The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Special Report

Ending the Economic Error

By on 9.5.12 @ 6:09AM

If Barack Obama is allowed to “finished what he started,” government dependency is all that we’ll have left.

(Page 2 of 2)

But even this analysis understates the success of Reagan’s policies — and how foolish Democrats are to raise the comparison — because the reported unemployment rate under Barack Obama has been held down by a dramatic drop in the civilian labor force participation rate. The most common unemployment statistics only include people (over 16 years old, neither in prison nor in the military) who are counted as being the labor force, i.e. who either have jobs or are actively seeking jobs. People who have given up looking for work (or whom the government categorizes as having given up) do not count as unemployed even though many or most of them would take jobs if they could find them.

In the first month of Reagan’s presidency, the participation rate was 63.9 percent. In July of his fourth year in office, it had risen to 64.4 percent. Meanwhile, over the same period during Barack Obama’s term in office, the participation rate dropped from 65.7 percent to 63.7 percent. Reagan was creating optimism while Obama has created surrender and dependency.

In other words, because the labor force participation rate dropped under Barack Obama, the current unemployment rate understates the number of people who have lost jobs during his presidency. And even with this advantage, Obama is presiding over a higher unemployment rate than when he took office. Conversely, because the participation rate rose under Reagan, his unemployment rate understates the number of people who got jobs during an analogous time period.

Therefore, it makes sense, rather than looking just at the unemployment rate, to look at actual employment data. Using numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I have created a chart of the percentage change of the actual number of non-farm jobs in the U.S. during the first 43 months of the Reagan and Obama presidencies.

The difference between the two is dramatic: After more than 3½ years of Barack Obama being in office, there are fewer jobs in America today than there were when he was inaugurated. During the same period of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the number of jobs in America grew by more than four percent, despite unemployment having hit its peak more than a year later into his first term.

Other statistics point to the utter failure of Barack Obama’s economic policies and how self-destructively foolish it would be for Americans to give him a second term, to “finish what he started”:

• Median annual household income has plummeted far more during the Obama presidency, including after the official end of the recession, than it did during the Bush years, according to Sentier Research.

• When campaigning for president in 20007, Barack Obama called the roughly $3.75 trillion of national debt accumulated in just under eight years of the George W. Bush presidency “unpatriotic” and “irresponsible.” (And he was right.) Yet Barack Obama has added about $5.5 trillion, almost 50 percent more than Bush did, to our national debt in half the time. Our national debt now exceeds $16 trillion…and exceeds our GDP. Our national debt to GDP ratio is now similar to those of Ireland and Portugal.

• Record-high food stamp use, with Fiscal Year 2011 spending on the program of almost $72 billion, more than double the level of just three years earlier.

• As noted by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation whom I spoke with for this article, “According to government statistics, over 100 million Americans now receive some sort of means-tested welfare benefit [which excludes Social Security and Medicare] each month, nearly one third of the American population. President Obama seeks to increase this type of spending even after the recession ends.”

• The Associated Press has reported that poverty levels in America are soon to reach a 46-year high, and that “demographers also say [that] poverty will remain above the pre-recession level of 12.5 percent for many more years.” Heritage’s Rector makes a compelling case that by “excluding 97 percent of all welfare benefits when counting ‘income,’” the Census Bureau massively overstates poverty in America — playing right into the hands of those who aim to increase the welfare state. However, these statistics do point to a dramatic decline in American self-sufficiency and corresponding increase in dependency. Welfare has well-understood employment and income disincentive effects: As Mr. Rector noted, increasing transfer payments to the poor paradoxically and sadly increases their likelihood of staying poor — and remaining dependent on government, which is the real motivation of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

If Barack Obama actually gets to finish what he started, there won’t be a single American not on the government dole.

August employment data will be released on Friday, just in time to offer the latest off-key economic note less than twelve hours after Barack Obama sings a siren song from Charlotte claiming that we’re on the right track, that a bet on him “is paying off.”

While few will believe Obama’s claim to have helped the economy or that he will be able to help it in the future, Republicans must make clearer that the reason we’re not facing even more dire economic circumstances is that American voters partially undid their 2008 mistake in 2010. In 2012, it is time to undo the rest of our ill-fated experiment with Alinskyite socialism and economic ignorance and finally bring on the “end of an error.”

Page:   12

About the Author

Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (150) |

Pecos Pete| 9.5.12 @ 6:33AM

Facts are meaningless to democrats. Ross has provided adequate facts that will be ignored by those who will vote for Obama.

One fact that Ross did not hit hard enough is the rapid escalation of deficit spending and the resultant increase in the national debt. Simply put, there is not enough money to provide for continuance, much less growth, in entitlement programs. It is impossible to tax the rich enough to provide the money. So, where will the money come from? Taxing the middle class and inflation. If Obama is reelected you will need to buckle your seat belts and get ready for the hyper-inflation ride of your lifetime.

Jack in Wi| 9.5.12 @ 6:50AM

I think I agree with most of what Ross has said about unemployment statistics. But the situation today is far more dire then when Reagan took over. Then we had a much smaller debt and a much younger and more vigorous population. A few tax cuts are not going to save this situation.

We have a huge fiscal hole that only can be addressed by massive cuts in government spending on all levels. The people are being crushed by war, taxes, and the printing of money. There must be structural changes in how we do things.

The first thing to do is cut most a lot of depatments and programs. the Depts. of Education, HUD, Agriculture, Transportation, Energy, etc are nothing but waste and mismanagement. It is time to get rid of them and a lot more.

The military is far overextended in stupid wars that should have been never started. It is time to bring home all the troops and let the world do it's own defending. We could do a great defnse of this country for half or less then what we are spending. Think Switzerland. Finally cut all foreign aid. It just ends up in the pockets of criminals and kleptocrats. I would never look to cut bennefits to ordinary Americans until this is done.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 7:53AM

Jack,

That WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE STARTED?

So you are a truther? Geo. W directed those airplanes to attack the WTC, the Pentagon, and a suspicious empty field in Pennsylvania?

Or do we let known organizations kill thousands of non-combatant citizens without any hint of repercussion.

Jack, just go back to bed.

DTOM

JD| 9.5.12 @ 11:59AM

Jack in Wi,

It is true that today is worse than 1980, but that's after nearly four years of Obama. Four years ago we had $6 trillion less in debt, and inflation wasn't anything compared to what it was in 1980 (it still isn't). You can legitimately argue that today's population is 30 years more ruined by unquantifiable entitlement mentality, but the economic indicators, as a whole, paint a lousier picture of 1980. And don't forget that there was a big Soviet threat looming over us in 1980, too.

TLP| 9.5.12 @ 1:03PM

The Economy that Reagan took over was way worse than what Abu Hussain inherited.

Double Digit EVERYTHING.

Unemployment, Interest Rates AND Inflation.

We had Lost our Position in the World, and the Soviets were on the March in Afghanistan, and all over Central and South America.

Cuba was fighting in the Congo, and elsewhere in Africa, the entire Country was in a state of Malaise, and we had a Misery Index, through the roof.

Our Military was a Joke. The Soviets were putting Intermediate Nuclear Misslile in Eastern Europe, and The Cold War was getting Hot.

Obviously, Jackass was Offworld during the 80's.

Idiot.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 7:56AM

Ross,

Imagine what those graphs would look like with honest, un-cooked BLS statistics!

There is no excuse for what Obama has done, any more than there is an excuse for fighting voter id requirements! They want our economy wrecked and they want to steal elections. Could we please just start calling spades, 'spades!'

Don't Tread On Me!

Ross Kaminsky| 9.5.12 @ 10:16AM

DTOM,

For the record, I'm not one of those who believes the books are cooked. Those guys are career bureaucrats, and they work within strict definitions given them.

You can't say "spade." That's racist.

TLP| 9.5.12 @ 10:37AM

"For the record, I'm not one of those who believes the Books are Cooked."

Idiot.

Poppakap| 9.5.12 @ 11:20AM

If you're going to be that cavalier TLP, you'd better have a mountain of data to back up your claims. There are many things wrong in our country, but the childlike assumption that everything is corrupt everywhere in this great land is lazy and counterproductive. You might as well join the Occupiers.

Ross Kaminsky| 9.5.12 @ 12:38PM

TLP, don't you think the burden of proof is on you? Not sure how "idiot" helps the conversation.

TLP| 9.5.12 @ 1:18PM

On January 1, we had 1,000,000 LESS PEOPLE WORKING, then we had in December, yet the Unemployment Rate WENT DOWN.

How's that?

