NY Times chart showcases Obama recovery failure

This chart made the front page of the New York Times and was also picked up by weekend talk shows. It vividly shows how Obama’s recovery is amongst the worst when compared to other economic recoveries. Link here.

Share
  • JSSmith210

    So, it’s Bush’s fault, right?  Then how come it started making a recovery only to drop again about 15 months ago?  Bush wasn’t in office in June 2009…

    • JSSmith210

      Sorry; make that June /2010/…

  • Bob Clark

    Bama’s job creator ideas include extending unemployment compensation, encouraging folks to stay unemployed.  Then there’s spending more money on bureaucracies like the department of energy and food stamps.  This year he jokes:  “I guess shovel ready wasn’t so shovel ready.”

    This week Bama allows his federal housing authority to sue banks for the mortgage mess, just after he spends hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out these same banks in the year 2009.  I guess having help get the banks almost back on their feet so they can’t start lending, he now wants to put them back on the deck and prolong the down turn in home lending.

    This guy is an economic train wreck, and this was obvious to me and others even before he was nominated by the Democrat Party in 2008.

    • just doing the math

      I have to respond. I really hate to burst your bubble, you seem like a
      nice person, but do you even do something basic as watch TV? Do you not
      see the thousands of people who want to work, standing in line for hours
      wanting a job? My son, who is working part time washing cars does not even
      know what a job benefit package consists of, because he has no benefits.
      He is in an engineering program and has been told there are no jobs in
      this profession. (now wasn’t there a summit just recently in Portland
      with business leaders, including Intel complaining about the lack of
      engineering students? Those of us in the profession know better, there
      are a lot of local engineers on the market, it is just the expansion
      of the visa program that is their true goal.)

      This continuing “train wreck” we call the US economy is the result of
      corporations sitting on trillions of dollars of cash as they play the
      government blame game. Anybody with a brain knows politicians
      are unable to craft solutions for our ailing economy. Corporations
      can afford to hire. They squeeze every last bit of profit they can
      from their existing, overworked and resentful employees, hoard their
      cash, blame the government; the end result is our continuing “train
      wreck” of an economy. Hire the unemployed, who, I know this is
      a difficult concept for conservatives to grasp, really do want a job.

      • Mairez

        If government wouldn’t so over-regulate the business climate, megacorporations like Intel could develop business models that would allow them to hire more people, instead of importing them or hiring temporary workers (who don’t get benefits).

        • Anonymous

          “Regulations, taxes aren’t killing small business, owners say”By Kevin G. Hall, McClatchy Newspapershttps://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/01/122865/regulations-taxes-arent-killing.htmlSept 1, 2011

  • valley person

    The chart seems to show a much deeper hole than the previous recessions, so its logical it would take longer to dig out from a deeper hole.

    Nevertheless, we had pretty good job gains right up until shortly after the new Republican Congress took charge and started cutting spending and preventing more government stimulus. Coincidence? I don’t think so. Businesses lack customers, and customers lack money, so do the math. The government has to get more money in people’s hands or we stay stuck. Of course, staying stuck is what the Republican party now wants because that is their best hope for getting the presidency back.

    Obama will be unable to shake money loose from this Congress. For better or worse its now a Republican led economy. Probably worse.  

    • Anonymous

      Oh what a hoot…Obama dug the hole deeper so he should get more time to get us out of the hole…besides it’s the freaking Republicans fault anyway. When are you libtards going to face the music…you have screwed up the economy and the only way to fix it is to cut taxes and spending…period. Obozo’s stimulus programs have been a complete and utter bust…it’s time to let the other side come in and do its magic.

      • Whatev

        The other side’s “magic” is what got us here in the first place.

        • Anonymous

          Yes, you’re right and then we unfortunately elected Obozo and he took things to new depths.

      • valley person

        He didn’t dig it deeper. It hasn’t gotten deeper at all since he put his policies in place. We have climbed part way out. But not as far out or as fast out as we all would like.

        Bush had 8 years to dig the hole. Obama has had 2 to climb out of it. When will you so-called conservatives recognize that going back to Bush era policies is not going to help?

        The stimulus program saved about 2 plus million jobs according to the CBO. These have been largely offset by state and local layoffs of public employees.  The other side is already in Joel. They control spending by controlling the House. Since they have been in, the economy has stagnated. Coincidence?

