and no destruction of the automotive industry..anyone with economics 101 could have succeded during Regan's depression...it was just a downturn as happen in every economy.and if i may say so..it is his policies or trickle down economics deregulation both with who became presidents after him contributing which has now contribute to this the second greated recession in US history..but i dont expect this guy who serves under him to say anything different..he expects that using the republican's dergulation,tax cut for the 1% and wars would have solved this quicker...Ferrara that is what brought us to this you moron!!!
ncatty| 3.14.12 @ 3:36PM
The big government posters on this blog today have one thing in common: things are going great!
Sandy H| 3.14.12 @ 3:58PM
I think what irks me the most about Peter's 'analysis' is that it so blithely ignores the simple reality that the actions taken by Obama were in fact, nearly identical to the actions taken by Reagan:
1) Lowered taxes -- 40% of the stimulus pack was tax breaks. He extended ALL the Bush tax cuts. He also cut the payroll taxes.
2) Reagan increased spending and ran humongous deficits (and increased the national debt drastically), as part of his recovery. National debt went from 907 billion in Sept of 1980 to 1.57 trillion by Sept of 1984. By 1989 debt had tripled from the year before Reagan was sworn in. But the current increase in debt under Obama is nearly identical as a percentage increase that happened during the same time frame under Reagan.
3) Since most recessions end after 10 months, the one that began in December of 2007 *SHOULD* have ended before Obama took office. But, Peter blithely ignores the $700 billion TARP response to the economic crisis that happened before Obama took office as if it never happened, including the plunge of the stock market from 11,000 to 8,000 between the Sept financial crisis and Obama's swearing in. I'm guessing Peter feels the March 6th bottom of the market at 6,600 was just coincidentally a couple of weeks after the passage of the stimulus bill he so casually dismisses as being good for nothing and/or effectively harmful.
In the end, the truth that nobody on EITHER side of the political spectrum wants to admit is that Obama and Reagan ran nearly identical playbooks. The only real difference is that Reagan entered with a top marginal rate of 70% and Obama came in with a top rate of 35%. Reagan came in with sky high interest rates, (which he could lower), while Obama came in with already bottomed out interest rates and a housing market in complete shambles.
Obama had no room to cut taxes, because while Reagan inherited Federal Receipts that were 19.6% of GDP (1981), and his tax cuts lowered them to 17.3% of GDP by 1984, in 2009, when Obama took office, Fed receipts were only 14.9% of GDP, (which current estimates suggest fell to 14.4% for fiscal 2011).
The truth? The last two times the Federal government actually spent less money than the previous year were 1965 and 2010. That's right, Obama CUT SPENDING from 3.5 to 3.4 trillion during the one fiscal year where he had control of both houses of Congress and his budget and spending were not shared in part with a change in Congressional majority.
SATAN| 3.15.12 @ 10:31PM
Notice how not a soul pays your idiotic lies any mind when you plagiarize word for word from the media-matters-new-york-times-center-for-american-progress-move-on-msnbc-taling points-memo material? This makes you more ineffectual than purp-jack london-vtwin-alan brooks-dred-rcv-matt-max-john nail or any of my other soon to be minions.
Jeffy Dahlmer| 3.16.12 @ 2:56PM
I call dibs!
"Obama CUT SPENDING from 3.5 to 3.4 trillion during the one fiscal year where he had control of both houses of Congress"
I get Sandy H first, right, SATAN?
Obama put his stimulus into the last Bush budget year pushing it up to 3.5, right, SATAN?
That's lying and cheating making ole Sandy H a thief by default too! Right, SATAN? Right?
Hell, the only 2 years of spending ever over 3 trillion, right, SATAN? And not just spending at 3 trillion each year, but 3 AND A HALF trillion each year, right, SATAN?
I can have first dibs, right, I called it first, right, SATAN?
I get her first I get her first I get her first!!! I LOVE liberals!
JohnJohn Wayne Gacy Junior| 3.17.12 @ 3:18AM
I call next dibs.
"That's right, Obama CUT SPENDING from 3.5 to 3.4 trillion during the one fiscal year where he had control of both houses of Congress and his budget and spending were not shared in part with a change in Congressional majority."
I'm good for next, SATAN? Congressional elections every 2 years. 2008 to 2010 Pelosi and Reid - Dibs on both - were 'majority' leaders until 2010. That's good for next.
Jeffy whines I'm glomming the end of the sentence he used for dibs and I'm willing to split ole Sandy H with him - each take an end and flip her for who gets which.
I get at least a split though. That 2nd ignored year is gonna be in the 3.6 to 3.8 trillion range. About how many things I got planned...sorry SATAN, I know you hate when I...yes sir.