And, last I looked, factoring part time Census Workers in to the Mix is a Joke, at best, as well as the FACT that every Jobs number put out by this bunch, has been REDUCED, by Thousands, a coupla days later.

You can't be that Stupid.

They FORGED DOCUMENTS to a Federal Judge, in their quest to put in their Drilling Moratorium. They are IN CONTEMPT of that Court, even now.

They RAN GUNS to Mexican Drug Cartels, so that they could Blame the 2nd Amendment for all of the MURDERS that would INEVITABLY OCCUR from these Arsenals. Eric Holder was found to be IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS for Lying to Congress, and Refusing to release Thousands of Documents, concerning this Illegal Gun Running Operation.

But "I don't believe they're cooking the Jobs Numbers"?

I take it back.

You ARE that Stupid.

And, more.

TLP| 9.5.12 @ 1:29PM

And, don't give me any of that Seasonal Adjustment B.S.

That's a SCAM, and everybody knows it.

Warrior| 9.5.12 @ 5:20PM

You left off the hundreds of thousands that have been approved for disability when they are fully capable of working.

What is also left off here is the artificial inflation of the economy. Keep adding $1trillion every year that keeps bankrupt municipalities with employees that they can't afford and crony capitalists smiling. Banks are laundering money for the Fed and making profit with you risk. Quoting government statistics as an accurate source is the same as using Michelle Obama as a dietician and expecting to lose weight.

TLP| 9.5.12 @ 6:50PM

Hey Ross.

You out there?

Hello?

You wanted me to back up my claims.

I backed up my Claims.

Where'd you go?

Hello?

Ross?

Hello?

Coward.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 11:15AM

I said "spades." You probably hear the dog whistle better than me.

Whether BLS is book cooking raises a simple question:

The U6 adjustments for the last 60 - 80 weeks have all had the same sign. If the forecast errors were random, they should be normally distributed with equal numbers of positive and negative adjustments. So their numbers are systematically wrong, not randomly. There should be a readily identifiable cause for these one-sided errors-which those actuarial geniuses should have money and time to fix.

Whipping out Ockham's Razor, I draw the simplest conclusion - their thumb is on the scale.

Ross, you're a well connected fellow, can find the answer to this question: have the BLS adjustments historically shown similar tendencies to always be upward (more unemployment after adjustment) during the Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan years?

If they have, then BLS ought to improve their forecasting models. Maybe, it's an instinctive bureaucratic inclination to report happier numbers.

If not, the prosecution rests.

Or, of course, it could just be a random event- coincidences are always so coincidental...

Keep up your good work, Mr. K.

DTOM

PS - I notice they've been putting you on TAS's front bumper frequently - congrats, I guess. (Remember the difference between rear and front bumper placements of the "Run, Hillary, Run!" bumper sticker?

PPS And aren't bureaucrats the most successful of all the kingdom of parasites?

Ross Kaminsky| 9.5.12 @ 12:49PM

I'll take a quick look, but not really interested in spending a lot of time on the conspiracy theory.

Revisions to non-farm payroll data have been both up and down:
http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm

I will see if I can get any comment from BLS.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 1:07PM

See, I knew you are a well-connected fellow..

We await the data!

DTOM

TLP| 9.5.12 @ 1:19PM

Don't hold your breath.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 2:15PM

TLP, Dude!

Your energy, your passion, and your intensity for our country are spectacular!

Sometimes, I wonder whether your friendly fire might be counterproductive to our objectives. I doubt you'll run Ross off, but we conservatives need all of the allies we can get.

I too questioned his acceptance of the BLS data, but we're talking about it. We might make progress, we might not - but we're pulling together, not apart. I've read many, many of your posts and don't see a lot of daylight between you and me. I've read a lot of Ross, too. Not a lot of daylight between us either.

RWR said an ally is somebody who agrees with you on 80% - Reagan got a lot of good things done, so I take his suggestions pretty seriously.

I hope you will, too.

Don't Tread On Me!

TLP| 9.5.12 @ 2:50PM

I don't dislike him.

I'm trying to Help Him stay true to himself.

Call me Crazy, but I think that any guy who spends his time Vacationing in every third world Hellhole he can get his hands on, just might be out of touch with you and me.

I'm just sayin.

"I don't believe that THIS BUNCH OF AMERICA HATING MARXISTS ARE COOKING THE BOOKS"?

Are you kidding me?

Ross Kaminsky| 9.5.12 @ 2:57PM

TLP,

1) I've been to 48 of the 50 states.
2) There are a few hellholes I haven't been to, but would like to. Ethiopia comes to mind.
3) I don't believe the America-hating Marxists are the people in charge of employment data. So it's not that I think they wouldn't if they could, but I don't think they can.

Ross Kaminsky| 9.5.12 @ 3:08PM

I received the following "unofficial" response from an employee of the Department of Labor:

There are a number of technical issues involved in the UI weekly claims data collection. However I believe that the easiest way to answer your concern about validity or potential tampering is to say that the US Department of Labor does not "generate" this data. The most one could say we do is collect it and turn around and report it. Most users of this data would be aware that each week, all 50 states, along with the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands submit data electronically to us. We simply sum that data, and pass it along to the public in a press release with additional supporting material. If someone doubted the integrity of the numbers we were publishing, it would be very simple for them to simply contact a number of states and verify to their satisfaction that the number we are publishing is, indeed, the number the state submitted electronically to us. In fact, many states publish this information themselves, voluntarily, as a measure of labor market information.

At the following address, you can find data on individual state submissions.
http://ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims_arch.asp

It should be a simple task to validate that these are, in fact, the values states have submitted to us. Were there to be a conspiracy to adjust these values, it would need to take place in 53 separate state workforce agencies.

Ross Kaminsky| 9.5.12 @ 3:10PM

I followed up with a question about the large number of upward revisions, and got this:

It's true and it's not at the same time. The record of increases is factually true. But it's also true that the two numbers are actually different data collections known as the ETA 538 and ETA 539. The way states report numbers on the two reports differs significantly, mostly in respect to the basis of which claims are to be reported and which are not. The 538 is done on a liable basis, the 539 on a geographical basis.

We are currently working on some revisions to the reporting instructions to address these issues but the pace of progress is quite slow.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 3:51PM

See, I knew they would be working on it.

And I didn't say they were Marxists, I just attributed culinary activities to them.

Let's put a fork in this, then.

DTOM

TLP| 9.5.12 @ 7:06PM

Yeah. Let's put a fork in it.

Ross got data from OBAMA'S LABOUR DEPARTMENT, so it must be true.

The Lyingest POS that's ever sat in the Oval Office's Labour Department explained it to Ross, so it must be true.

I guess when Obama's Justice Department explained that VIDEO of the Black Panthers, at a Voting Station in Philadelphia, Pa. HARRASSING WHITE VOTERS as they came up to Vote, was "Insufficient Evidence"we should all just believe them?

When Eric Holder says that HE KNOWS NOTHING about Fast and Furious, we should just believe him?

When he says that he NEVER READ any of the Briefings on Fast and Furious, that were put in his In Basket, we should believe him?

What about the Forged Documents, by his Energy and Interior Departments, concerning the results of the Commission that Obama put in place after the BP Explosion?

Should we believe that, as well?

Hey DTOM?

I know you're not this stupid.

Are you?

Cause, you sound like you might be.

TLP| 9.5.12 @ 7:17PM

I like you.

I just don't understand your willingness to accept Ross' fall back position, that he was Reassured by this MFer's Lying Ass Labour Department.

It smacks of ass kissing.

I'm just sayin.

TLP| 9.5.12 @ 7:45PM

Let me take some of that back.

You're a good, stand up guy, and you've always been fair to me.

Kaminsky just gets under my skin, he's so freaking pompous.

I was way too hard on you, and I apologize.

It was just one of those Heat of the Moment things.

Again, I apologize.

I shouldn't have taken it out on you.

Von Mises Jr| 9.5.12 @ 10:23AM

The Core inflation rate was invented in 1975 to disguise the real inflation rate by eliminating food and energy. In 2000, they chained the rate to 2005 benchmark to further disguise the nominal and real measures. Best guess based on food prices is that price inflation (dollar deflation) is actually about 10%. Nice trick BLS.
Then you have the unemployment numbers further depressed by giving public workers $50K+ pension and benefit packages to stay home at 55 and not be counted, and to take the 99 week unemployed and put them on SSD (disability).
If the BLS reported actual statistics instead of "Alice in Wonderland" dreams, the Misery Index of Obama would rival the worst years of Carter at some 22-23% ranges.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 11:17AM

VMJ,

Join my challenge to Mr. K above!

