A remarkable admission by President Obama on the Daily
Show:
If you had told me two years ago that we’re going to be able to
stabilize the system, stabilize the stock market, stabilize the
economy, and, by the way at the end of this thing, it’ll cost less
than 1 percent of GDP where the S&L crisis two-and-a-half
percent of our entire economy — a much smaller crisis — I’d say,
we’ll take that. Because we saved the taxpayers a whole lot of
money.
It’s clear Obama considers the outcome of the bailouts one
of the bright spots of his administration, and uses this talking
point to praise his own management. But the only way that the claim
that the bailouts cost less than 1 percent of GDP could be remotely
true is if Obama is referring to Bush’s policies, not his
own.
If Obama defined the measures taken to stabilize the financial
system more broadly, he could not make the “one percent” claim,
because of the costs associated with the bailouts of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac. So he has to narrow the claim to include just TARP —
which, of course, Hank Paulson designed and Bush signed into
law.
Even on those terms, though, the claim is dubious. The financial
blogger Yves Smith
is incredulous that Obama would make such a claim:
I’m so offended by the latest Obama canard, that the financial
crisis of 2007-2008 cost less than 1% of GDP, that I barely know
where to begin. Not only does this Administration lie on a routine
basis, it doesn’t even bother to tell credible lies. .And this one
came directly from the top, not via minions. It’s not that this
misrepresentation is earth-shaking, but that it epitomizes why the
Obama Administration is well on its way to being an abject
failure.
Smith’s post includes a back-of-the-envelope accounting of the
costs of the various bailouts, with the conclusion that Obama’s
claim is impossible on its own terms.
Even more unbelievable than Obama’s willingness to embrace
Bush’s economic stewardship to make one rhetorical point is his
speed in immediately blaming Bush’s policies to make another. His
answer to a follow-up question from Jon Stewart was in this
vein:
[Stewart] If they had told you the same thing: stabilize
the banks, stabilize the Dow, unemployment will be near 10 percent,
would you have taken that deal?
[Obama] If I had the capacity to have prevented the unemployment
that happened basically before we put our economic plan into place,
obviously we would have done that. But the problem was we lost 4
million jobs before I was sworn in…most of the jobs that were
lost, were lost before the economic policies that we put in place
had any effect.
So, within two minutes, Obama takes credit for the Bush policies
that he deceitfully suggests were effective and also blames Bush’s
policies for the terrible state of the economy.
And neither Obama or Smith discussed the cost of bailing out
Fannie and Freddie which by themselves will cost much more than 1%
of GDP and probably more than the S&L crisis in real
dollars.
An appearance by a sitting president on the Daily Show is itself
a testimony to the failure of the guest to exercise everyday common
sense--to say nothing of the big whoppers the commander-in-deceit
apparently spun.
Brian B| 10.28.10 @ 1:29PM
And neither Obama or Smith discussed the cost of bailing out Fannie and Freddie which by themselves will cost much more than 1% of GDP and probably more than the S&L crisis in real dollars.
Richard| 10.28.10 @ 1:58PM
An appearance by a sitting president on the Daily Show is itself a testimony to the failure of the guest to exercise everyday common sense--to say nothing of the big whoppers the commander-in-deceit apparently spun.
AnyoneButNewt| 10.28.10 @ 3:39PM
This guy couldn't balance a checkbook, let alone the federal budget.
Alkimista| 10.28.10 @ 4:31PM
will there a ever be a president worth believing in?
David| 10.29.10 @ 7:39AM
Pres. Christie
MacDaddy| 10.29.10 @ 8:25AM
I would add Mr. Mitch Daniels to that category.
Rick Bennett| 10.29.10 @ 9:50AM
He still does not have a Federal Budget in place. How's that Bush's fault.