But it's legit next with you sir?
Jeffy slays me but he's dead on - you gotta love them liberals.
Micki| 5.20.12 @ 6:21AM
Sandy H amen. Happy to see that there are others out there who actually learn from history instead of simply picking ideological sides they dont fully understand. High-five
ABNCP| 3.14.12 @ 4:05PM
By now I really hope that most of the people on this site understand Obama was put into office by a Soros cabal to do just what he is attempting to do.
That would be to destroy or at least badly harm traditional America, the capitalist system, the Judeo/Christian ethic and to sow confusion and despair in our population. Due to his incompetence and lack of any management expertise he has not yet been able to implement as much of the agenda as he was put in place to do. But buckle you chin straps because he still has several months to create as much destuction as he can.
Max| 3.15.12 @ 7:31PM
"By now I really hope that most of the people on this site understand Obama was put into office by a Soros cabal to do just what he is attempting to do.
That would be to destroy or at least badly harm traditional America, the capitalist system, the Judeo/Christian ethic and to sow confusion and despair in our population."
Amazing that we live with the knowledge that people like you are free to roam the streets. Sick.
O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 3.15.12 @ 8:07PM
Even sheep know Obama has done nothing but make America better socially and politically and economically in every way.
Even sheep know abortion and homosexual unions and forcing others to pay for your needs much less wants is the epitome of what is the traditional Judeo-Christian America.
Even sheep know you can't kill liberals in self-defense.
Yet.
Ovines For
A Nation
Absent Species Sodomization
Max| 3.16.12 @ 8:36AM
"Even sheep know you can't kill liberals in self-defense.
Yet."
I would hope that the board monitor has the good sense to delete this post, and sanction the publisher.
"
O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 3.16.12 @ 12:36PM
We sheep know better than to be amazed that we live with the sickly knowledge that sick species consisting of the sick like Max are sickly free to sickly roam the sickly streets, sickly voting for their own sick economic much less sick moral ruin, and sickly allowing sick sodomizers of all species sickly to sickly set the sickly tone of the sick national sickly debate sickly.
Yet we sheep are still amazed.
And sick about it.
Ovines For
A Nation
Absent Species Sodomization
Micki| 5.20.12 @ 6:18AM
AMAZING. its as if you show no signs of any understand of what you are saying... How sad you can only see your country through such a narrow lens. Dozens of reports, one recently published by The Economist, all showed plainly that if it wasn't for the stimulus our economy's GDP would of been somewhere between 5%-6% smaller today. A massive sum! Look at Europe where austerity has sent nations into a double dip recession!!! I bet you don't know ONE other piece of legislation that Obama has oversaw other than healthcare and stimulus. you motioned keystone but NO ONE mentions Obama's oversight the biggest expansion of the oil industry of our nation's history and an explosion in production across all fields. In fact we currently produce more oil than we ever did in the last 50 years and thanks to fraking projects (approved by the current administration) we will produce more oil than all of the middle east combined by 2025. Next time learn before you speak.
Jeff Perren| 3.14.12 @ 4:09PM
The article makes excellent points, as Mr. Ferrara's always do. But it should be added that Obama had plenty of help on this one, and I'm not referring to George Bush. Harry Reid (and Pelosi) had as much if not more to do with our current situation. It's imperative that Reid be booted from the Senate Majority slot and the Democrats become a permanent minority in Congress until they change their ways. (Yes, right after Hell freezes over.)
cicero| 3.14.12 @ 4:15PM
Are we trying to analyse whether the deck chairs were properly spaced on the Lusitania? This guy came into office with the stated intention to change the country. At no point did he ever say that he wanted to change it for the better. I think the word he used was "fairer". Everything he and his minions have done have purposefully been done to cause as much harm as possible. No one is as stupid as to believe that these policies and decisions were accidental or arrived at in good faith. You could not possibly blunder this badly. The only gains have been made by Obama and his contributors. All of them will ride into the sumset with billions of taxpayers' money. Nothing will happen to any of them. No one will be proseecuted. The next administration will merely reverse the decisions - Canadian pipeline, Obamacare, green investments, etc. - and as if by magic, the economy wil pick up steam and power forward. Everything will be forgotten. How sad.
Micki| 5.20.12 @ 6:14AM
How sad you can only see your country through such a narrow lens. Dozens of reports, one recently published by The Economist, all showed plainly that if it wasn't for the stimulus our economy's GDP would of been somewhere between 5%-6% smaller today. A massive sum! Look at Europe where austerity has sent nations into a double dip recession!!! I bet you don't know ONE other piece of legislation that Obama has oversaw other than healthcare and stimulus. you motioned keystone but NO ONE mentions Obama's oversight the biggest expansion of the oil industry of our nation's history and an explosion in production across all fields. In fact we currently produce more oil than we ever did in the last 50 years and thanks to fraking projects (approved by the current administration) we will produce more oil than all of the middle east combined by 2025. Next time learn before you speak.