DTOM

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 11:28AM

And, I do remember that BLS or was it DOC was always playing with the thirty items in their shopping cart that they used to calculate the consumer price deflator. I recall they always had a computer in there because computer prices were always falling. Which helps keep the COLA's down and out...

I am not a conspiracy theorist - but I'm not Pollyanna, either. Everybody's got butter on their bread, somehow...

Don't Tread On Me!

Von Mises Jr| 9.5.12 @ 12:06PM

DTOM,

Not only are food and fuel excluded and they use inflation smoothing to factor out inflation according to my understanding, but they pick and choose what they want in the basket to back into the 2% Core rate. If rental housing is depressed, it is substituted for inflated products that are reduced or removed from the basket.
I think Ross is naive if he thinks he is getting any truth from BLS.

Ross Kaminsky| 9.5.12 @ 1:00PM

Food and fuel are excluded in what they call the "core" rate, but they publish the core and the total rates at the same time.

It is simply not true that the routinely change what is in the basket, or substitute something else for owners equivalent rent if that number is low.

In short, "Von Mises", you are substantially misunderstanding the CPI reporting conventions.

This is not to say that CPI is perfect (or even good), but rather that its methodology changes very infrequently and I don't see evidence that it is routinely influenced by politics.

I would say that statists want CPI to be changed in a way which causes it to grow faster, and fiscal conservatives want it to grow slower.

Ross Kaminsky| 9.5.12 @ 1:03PM

www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiqa.htm

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 1:29PM

Ross:

From: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm#Question_9

"How is the CPI market basket determined?

The CPI market basket is developed from detailed expenditure information provided by families and individuals on what they actually bought. For the current CPI, this information was collected from the Consumer Expenditure Surveys for 2007 and 2008. In each of those years, about 7,000 families from around the country provided information each quarter on their spending habits in the interview survey. To collect information on frequently purchased items, such as food and personal care products, another 7,000 families in each of these years kept diaries listing everything they bought during a 2-week period.

Over the 2 year period, then, expenditure information came from approximately 28,000 weekly diaries and 60,000 quarterly interviews used to determine the importance, or weight, of the more than 200 item categories in the CPI index structure."

In essence they review a bunch of data, a veritable shipload, no doubt. But they give no indication of what they do with it or to it.

There is a basket, they do change it, but we still don't know how or why.

My references were to B-school conversations from the early 1980's when the CPI was a very hot topic. Reagan killed its value as a topic of conversation. Thank God!

DTOM

JD| 9.5.12 @ 1:29PM

Statists can interpret any data to serve their agenda. If CPI grows quickly, it's proof that government needs to help people afford stuff. If CPI grows slowly, it's proof that we can safely print more money because inflation is not a concern.

VMJ seems most concerned about hiding inflation. I would say I am too. But I don't think CPI can be perfected as a measure.

Von Mises Jr| 9.5.12 @ 1:42PM

JD, you are spot on. Ross sounds like Perp arguing over whether the 50% fall in gas prices to 2008 levels of $1.85 ranges versus the 100% rise to today of $3.83 is up or down. It depends on what you are measuring.
All I know is milk went from $2.75 ranges two years ago to almost $1.00 more today. If it went up 35% in two years, how the hell do we make believe we have 2% inflation?
If you go to a party or family gathering and half of the working age people are out of work, how do you freaking figure that unemployment is 8.3%.
Maybe Ross took calculus and statistics courses that were invented after I finished Graduate School. I don't know, but it does not make and damn sense to me.

JD| 9.5.12 @ 2:01PM

Give Ross some credit. The article measures employment after touching on unemployment precisely because of changes in the nominal "workforce". He covered that.

What I'd like to see more focus on is "income". Democrats love to talk about relative "income", but under their social welfare, "income" and "spending money" have little correlation. Someone below the poverty line has more than twice the money spent on them than what they earn. Someone making six figures has considerably less to spend than what they earn. What we have spent on ourselves is the true measure of how well we're living in a social-welfare society, not what we "earn" for the collective.

Democrats seem to know this, because their constant proposed remedy for disparate incomes is redistributive taxation. But changing taxes doesn't (directly) change income at all! A low-income person paying negative taxes still has the same low pre-tax income, and a high-income person paying high taxes still has the same high pre-tax income! But do Democrats let this affect their message? Not at all. Pre-tax "income" is still what matters, and tax changes are how we "fix" it. Common sense be damned!

Von Mises Jr| 9.5.12 @ 2:13PM

Pre-tax income is not always an indication of financial well being. Seniors often own their homes, have accumulated wealth and are counted as poor. But they have wealth transfers from SS and Medicare as well as qualify for food stamps. Why are kids’ just graduating colleges trying to make a living, support a family while paying off student loans and a mortgage paying their bills?

The poor in America are fat. They often drive a nice car, have color TV, wear jewelry and eat and drink well. But we count them as poor unfortunates since none of the transfers get counted in the income statistics.

If the government stopped classifying and subsidizing groups, and people just took care of their families, fellow Parishioners and neighbors, we would not need the Democrat Party.

JD| 9.5.12 @ 2:46PM

We do not need the Democratic Party period.

What we do need is an accurate measure of people's cash flows, particularly the government impacts on them. This information can defeat the Democratic Party.

Grzmlyk| 9.5.12 @ 12:07PM

Agreed. Career bureaucrats know where their bread is buttered, and, just as observing an electron will change its behavior, so having a bureaucrat calculate anything is going to warp the data ipso facto. Just look at the numbers bureaucrats come up with on climate change.

Bottom line: It's far worse than anybody in government will tell you.

And that includes Romney and Ryan, both of whose goal is to keep the plates spinning - not to end the madness. In fact, without major intervention - and I don't mean tinkering at the edges with Medicare such that the medicine tastes just like candy - collapse is inevitable.

Ross Kaminsky| 9.5.12 @ 1:02PM

Climate change is something else entirely.

But you're wrong about the true career number-crunching bureaucrats. They know that they will be there long past when the president is gone.

While the heads of these groups would be political appointees, it's unlikely they could cause the pencil-pushers to change how they make calculations were are very specifically defined.

And I imagine a whistle-blower would have made himself known by know in that situation.

TLP| 9.5.12 @ 1:22PM

Please.

That's like saying State Department Officials do the right thing because they wanna stick around.

Are you Drunk, this morning?

JD| 9.5.12 @ 2:02PM

He's not saying they do the right thing. He's saying they do a defensible thing.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 2:41PM

My experience with bureaucrats has been in the area of floodplain management. The technical people do work hard to get the math right and follow the established rules.

Where they get bollixed up is when their underlying assumptions are either wrong or no longer reflect reality, or complications make the standard rules inoperative, requiring exceptions or the application of professional judgement. Exceptions and professional judgements automatically move up the chain of authority bringing these decisions closer to the notice and influence of political appointees.

This is where I worry about the appointees' influence on more compliant bureaucrats.

I offer two other arguments: ICE and Fast n' Furious. The bureaucrats are trying to do the right thing - while the politicals higher up bring their biases and preferences into play...

And if Obama's appointees are willing to de-man and de-fence our border, and let guns walk into Mexico to kill Mexicans AND Americans, how cynical is it to wonder about the integrity of the economic data used to grade their performance?

Hmm?

DTOM

TLP| 9.5.12 @ 2:54PM

He's saying that they do the CYA thing?

Is that what you're saying?

What happened to TELLING THE TRUTH?

mike 3/505| 9.5.12 @ 4:08PM

Tim,

What happens is the political appointee "defines" the parameters of the equation and directs the civil servant to produce reports based on those parameters...Same thing happens in the Congressional Budget Office...an allegedly. On-partisan agency.

If you let me define the parameters, I can show you a Federal Surplus....of course it would bear little relationship to "the truth."

Regards,

Mike

TLP| 9.5.12 @ 7:10PM

Thank You, Mike.

I was starting to think I was all alone, out here.

Best Regards, right back at you.

Grzmlyk| 9.5.12 @ 2:19PM

But, just as there are many "true believers" at NOA and NASA and the IPCC who believe they are telling the truth, I believe any bureaucrat - along with the hordes of data collectors and originators on whom he or she relies - is simply incapable of being truly objective.

It ain't possible, and the more complex the system, the higher the susceptibility to distortion - whether through deliberate act or benign neglect.

After all, there are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics!

Look at the CBO, whose findings always tend to side with the party in power; people on both sides of the aisle always talk about the scrupulous integrity of the CBO, excusing its inevitable underestimates by the "garbage in, garbage out" axiom. We have come to accept that it's the inputs that sway the CBO (I know you'll say it's apples and oranges with the BLS), and I'm sure that's true.

My point isn't that the charts you depict are wildly misleading - my point is that my anecdotal, analogue brain tells me it's far worse than any government body can capture at this juncture.

There are studies that come out every single day about cholesterol, alcohol use, sex, etc. I literally don't pay attention to those anymore because I know they're corrupt. True, these may be funded by organizations with axes to grind. I believe there is an objective reality. I also believe it is, to some extent, unknowable.

Grzmlyk| 9.5.12 @ 2:32PM

BTW, people trot out the Reagan administration's glowing performance, and I was an acolyte for years - until I read Murray Rothbard's devastating critique of Reaganomics. What a depressing eye opener:

http://mises.org/daily/1544

Read it and weep.

JD| 9.5.12 @ 2:56PM

Reagan's performance "glowed" in relation to his peers. Of course there was much more to be done, and his changes weren't permanent. But your link goes too far.

One key point of your link is that his tax changes only slightly reduced the size of government relative to GDP, and increased federal revenues overall dramatically. But that was true because the economy grew so much that lowering tax rates increased revenue. This achieving of a key pillar of the conservative platform should hardly be called a failure.

Your link also complains that closing loopholes "raised taxes" on former beneficiaries of the loopholes. Cry me a river!

"Bracket creep" is another silly complaint - that incomes rose so much under Reagan that everyone found themselves in higher tax brackets and thus paid higher taxes. Oh, boo hoo!

Grzmlyk| 9.5.12 @ 3:05PM

I'm not defending every single jot and tittle of Rothbard's assessment - although I will venture to say his expertise far exceeds mine, yours and DTOM's below.

The point was really that you can slice and dice different data in many different ways. I'd always blithely assumed that the Reagan revolution was more successful than it actually was, for a number of reasons.

BTW, one of my biggest complaints about Art Laffer and the curve - and hence their version of supply side economics - is that they talk as if the increased revenue that comes from lower tax rates is desirable. It is not, and it wasn't then: Increased revenue only leads eventually to the demand for more revenue - i.e., higher taxes, which surely came after Reagan.

I'm not skewering Reagan - I think he did about as well as you can in a society that was, and is, hurtuling toward progressivism. I'm just saying that you can look at anything from myriad points of view, and defent your argument with "statistics."

Grzmlyk| 9.5.12 @ 3:05PM

DTOM, you make a bloody fool of yourself, and you degrade every argument you try to make, when you put words in other people's mouths.

Did I mention Clinton?

Shame on you - your post is intellectually dishonest.

Grzmlyk| 9.5.12 @ 3:26PM

JD, are you writing from your booth at the Democrat Convention?

Cuz class warfare seems to appeal to you.

Yeah, if you were in a 75% tax bracket, I'll bet the sun and the moon that you'd have your fingers around the throat of your accountant looking for every damned loophole you could legally squeeze through.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 4:02PM

JD,

Bracket creep was an unintended tax increase caused by inflation and the set tax rate brackets. People were finding that when their income went up 20% over two years to keep up with 20% inflation everything was jake, until they noticed that now they were in a higher tax bracket and had higher marginal tax rates. So they weren't getting any more income, but the government's take was increasing and the government had a strong incentive to keep inflation going because of that.

You can say boo hoo if you like, but it was a real problem...which Reagan recognized, popularized, and then fixed by indexing tax brackets to the CPI.

And the dried up loopholes included ending state income and sales, gas tax deductions as well as credit card interest rate deductions. This hit everybody who itemized, and most did not come out ahead after losing the deductions and reduced rates...

Somebody else's troubles are always easier to take...

DTOM

Thom| 9.5.12 @ 5:44PM

JD,
My income about doubled from 79 to 89 yet the % of my income paid to Federal Income taxes went down by a measurable amount. The table were indexed and have kept most people out of higher brackets unless they have made much more than the indexed inflation correction. I would tend to mistrust anyone that said they paid more due to tax bracket creep in the 1980s. I had the same job throughout that time also.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 2:56PM

Grzmlyk;

So Bill Clinton who "Gave" us a balanced budget was better for the US economy than Reagan?

Clinton's balanced budget was shoved up through his mouth by Newt Gingrich and the 1994 Congressional class.

Reagan's imbalanced budget was shoved up through Reagan's mouth in the 1982 Tip O'Niell Congress...

Don't get so depressed so easily. Have some faith. The only way the Progressives can win is if we quit. Don't be so ready to believe every semi-good looking web-site you see that tells you everything you know is wrong. It's not.

If you were in business in the early '80's and the '90's you will know this: Carter stopped the economy, Regan took two years to get it going (primarily due to Congressional delays) and Clinton had a good economy shoved up his kiester against his will! Remember Clinton's quote: "A lot of you people think I raised your taxes too much. I did."

Man up Grzmlyk!!! Everything THEY know is wrong, not you!

Don't Tread On Me!

Grzmlyk| 9.5.12 @ 3:06PM

Put my reply to you in the wrong place - see above.

Grzmlyk| 9.5.12 @ 3:10PM

BTW, DTOM, I also think your snarky condescension is insulting. I hardly believe every good looking web site I see.

I am a realist, not a cheerleader, as you are. Put the pom-poms down and look at our debt situation, and the precarious nature of the dollar, and tell me there is any outcome other than collapse. And Ryan and Romney have NO INTENTION of changing anything drastically.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 3:33PM

Grzmlyk;

You are voting with the progressives with your nay-saying. They cannot beat us but we can lose, if we quit. And you sound like a guy who wants to quit.

We didn't lose in Viet Nam - the Democrats defunded our war efforts after running Nixon off 37 years ago.

I believe in the strength of our free market system when it is not under attack from within. I believe in our Constitutional government when it is not being attacked from within.

What do you believe in? Keynes's 'in the long run, we are all dead?'

Well, I got kids and so I'm not going to quit. Sounds like you are...

Snarky? - screw that - you are damn sissified, chickified quitter!

I didn't get my economics education from socialists! I got it where Milton Friedman taught. And I'm telling you, you're being taken in pessimistic bologna.

What did Reagan say? "It's that so much of what they know, isn't so!"

Are you 'Problem' or are you 'Solution?'

Don't Tread On Me

or my Freedom pom poms!

Grzmlyk| 9.5.12 @ 3:48PM

DTOM, I can only conclude that, in the past, I've severely overestimated your intelligence. I won't make that mistake moving forears.

First of all, Rothbard is a free market guy. He is NOT a socialist, and your ignorance is really showing. He is more of a free market guy than Friedman, a monetarist.

I am a free market guy. Rothbard's assessment of Reaganomics - and regulation in particular - was the it wasn't the free market. And we don't live in a free market in any way, shape, manner or form today. Just so you know, I wish we DID.

We have long since turned our back on the constitution. So I don't know what country you live in anymore, because both of the things you tout are relics of the past that have little connection with the socialist state we live in. Just so you know, I do NOT believe in socialism.

Nixon was a liberal president; he tried to appease his enemies - hence things like the EPA, price controls and getting us off the gold standard. Yes, the Tet Offensive was a U.S. victory, contrary to what every liberal will tell you; but it was a public relations defeat. Once Cronkite turned, it was over. And, in the end, sad to say, it was an ill-advised, Democrat venture. Just so you know, I don't blame the soldiers.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 4:08PM

Let's make this easy.

1. So what is your Rothbard's point if his only conclusion of the impact of the Reagan years was an increase in the deficit?

I will ignore your insults and work through this slowly if you dare.

DTOM

Grzmlyk| 9.5.12 @ 3:52PM

Additionally, if you weren't talking out of your ass, you'd know that Rothbard and von Mises and Hayek and the other giants of the Austrian school are ANTI-Keynesians. I believe Keynesiansism is idiotic. Just so you know, I do NOT believe in Keynesianism.

Speaking the truth about our fiscal situation is NOT "voting with the progressives." Look at the unfunded madates for Social Security, medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare if you have any doubts. The dollar is being debauched even as we speak, and QE 3 is in the works, to be followed by QE4. Just so you know, that's inflationary.

I'm going to vote for Romney. BUt just so you know, cheerleaders don't change the game. They look pretty on the sidelines.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 4:21PM

What is Rothbard's purpose in dis-crediting Reagan tax cut-tax receipt increase experience?

I asked if you believed in Keynes's most popular truism - the one that actually is true. It's good to hear that you are not lost down that rat hole.

You say you are a free market guy - then why won't you fight for it?

Did you mean to imply that Friedman was not a free market guy?

If you are a free market guy, then the fundamental concept of monetarism, that supply and demand set the value of currencies, should not be a stretch for you.