Clemmie| 3.14.12 @ 4:15PM
I keep hearing about the surging economy and surging recovery. As far as I'm concerned, there is no recovery until my husband finds a job. Don't listen to the papers about how much better it is in Silicon Valley. All along the El Camina the stores are shuttered and the industrial parks all have "Available" signs on the large buildings. There is NO RECOVERY.
Micki| 5.20.12 @ 6:06AM
Clemmie I understand your anger as I too have many similar cases in my family. And many times I feel there is no recovery.. But just so you know American industry, corporate earnings, and trade is all rising to numbers larger than they were, some, than in 2006. What the USA has done is incredible in terms of economic rebuilding after 20% of national wealth disappeared by 2009! It takes time to fully "recover" but we are on a much stronger track than people figured we would be, and factors point to a new boom not to far off.
Purp| 3.14.12 @ 5:28PM
So, for minorities we're in a Great Depression and for whites we're in a Great Recession - Wow, then this IS worse than' Reagan's recession, isn't it?
Maybe if the Republicants in Congress actually worked with the President to pass job-creating legislation, we'd be even further out of this mess. Instead, they spent their time passing legislation toward the War on Women's Health, passing anti-choice legislation, defunding of planned parenthood, etc. Oh, yeah, they did pass a budget in the House that would destroy Medicare, decimate Social Security and throw the old, sick and young in the streets. That was REALLY useful legislation.
When the Minority Leader of the Senate says their No. 1 priority is kicking President Obama to the curb, there isn't any room for negotiation, is there?
Drake| 3.14.12 @ 5:35PM
Tell me about the budget they passed when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency.
Nick| 3.14.12 @ 5:44PM
Hey, look everybody.
Purp is back from the national Save Sandy the Slut tour!
How was it, Purp? Did you have to provide Sandy the Slut with free contraception while on the tour?
Also, did you see that the public's approval of O'Bama's handling of the economy and gas prices are down to 20% and 14%, respectively?
Are you one of these morons, Purp?
Purp| 3.15.12 @ 7:42AM
Dream on... Check the RCP Job Approval numbers and weeph - http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....-1044.html
From the Desk of Media Matters| 3.15.12 @ 2:32PM
Pierre Putz "Purp" Pelosi,
Stop embarrassing us.
Even our other bottom rung MM mindless parrots know a 1980 poll taken around this time of year in 1980 indicated Carter with 58% was going to cruise in 1980 to landslide reelection victory over Reagan with 40% in 1980.
Even our other bottom rung MM mindless parrots know who in 1980 actually won the 1980 election in 1980.
Even our other bottom rung MM mindless parrots know that poll in 1980 showing Carter with 58% over Reagan with 40% in 1980 showed in 1980 Carter with 58% at a time around 1980 over Reagan with 40% at that time around 1980 when the unemployment rate was around 7.6% and the inflation rate was around 14.8% and the interest rate was around 21.5%.
Even dogs being sodomized by anal rape know who in 1980 actually won the 1980 election in 1980.
Stop embarrassing us.
You idiot.
- MM staff
Jumbolia| 3.14.12 @ 5:53PM
Holy cow!
Kevin | 3.14.12 @ 7:19PM
Dear American Spectator:
I really do enjoy reading your articles! Many of the comments are illuminating as well. Would it be possible to limit the number of posts (perhaps to 1-2 per article) by any given commentor? That would greatly improve things, both by eliminating drivel and allowing new thought to shine!
Pat| 3.14.12 @ 7:29PM
Would you believe this – the L. A. Times actually shares the sentiments of this author – in a roundabout way of course. According to the Times, we Californians need to be more concerned over the business climate within our state. Our climate is normally warm and sunny - another boring day in paradise as we sometimes say – but most businesses find our climate to be major hurricanes with a good chance of earthquakes followed by an arctic winter. And the Times editorial mentioned that even the pornography industry in L. A. is faced with tempting alternatives over where to shoot their product. It’s not difficult for a savvy porn executive to pack up the lights, the cameras and the minimal wardrobe attire into shipping trunks and pack all of it off to Nevada where costs are lower. Now, most states wouldn’t worry about their pornography industry deciding to move out of state, but, after all, it is an environmentally friendly, clean industry and California values such industries and wants to keep them.