You are very busy throwing crap at me. How about some answers here.

And I wonder why you are so quick to denounce cheerleaders. I espouse my points with a little humor and some logic and history. And your response is to dismiss me as 'cheerleader?' Our side needs cheerleaders and if you look in The OED, you'll find calling someone a cheerleader is the third definition of 'intellectual dishonesty.'

I look forward to your explanation of why trashing a full-scale, successful monetarist experiment is something to defend...

Well.

Don't Tread On Me!

TLP| 9.5.12 @ 3:06PM

The thing with the CBO can be broken down to GIGO.

Garbage In. Garbage Out.

They work with the Numbers given to them.

They are in a No Win Situation.

I don't blame them.

Grzmlyk| 9.5.12 @ 3:07PM

Uh, I believe that's exactly what I said.

TLP| 9.5.12 @ 7:22PM

Then we agree.

Who said we didn't?

Mimi | 9.5.12 @ 8:28AM

The Democrats are fading away as a party! The HARD-CORE LEFT runs the show making it more un appealing to patriotic Americans. The final papers were written when GOD was taken out of the platform.
After this election...and another roaring defeat... the noise coming from Democrats bad mouthing the Obama years...saying anything to maintain their perch...The BASHING will be downright entertaining....I don't know where the news media will go with their TAIL between their legs...go off and HIDE someplace!
They did NOT handle POWER well the chaos still is evident...The stress of being WAY over their head is visible. Their SHOW is going on now....But not SERIOUS....And without GOD they have NOTHING!

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 8:49AM

And Republicans were far, far worse. You really want another Great Depression? Elect Romney/Ryan and throw everyone off the cliff!

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 9:54AM

Yeah, like that great Republican FDR!

Purp what you don't know would fill the seven seas - what you do know wouldn't fill seven mustard seeds...

We do appreciate your constant chiming in - you continue to show how utterly lonely, secluded, and desperate for attention your six brain cells are.

Remember Purp, breathe in...breathe out...breathe in...breathe out.

It's okay if you need to keep your mouth open while doing this complicated work...

Thanks for being who you are...

Don't Tread On Me!!

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 10:08AM

Ha - you do know who was President when the Great Depression started don't you? It wasn't FDR - it was a Republican - or don't they tell you that in right-wing lala-land? Facts are so pesky, aren't they?

Ross Kaminsky| 9.5.12 @ 10:17AM

Purp,

The Great Depression became so because of FDR's policies (as well as stupid Fed action.)

It is no accident that the economy improved after FDR died.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 11:29AM

Don't forget the whole international trade war thing, either...

DTOM

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 1:29PM

Unemployment came down from 25% to 11% in his first few years - then he listened to his advisors and when austerity and pulled back on spending, creating the "mini-Depression" of 1937 and unemployment went back up to 15%. It was the government spending on WWII that broke the Depression finally.

That mini ended in 1943, while Roosevelt was STILL alive.

After the war, there was a lull in the economy, but the GI Bill gave all 16 million servicemembers 1 year of pay and a path to going to college. On top of that, our industry was not smashed by bombing and we helped rebuild Europe, keeping our factories humming. It was up from there as almost the sole industrial power in the world, at least for a while.
You are right about the Fed though, a feat that WAS NOT repeated by Ben Bernanke, thankfully.

So your revisionist history to make your point doesn't work in the real world.

George S| 9.5.12 @ 2:04PM

"...then he listened to his advisors (sic)... creating the "mini-Depression" of 1937 and unemployment went back up to 15%"

Not quite. The reason for the spike in unemployment and deepening the depression was the passage of the Wagner Act. That gave labor the legal backing to become unproductive without punishment, putting a further strain on an already fragile economy already laden with the "Alphabet Soup Commissars" of the FDR administration.

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 6:02PM

George, George. The Depression was caused by the similar problems we had in 2008 - greed and overextended credit, but without the safety nets we have today.
The Wagner Act in 1935 gave workers the right to bargain collectively - it was the austerity measures introduced in 1936 that caused the mini-Depression in 1937-43. The Wagner Act and the NLRB Act were in still force in 1943 and beyond, but the Depression ended finally when GOVERNMENT SPENDING on the War removed all unemployment, effectively, to support the war effort.
Temporary Government spending as promoted by Keynes always ends a recovery. It did for FDR, it did for Reagan, less so for the Bush Twins. The main issue is that no one follows Keynes second tenet - to pay down debt in good times, so you can borrow again in times of trouble.
Republicans since Reagan never pay down the debt so it's a bigger deal this time. But another round of stimulus would finally pull us out of this mess. Tax loophole closing would be useful, but not wholesale tax cuts for the wealthy, who don't spend any more than they do now - and thats what creates demand, customers, which causes business to hire more people to make more which creates more demand and the cycle is broken. Demand pulls us out of recession, not supply. We have plenty of capacity, we don't need any more factories or facilities - we need customers.

JD| 9.5.12 @ 2:09PM

I love Purp's revision. He claims that Roosevelt pulled back instead of being stopped by sane people, and claims that the stopping caused what was actually caused by what FDR had done!

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 5:50PM

You've been well brainwashed ... no wonder you vote Republican. Some day you will wise up. Or not ... lost cause with you.
Where pray tell do you get your history from? Glenn Beck's a**?

JD| 9.5.12 @ 11:52AM

The Great Depression started as as recession induced by bad monetary policy and stupid banking laws. FDR turned it into a depression by causing a massive "double-dip" with his policies.

History is repeating itself almost perfectly. The Fed did about the same things to cause a recession, and Obama has caused the double-dip. The depression is now underway. Let us hope that the final step does not play out - the election of ever-more radical "saviors" who will thrive by inciting anger against declared "enemies", an anger which will combine with extreme nationalism and boil over into a world war.

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 1:34PM

Puhlease - Herbert Hoover handed a full-blown Great Depression over to FDR, complete with the "Hoovervilles", for those left homeless.

Had Bush stayed President for 1 or 2 years longer, we'd all have been be in soup lines by the time Obama took over. Obama's policies, like 'em or not, diverted the Great Depression II that almost collapsed our entire economy.

Moreover, European countries hit with the same disaster in 2008 went on the austerity wagon, and they are back in recession. Instead, we went stimulus and thank GOD for Obama that we didn't follow the path of some European countries - Spain, Italy,, etc.

JD| 9.5.12 @ 2:07PM

The bad monetary policy and banking laws that caused a recession were wrought throughout the 1920s, though not particularly by Hoover. He played the Bush role, not causing, but not preventing, the crisis.

FDR arrived and played the "stimulus" card heavily, though the SCOTUS rightly slowed him down. He did not stop himself, and once again "austerity" is not a policy. It is a consequence of prior bad policy.

In time, FDR's profligate spending without addressing any root causes led to the 1936 "double-dip" that forever reclassified the whole period as a depression. Absent his foolishness, the recession would have ended naturally in the mid-1930s. In our sequel to this story, we have not quite reached this double-dip point yet. But we're close.

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 6:06PM

You really ought to talk to Ben Bernanke, a Great Depression Scholar ... he knows far more than you will ever know about the causes and remedies for the Great Depression.
He has said that getting the LONG term fiscal house in order is necessary, but not immediately - and that's what Romney/Ryan want to do - right now.
You really should catch his Congressional or Senate hearings ... he is quite informative. Books help too.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 2:59PM

Purp,

Obviously somebody sent you ten pages of fiction with which to revise the FDR record. When you run out of that, I'm sure you'll be quiet again for a while.

Did they tell you about FDR's efforts to pack the Supreme Court? Now there's a DEMOCRAT for you!

What you don't know would fill the seven seas, what you do know wouldn't fill seven mustard seeds...

Poppakap| 9.5.12 @ 11:23AM

Go play in your sandbox little one. Just don't kick sand in the faces of the other kids when they disagree with you 'cause you'll get your a$$ kicked metaphorically and literally.

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 1:35PM

I take it you don't agree? Hmmmm?

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 8:48AM

3 things you leave out.
1) Reagan did not face the worst recession since the Great Depression. Not even close. Obama did, and was brilliant in avoiding Great Depression II.

2) Reagan did not have an obstructionist opposition party trying to block all he tried to do to help America. Because Norm Coleman(R) did not concede to Al Franken(D) until June 2009, and Scott Brown(R) took over Ted Kennedy's(D) seat in Jan 2010, Democrats only had full control for 6 months in 2009.

3) Public sector jobs grew under Reagan, and had that happened under Obama, the unemployment rate would be in the 7.5% range.