Sure, we make jokes about it here. The market segment lusting after a skin flick starring a naked Nancy Pelosi or heavy breathing Barbara Boxer is admittedly tiny, but the fact that particular industry is packing up and leaving California presents our legislators with yet another instance of the old double whammy. You need business to generate jobs which generate taxes, you need taxes to generate welfare payments, you need welfare payments to get re-elected. The welfare payments aren’t expendable but the businesses and jobs apparently are. When Debbie does Dallas instead of L. A., the winning formula no longer works and even the L. A. Times is forced to admit it.
Jill Johnson| 3.14.12 @ 11:27PM
"President Obama's responsibility was to manage a timely, robust recovery to get America back on track again. "
Unfortunately, he did not think that was his responsibility. You only had to hear one comment to sum up his perception of his mission. When asked by an incredulous reporter if he would raise the capital gains tax even if that meant a decrease in revenue, he said that he would, because that would be "fair."
Obama does not see it as his responsibility to bring prosperity. His responsibility as he sees it is to promote fairness by redistributing wealth. He does not care about the consequences.
POST American | 3.15.12 @ 1:51AM
----------------------FINAL WORD----------------------
Speaking of the 'Great Depression':
A BLAST FROM THE PAST
"Her modern dwellings, her great
planetariums, her gymnasiums,
her swimming pools, her fine public highways,
her perfect factories
----ALLLL this was done on OUR money.
ALLLL this was give to [--NAZI--] Germany
through the Federal Reserve Board.
The Federal Reserve has pumped so
many BILLIONS into [--NAZI--} Germany
that they dare NOT name the total."
-Rep. Charles McFadden
(1935)
Even putting HUAC 2012 to one side
AS we consider the GARAGANTUAN
TREASON of the CFR-Nick's ON--MAO
handover, and its warmly coalescing
manifestation ---in 2012
-----is it going to be Nuremberg 1945?
---------------------or Nuremberg 1934?
WE'LL WAIT. . .
Max| 3.15.12 @ 2:00PM
It is sheer lunacy to compare the recovery rate from one recession to that of another. It presumes that each recession was the same, and can be benchmarked as such. The author's whole premise is ludicrous, and as a claimed economist, should know that this is disengenuous nonsense.
POST American| 3.16.12 @ 12:44AM
----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE--------------------
RED China---Rockefeller----'Federal'' Reserve
--------------------------2012-------------------------
"-----they DARE NOT name the TOTAL."
So YOU there, sitting on your soon
to be curtailed rectum 'bennies'
---------------------------TIME TO GUT UP.
DARE to call it ----'TREASON'----
-----------------------------------------DOUBLE DARE
FAST!
Micki| 5.20.12 @ 5:59AM
I do not understand why you continue to compare the 1980's recovery/crash to the current ones. The 2007-2009 recession was very different than most crashes, for starters there was no such thing as derivatives in the 1980's, nor a $14 trillion dollar economy with a +100% debt to GDP ratio. Never in our history were we hit with such a string of bad luck, an accumulation of factors that in turn paralyzed most pillars to our modern economy in many unique ways. In the 1980's burst, GDP growth rolled back 3 years and then began to recover. By January 2009, in contrast, the Dow Jones hit a figure that it hadn't seen since 1996 (13 years back track) and roughly 20% of all national wealth was basically obliterated. What people also fail to mention is that during all other recessions public sector jobs grew to subsidize for the lost private ones. For the first time, however, public sector jobs were cut even faster than private as local governments tried effortlessly to curb their accumulating debt. Perhaps 2010 could of presented the USA with a robust recovery, but serious economic/natural/social factors, that weren't nearly as serious or detrimental in the 80's, cut our growth and sterilized our once fearless investors. The global backlash of economic downturns hit America harder that previos foreign recessions/crisis since we now rely heavily on a fully globalized capitalistic-based economy (something that was just in its infancy in 1980). In 1985 people would of called you crazy if you told them that their 401Ks relied heavily on Italy being able to pay its national debt. Now the possibility of an Italian default could very easily give way to a new Great Depression, and grind the last 50 years of human development to a halt. To compare a minor recession in 1980 to the latest one is like trying to compare the first planes' failures in trying to achieve flight to the early failures of the space age. Sure flight led to space travel and both are intricately related, but both operated under very different factors and thus both couldn't be compared in level of success. In another note, since you mentioned the stimulus being "a waste of money", i would like to point our that a recent report found that if the stimulus hadn't come into effect the recession would of lasted a further 2 years and we would be where we are now (recovery wise) in 2014.
Matt Doscotch| 5.20.12 @ 9:03PM
Is this a joke?
Matt Doscotch| 5.20.12 @ 9:08PM
I am not really sure how his economic policies were Keynesian. He was actually very reserved in spending over these last three years. So, the premise of the article is false. And, studies show that had he not done the modest things he did, things would have been worse.