Louis Jenkins| 9.5.12 @ 9:11AM

Purp, you are a Fabian socialist. The Democrats had control of the house and senate longer than 9 months. Has congress tried to present a budget? In the last three years? Reagan could not have faced the worst recession-depression because Obama is now in charge of that problem. And he's created the problem because of his massive spending. Go ahead and blame the Republicans for everything including painful rectal itch. Things were much better under Reagan, inspite of all your ditherings.

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 9:34AM

You are completely incorrect. Obama created the economic crash in 2008 before he was elected? Are you awake? Are the lights on?

Democrats did not have control of Congress for more than 6 months, not 2 years, not 9 months. Did you forget Ted Kennedy died? And, Al Franken was not sworn in until 6 months after the election in 2008?
See right wing mythology is an amazingly brainwashy kinda thing, ain't it?

IF everything is soooo bad, why do they have to lie (Lyin' Ryan) and misinform you all? Can't they win because Obama is sooo terrible?

Louis Jenkins| 9.5.12 @ 9:52AM

Teddy's not dead. He still lives in everything the Democrats do. Al Franken? Pitiful excuse for even a Democrat. Give some examples of real Democrats, Purp. Like Nancy and Harry.

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 10:10AM

So you cannot refute the actual facts and you change the subject? Okay, then that tells me I was right, you were wrong and you know it. Thank You!
Now go contemplate what you will do when Mitt the Twit loses.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 11:23AM

Purp;

Sucking $800,000,000,000 out of the private economy by borrowing it and spending it on Barry's friends is what made the TARP so damaging! The fact that a couple of financial institutions were caught short and stupid would be footnote materials if they had just been allowed to noisily go under. This would have been a 10 -14 month dislocation, not the mini-Great Depression it has been made by the Keynesian policies that your hero FDR was effective in proving to be counter productive.

Purp, what you don't know could fill the seven seas, what you do know could not fill seven mustard seeds...

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 2:21PM

That's a nice right wing mythology, but in this world of global finance, we don't finance our debt from solely our own savings.
TARP was a Bush financial package - NOT Obama - you do know that, right?

Bush said himself on Sept 24th, 2008 that credit markets were frozen. Just exactly HOW did Obama or Keynes affect THAT?

You're completely wrong on Keynes.

Had Bush and the Republicans paid for their wars, tax cuts, increase in the Public Employee roles and Medicare drug benefit instead of borrowing to pay for them, as Keynes suggested - in times of plenty you save, so you have the money in downturns when you need it - we wouldn't be in this fiscal position.
So don't preach to me about fiscal conservativism, when your party only pays lip service to.
Your attempts at revisionism doesn't work for people who paid attention when it was actually happening. Sorry, I was there in 2007 when warnings were given, Bush did nothing. I was there in 2008 when Bear-Stearns went under - Bush did nothing. I was there when Lehman Bros went under - Bush did nothing.
What was his plan then - TARP!!! Great idea.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 3:02PM

It does not matter where the credit comes from - from private savings, overseas borrowings, bond issues, it does not matter - it's no longer available to the private sector of the economy. Milton Friedman tagged the effect "Crowding out."

It is as real as the wet smack on the end of a hot fist!

DTOM

Go back to your masters and get more data, dolt!

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 3:05PM

And where were you when Ronald Reagan was elected?

NOWHERE! They can send you documents saying anything - and you have no basis of experience to show you what is real and what is not.

DO NOT tell me that I read anybody's talking points. That's you reading toilet paper, not me.

Don't Tread On Me!

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 6:08PM

Milton Friedman was wrong, and he admitted so before he died. But that's okay, you probably don't know that.
Kinda like Alan Greenspan now says he was wrong to let the" irrational exuberance" continue under his watch that helped lead to our Crash of 2008.
Do you need more masters than Alan Greenspan, Friedman or Ben Bernanke? Not some long dead economic philosophers I hope ...

Louis Jenkins| 9.5.12 @ 11:56AM

Real Democrats, Purp. How about Al Sharpton or Jesse Jr.? Wrong? Not by a long shot Twerp, oh, I'm sorry, Purp. Refute facts? Since when has the entire Democrat party been run with facts? The entire Democratic platform- well, you have to suspend all manner of disbelief. Now, you go contemplate what you will do when Obama the Dragon Slayer becomes a poor whipped puppy!

lost| 9.5.12 @ 3:08PM

Purp how much acid have dropped in your life? The democrats had control of both the House and Senate from 2007 to the end of 2009.
Obama was part of the crash in 2008, he was a Senator and voted for policies helped bring the crash. So once again use real facts and not what comes from the rear of your parties mascot

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 6:12PM

Nope. Not complete control. Once again it isn't how you want your revisionist history to be.
Only the House is majority rule, but you knew that didn't you? Now what is that pesky rule in the Senate that gives the minority veto power over any Senate bills with less than 60 votes? (that's a hint).

Your "facts" apparently emanate from your own right wing mythology book ... 'cause it just ain't so.

JD| 9.5.12 @ 11:55AM

Obama did not avoid "Great Depression II". He caused it. He took a recession caused by Democrats who came before him and made it wider and deeper. It will last for a while longer now.

And Reagan did inherit worse than Obama. You just won't allow yourself to see it because your ideology prevents you from believing that it could be true, since today is so much worse than 1983, and you obligate yourself to believe that Obama's policies were better than Reagan's.

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 2:26PM

Ronald Reagan was handed a deeper than normal business cycle recession, that's all, and he didn't solve it - Paul Volcker did. I was there and I remember.
But his recession was a blip compared to what Bush handed over to Obama.

You want to blame Democrats who couldn't do anything until Jan 2007, and had to have Bush sign it to make anything happen - that's like saying House Republicans can pass a budget all by themselves. Or repeal Obamacare all by themselves - ain't reality pal!!!

I didn't say Obama's policies were so much better - I don't think it matters. Reagan, Bush I and early Bush II recessions were small compared to the Economic, Financial and Housing collapse that Bush handed off to Obama.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 3:07PM

SO IT'S BUSH'S FAULT, RIGHT?

INCREDIBLE MORON.

What you know won't fill up ONE mustard seed!

Actually, I'm sure you feel better now that you got to spit that BDS bile out of your mouth.

You are seriously ill. Get medical attention. Soon.

DTOM

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 6:15PM

Not ALL Bush's fault .. but he didn't restrain a single spending bill that YOUR Republican legislators merrily spent like drunken sailors. It was his final say so that let it all happen. The borrowed it all and now want to blame Obama for the mess they left us with. That dog don't hunt.

The only way you can blame Obama for what Bush left him is if YOU are critically ill and need oxygen, your brain is deprived and you need intensive care right now. Maybe you have a mustard seed instead of a brain? Quick, go now, before Plochman's comes to get your last seed.

George S| 9.5.12 @ 1:17PM

It may surprise you (or you may not care since facts never get in the way) that Reagan NEVER had majority congress.

(Huh??!!)

Yes. The Republicans did not control the House from 1955 to 1995. So Reagan NEVER had a Republican congress.

(But..But..But...)

No, it's true. He managed to do all those great things despite not having the House majority; yet Reagan did get the House -- the DEMOCRAT House -- to author his tax cut bills.

So what is Slacker Barry's excuse again?

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 2:32PM

Reagan did not, you're right - but he was shot, got his way with a Congress that had a heart to help people and compromise was not a dirty word in the political world like it is now.

All that makes is very much easier for Reagan to accomplish what he did with a much, much smaller crisis.
Since Obama was elected, can you name how many times ANY Republicans voted with him? Stimulus? Healthcare? Financial Reform? Dream Act? Jobs Act? Payroll Tax Cut? On and on and on...
No, what successes we've had are directly creditable to Democrats and all that we failed to do are the direct responsibility of the Republican Senate filibuster first, and the Republican House majority next. It's very clear to anyone who pays attention.
Not so for Ronnie. He had it EASY compared to Obama. Sorry, that dog don't hunt, pal.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 3:14PM

Moron, Reagan made it easier for himself.

Obama makes it impossible for himself - he cannot even get his own party to cast a single vote for his budget.

Reagan didn't have it easier - unemployment was over 10%, inflation was over 10% and interest rates were over 12%. And he did not have Republican control of the House and Senate as your canine carnivore Obama had for the first two years of his Presidency.

He is a loser, he is going to lose and I hope you have a job because when President Romney finishes with the Oath on January 2X, 2013 the second thing he's going to do is put the work requirements back into Welfare. The first thing will be signing the repeal of Obamacare.

Good luck, ignorant one.

DTOM

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 6:20PM

I'm sure you're aware of the Republican caucus meeting the day Obama was sworn in and pledging to block him at every turn. Sen Mitch McConnell was stupid enough to tell everyone that was their #1 priority.
Now tell me, how do you work with people that want you to, hope you do and actively sabotage you so you fail? And you think that's Obama's fault ... From Day ONE they obstructed him, purposely.
Your people are not fair-minded, not really Americans ... they are a nasty bunch of Nazis in American clothing if you ask me. If you can't compromise with the election winner, then you're a sore loser and worthless to the country. If you don't like where we are today - blame yourselves for electing the Republican idiots.

lost| 9.5.12 @ 4:10PM

Reagan had it easy because he did not try to push extreme socialist agendas. With Obama its his way or nothing. What exactly has the Republicans in the Senate had to filibuster as of late? Oh wait nothing since the Senate Democrats have done nothing.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 4:24PM

lost,

Oh yeah, I forgot that part!

DOH!

DTOM

Ross Kaminsky| 9.5.12 @ 9:00AM

An interesting, on-topic note from Cato's Dan Mitchell:
http://danieljmitchell.wordpre.....ess-index/

Mimi | 9.5.12 @ 9:47AM

The not being free as we once were is what has us so up in ARMS...we feel that the most...Obama has taken us down that road and to his dismisal!
GOOD article Ross!

TLP| 9.5.12 @ 9:07AM

Obama's Economic Policies have not been a disaster, if what we're going through, is what was always The Plan.

We are where we are, because he Wishes it.

Gas Prices are what they are, because he Wishes it.

Iran will get its Nukes, because he wishes it.

People in the Gulf have Lost their Livelihoods, due to His Wish that the Pipeline not be built.

People in Coal States are Losing their Livlihoods, because of his PROMISE to Destroy the Coal Industry.

The $900 Billion was never gonna go for Shovel Ready Infrastructure Jobs. It was always meant to Bail Out his Public Union Allies, in his Blue State Strongholds. Even some guy standing in quicksand, while Vacationing in the Leper Colonies of Batswana, knows that.

The old Axium goes something like this: To defeat my Enemy, I must Become, my Enemy.

He's the end result of a mixing of Body Fluids between an Atheist Communist, and a Muslim Marxist. Raised in a Foreign Muslim Land. Taught in the Muslim Schools and Mosques of that land. Mentored by a Who's Who of White Hating, Jew Hating, America Haters, his entire Adult Life.

And yet, some of us still scratch their heads, in amazement, of his Lack of Understanding, when it comes to Job Creation, and Economics.

Oh, he knows.

And, from where he's sitting?

Things never looked so good.

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 9:36AM

Gee, I guess you don't support the President who saved your a** from the soup lines of the 1930's, and kept you safe from Osama Bin Laden, huh? Very grateful you are.
Of course, everything you say is total bull, you live in a strange reality.

John Navratil| 9.5.12 @ 9:44AM

Purp,

If you actually went out and produced something instead of your blather, you would not be such an idiot.

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 2:34PM

Producer vs. Consumer - that's all your side every cares about. Well, I am a Producer, big time, I don't need government assistance, but I believe in reaching back and helping others that haven't made it yet - apparently you don't. Are you Christian? You sure don't sound like it.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 3:16PM

Purp,

You forgot "He's a RAAAAACIST!!!!"

Moron troll.

DTOM

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 6:21PM

You said it, not me.

John Navratil| 9.5.12 @ 3:57PM

Purp,

Actually I do believe in helping others, as do most Americans - the most generous people on earth - to the tune of $300 billion. Put another way, Americans gave charitably to the tune of $1000 for each American. Assuming one in six in on poverty, that $24,000 for each poor family of four.

But that's not what you want is it? You want to tell me and everyone else how much to give and to whom. I gave plenty more last year than Biden or Kerry typically do.

So one again you are wrong, but that's no surprise - your fingers were moving. You go give willingly as you choose, but do it on you own damned dime. Charity begins in one's own wallet, not with your hand in mine. Having the government reach into my wallet to do your bidding is just the same theft as if you'd helped yourself.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 4:27PM

Statistically it has been shown many times that the liberal Americans are less likely to donate than conservative ones.

Purp's idea is this: I'll take money from you and give it to my friend. He'll like me better and you were never going to put up with me any way...

Two things: This is the fundamental mechanism of socialism and as Mrs. Thatcher said,

"Eventually you run out of other people's money." Which we are about to...

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 6:28PM

Of course, the rich give more and write off more on their taxes ... perhaps it's the guilt they feel and giving to charity makes them feel better
I understand they screw more too. Trying to up the population no doubt.

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 6:27PM

You pay, because that is the price to live in a civilized world. No one "steals" it from you. Your representatives made it that way. You don't like taxes, who does?
But I am doing nothing to you. I just don't have a problem supporting the government that makes our society livable.
Either you don't know or have forgotten about slum living, with s**t in the street, crime rampant , disease prevalent and many other ills around the early 1900's.
There are reasons we look to the government for the "Big" things we can't do alone.
Charity is nice and necessary (a tax deduction I might add), but it doesn't clean the streets, sign treaties, defend the country or care for everyone that needs some help.
Remember - less than 1% of the population is on welfare, and they are mostly white, single mothers with children.
The rest of our taxes go to more worthy causes that I hope you'd like, since you probably hate welfare, since you mentioned it.

John Navratil| 9.5.12 @ 7:05PM

Purp,

Yep! What goes around comes around. Obama is truly a failure, but I guess Jimmy Carter is happy not to be the worst living ex-President (I hope we change in November). Perhaps we can use Chicago as an exemplar of the ills of the 2000's. No? Try DC. Ok! Any other urban jungle like St. Louis, Detroit, LA (isn't Villaraigosa a big shot in the party?). Show me one which isn't run by liberals like you. People like you are the problem, not the solution because you see the world as you want it to be, not the way it is, and compel me to play and pay.

And there you go again making things up again. It's OVER 1% (4.5 million) on TANF, not less, and TANF is NOT the only source of welfare. You did notice 47.6 million on food stamps. Entitlements is 2/3rd the budget. I know you want it to be 100%.

Yup, big things, like roads (oops privately contracted toll roads are the growth area in the highway department), street cleaning (private where I live), and defending the country (I like that, but it's a volunteer Army).

The price we pay for civilization is destroying it. Printing money, increasing the per capita debt by $17,000 in 4 years. It's a great success indeed, if you define the goals like a liberal. Theft is theft even when it's legal.

Do me a favor. Spout some more of your "facts" so I can refute them and shut you up. It seems you are never short of things you know which "just aren't so."

Louis Jenkins| 9.5.12 @ 9:49AM

I doubt that TLP was alive when we had soup lines in the 30s. Safe from Osama Bin? Clinton could have nailed Osama couldn't he? Remember, Purp, or have you forgotten? The Saudi's had the line on Bin Laden, told Clinton, and Clinton let him walk? No, Osama was let to escape, for when a president really needed something to crow about. Some fine talking point I bet, like re-election material.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 9:58AM

Safe from Obama Sin Lyin'? Not.

Oh and the reason Bill wouldn't take out Osama? Because his wife told him to do it-so naturally Bill had to disagree with her! Obama couldn't even stand up to Hillary. Mebbe that's what Bill's going tell the DNC tonight...

Purp- the 'know nothing's' know nothing.

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 2:39PM

What? This is nonsense.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 3:17PM

Okay - it's nonsense.

You explain why Bill Clinton didn't take out Osama when he had the chance...

We're waiting...

DTOM

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 4:27PM

Waiting...

TLP| 9.5.12 @ 11:12AM

You're wasting your time with one, such as Purp.

The Liberal's 1st Messiah - FDR - Kept my Parents, and my Grandparents, in the Depression, with his Economic Policies of Minimium Wages, and Union Participation, which spawned the Term - Good Work of you can Get It. His throwing of Money, to get the ball rolling, is what kept the Depression going, long after Europe got back on track.

The WAR got us out of Depression. The Destrucion, caused by the War, made us the only Game in Town, and that New Found Wealth is what spurred The Organized Crime Families to take over the Unions (which they still Control, to this day) and Extorting huge Concessions from American Corporations, thus sending all of their jobs Overseas. Meanwhile, their Public Union Personas have brought about the Total Financial Collapse of every State that has Public Unions.

LBJ put the Black People back on the Plantation. Separated the Males from the Females. Fed and Clothed them, and gave them Living Quarters. Penned up like Livestock, where they still remain, to this day.

Obama is busy driving the Last Nail in our Economic Coffin, by pushing the same False Prophet ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao, that have Destroyed every Nation that they have ever touched.

This is Purp's Pantheon of Heroes.

You can't fix Stupid.

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 2:39PM

You do know how to shovel the s**t don't you?

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 2:43PM

No s88T Brainiac. it's called a metaphor.
Bush let him attack us on 9/11, couldn't find him when we really wanted him DEAD - but Obama did kill him, didn't he? Bush couldn't get him, at least twice, on 9/11 and in Tora Bora- but Obama got him.
Obama is soooo much better than Bush Baby. Thank GOD for Obama, kept us safe from Terrorists and Great Depression. And, he had no help from Republicans.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 3:20PM

But if Bill Clinton had killed him in the 1990's Bush could never have "let" him attack the WTC and Pentagon.

It's still Clinton's fault!!!!

And weren't you going to tell us why Clinton didn't take him out?

Chirp...chirp...chirp...chirp

JD| 9.5.12 @ 12:11PM

FDR saved very few people from any soup lines, and at great cost. And Osama would be dead today regardless of who was president - Obama had no involvement beyond signing off on the final assault, if he even did that.

Purp| 9.5.12 @ 2:38PM

Wrong on both accounts. But you don't really care, do you?

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 3:21PM

So Osama would be alive if Obama weren't President?

Now why was it that Clinton didn't take out Osama?
And Mrs. Clinton Obama?

chirp...

lost| 9.5.12 @ 4:47PM

Oh thats right there were no soup lines. My grandparents must have been dreaming

TLP| 9.5.12 @ 3:20PM

He did sign off on it.

On the 4th try.

His Iranian Born Rasputin - Valerie Jarrett - had him take a Pass on the Mission 3 Times.

Gee.

I wonder why.

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 4:28PM

The electro pen was short of electricity because the wind wasn't blowing...

Patrick| 9.5.12 @ 9:43AM

Up and until yesterday, I had found absolutely no one in the media or political arena talking about this one extremely important issue..What happens when Interest Rates go back up...I found my first article on this yesterday. If Barry is re-elected and continues on his spending spree which everyone agrees is exactly what he will do, we could be looking at at least $20 Trillion if not more in debt by the end of his second term. Now when America gets downgraded again which it will with Barry at the reins, interest rates will have to go up in order to get China and company to lend to us. At a common rate of 5% interest, it will cost our Government $1 Trillion a year just in interest which is unsustainable. If Barry is re-elected we might as well sign America's death warrant.....the situation is that serious

DTOM| 9.5.12 @ 10:02AM

Patrick - then what they'll do is start the printing presses in earnest. When a loaf of bread costs $10,000,000 paying off a $20,000,000,000,000 debt is a lot easier - although don't ever plan on borrowing anything, ever again - not even a cup of sugar from Canada...then you'll see a REAL banking crisis. Make this 2008 "disaster" look like a mouse fart in a hurricane.

That's what is in store for us if Barry is re-elected..

Don't Tread On Me!!!

TLP| 9.5.12 @ 3:22PM

I was just about to write that.

Touché.

Mimi | 9.5.12 @ 10:07AM

Patrick...that is the HORROR of what the Democrats have done to this country and its future.....And the folly, They nominate him again and expect that we will go and elect him? What, and bring on our own destruction? They must know they will bring on there own demise. We will have enough on our plate to correct the folly of the past 4 years. Thank God we came across TWO financial/ PRO'S to help with the mess THE DEMS caused. I really believe they are finished after this lack of judgement and poor choice. And watch them go merrily down the road ....they don't know how to COUNT! NO MORE MONEY FOOLS you spent it all!

Who Knows?| 9.5.12 @ 11:45AM

“Ending the economic error?”

What is an error? About all one needs to know about Obama and economic errors was exposed before he won the last election, when he admitted that even though raising a tax lessened the government’s take, it was okay, because it was more “fair”. Of course, there were many other hints of socialistic tendencies--- which was no ERROR.

As always, the key divide is between order and chaos.

What you label an error seems to me to be a Democratic choice to go for disorder. Or, instead of creating and/or sustaining wealth, destroying it. Obama’s “error” is all about leveling the playing field, which certainly means cutting the rich WAY down to size!

The one part of the movie, “2016”, that stands out, was the interview with Obama’s brother. What a contrast!

There he was, in the pathetic economic basket case of Kenya, wishing the British had NOT been kicked out, but stayed around to help bring his land into the 1st world.

And, here we are in America, with his brother trying his damnedest to bring present day Kenya to this country.

That’s NO ERROR!

John II| 9.5.12 @ 12:45PM

I think this constant drumbeat about the Professor's "economic ignorance" is true enough but beside the point. It also suggests that the Professor's grotesque behavior is merely mistaken, which I don't believe is true at all.

Newt Gingrich lost all my interest in his candidacy several months ago when he remarked in passing that the Professor "is not a bad man." If he said so merely for political purposes, he was displaying cynicism. If he said so because he believed it, he was displaying moral idiocy. The only arguably decent thing for Newt to have done on that occasion is to have declined to say anything whatever about the Professor's moral compass. In any event, he lost my interest and support.

The point is, the Professor really means it when he claims that he wants to finish what he started. Yes, he knows next to nothing about economics, or about anything else outside of his fevered ego and his calculating politics--but he DOES know that what he's doing is hurting America, which he loathes with a toxic passion born of a severely disordered personal history but nurtured by his own cultivated sloth.

And he wants passionately to finish what he has started. He is a bad man.

And now back to "The Snake Pit" (1948), in which Leo Genn plays a morally alert shrink in an era when shallow psychologism was in the early stages of supplanting moral consciousness.

TLP| 9.5.12 @ 3:24PM

He IS a Bad Man.

No question.

ARBEIT MACHT FREI.

It's closer than you think.

Thom| 9.5.12 @ 7:13PM

Somewhere between the narratives that King Obama is incompetent and is doing this on purpose is almost 4 years of “data” that says convincingly that Forest Gump would have got more things right statistically speaking if he just flipped a coin with every decision. Forest Gump was a certified Moron and has a God given excuse for his behavior. Ivy League graduates have no excuses.

Thom| 9.5.12 @ 6:34PM

Having been in the “garbage in, garbage out” business for just short of 40 years and knowing the difference between “data” and “information”, I learned early on that very little of what the government publishes in statistical form can stand on its own or can be viewed as scientifically accurate. If you don’t believe in “global warming” model info you certainly shouldn’t believe anything a statistical function puts out because much of the core problems with “global warming” models relates to the assumptions they crank into them coupled with extrapolating missing data to fill out the smoothed (read fabricated) curves. The guys at the BLS don’t have to cook the books simply because the nature of the 53 different reporting regimes and the generally unreliable reporting built into that make anything they put out suspect. That’s why there are always follow up corrections….

The best indication I think there is goes beyond the approach Ross took to marry known trend data. An accurate working age census (the product of births, immigration, minus deaths and voluntary leaving “jobs”, etc) plotted against the participation rate would give some idea of what portion of the working age population is not employed under “normal” conditions. I think that “gap” is a much better indication of the state of the State… than anything the BLS can actually produce.

John Navratil| 9.5.12 @ 8:17PM

Thom,

Put another way, if you don't understand how the information was compressed you know nothing.

My personal favourite is that ice cream sales are highly correlated to the murder rate.

2blumutts| 9.5.12 @ 9:31PM

I did some research on this area, too. Glenn Beck is constantly reminding us to do our own research. Anyway, you went over the top with your background research. Excellent! Thank you! Good round of ammo, you presented for us--- for those of our friends who are still among the fuzzy-brained undecideds.

Kingofthenet| 9.6.12 @ 1:03AM

As far as the majority of the Debt, Republicans Repeat after me..."WE BUILT IT"

OKC08GT500| 9.6.12 @ 12:01PM

0maba was sent here to accomplish three objectives;(1. Destroy Israel, (2. Facilitate the establishment of a Middle East Caliphate and (3. Bankrupt America. He is now asking for four more years to finish the job.

Carroll | 9.6.12 @ 11:55PM

You can expect from King O tonight nothing but ... lies.

More Articles by Ross Kaminsky

More Articles From Special Report

Tornado Chasers

May 24, 2013 | Claire Healey

The Inoperative Jay Carney

May 23, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Disabling American Sovereignty

May 22, 2013 | Iain Murray & Geoffrey McLatchey

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

May 21, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

May 20, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/05/ending-the-economic-error

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|27 comments

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|80 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|45 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|60 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|94 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|35 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13

Jimmy Wray, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.25.13

The Spectator’s Spectacular: May 18-May 25

Patrick Ryan | 5.25.13

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.