        • Anonymous

          Can I have some of what you’re smoking? Obviously it helps you ignore what a disaster Obozo has been.

          • valley person

            No, that is my private stash. But you can have some facts. 

            The CBO’s latest report says that during the second quarter of this
            year, the  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) raised
            the inflation-adjusted Gross Domestic product by between 0.8 percent
            and 2.5 percent; lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.5 percentage
            points and 1.6 percentage points; and increased the number of people
            who are employed by between one million and 2.9 million, compared with
            what would have occurred without the law.

            Without the program in
            place, real GDP would have increased by substantially less than the 1.3 percent annual rate reported by the government in the second
            quarter of this year; the 9.1 percent unemployment rate may have gone as
            high as 10.7 percent; and there might have been as many as 2.9 million
            fewer employed Americans than the 131.2 million reported by the Labor
            Department in July.

            In other words Joel, the most respected neutral analyst in the nation on economic policy says the Stimulus worked. And the fact is GDP has been growing since mid 2009. So you don’t need to smoke anything. You only need to accept reality.

          • Anonymous

            Quote the CBO if you wish but remember how horribly wrong they got Obamacare. They’re almost as bad as Obozo’s budget crunchers. You must be smoking your sweat socks.

          • Ardbeg

            Joe, I would politely request you and many of the other contributors on this blog refer to the President as “president Obama or just Obama” Lets discuss policy and position.  Sometimes we vote for the guy who wins and sometimes not.  Either way he is still the president of our country.  I don’t recall anyone calling Bush names or anyone else for that matter.  Thank you.

          • Greta

            Here you go: Dubya, Bushie, Shrub, Chimp, Smirky, Bushitler, Chickenhawk One,
            Hitlerburton, Chimpowitz, Rove’s Puppet, Cowboy Hitlerstein, AWOL
            McPsycho, Bushollini, Cheney’s Sock Puppet, Chimpy McDrunkard, Darth
            Moron, Toxic Texan, Dim Son, Drinky McCokeSpoon, Emperor Chimpatine,
            Fearful Leader, Herr Bush, Moron-in-Chief, and Satan’s Monkey

          • Ardbeg

            I’ve heard of Dudya but the rest?  Also, I never took it as disrespectful, just differentiating the older from the younger.  Regardless, leave the name calling to the kindergartners and act like an adult is all I’m saying.  People can choose not too but I’ll still politely ask for maturity.  Thanks

          • just doing the math

            Thank you. I have noticed on this site
            how much name calling there is by the
            conservative posters. If the more moderate
            posters express an opinion, we are called
            “libtards”

          • just doing the math

            Thank you. I have noticed on this site
            how much name calling there is by the
            conservative posters. If the more moderate
            posters express an opinion, we are called
            “libtards”

          • valley person

            When people can’t make an argument on its merits, they call their opposition names. Its an old story. 10 year old behavior. 

          • valley person

            If I wish? They are the best, most neutral arbiters of government policies. Ignoring them says a lot about your own limitations, not theirs. 

          • Anonymous

            The best? The CBO totally screwed up its estimates on Obamacare…and you call them the best? If the CBO is the best we have to offer, then we are in really bad shape. It’s no wonder the government was unable to see Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac coming. I choose to ignore them because they get things wrong. Yeah, I hope that says  something about me.

          • the real valley person

            Yes, it says plenty about you. 

          • Anonymous

            Yes, it says a lot…but primarily that I’m not about to be duped by a bunch of libtrad crap.

          • just doing the math

            I’m sorry, but don’t you mean “libtards”? You cannot
            even get your name calling correct.

          • Anonymous

            I’m not going to be duped by any crap…libtrad or libtard…and especially by the kind of crap you’re leaving here.

          • just doing the math

            You are just angry
            and old.

          • Dean Apostol is a LOSER

            The thing about the CBO is that they make calculations based on the data and assumptions handed them.  If they are handed fictitious data and assumptions, they produce results that do not match reality.  They didn’t screw up their estimates on Obamacare, they produced conclusions based on falsified data and ridiculous assumptions.

          • Anonymous

            Regardless of how they reached the assumption…it is bogus. If the bogus assumption is the result of bogus data…then it is the result of bogus data.

    • JSSMith210

      Excuse me, but that sharp fall-off was in June 2010 – the Democrats still had super-majorities in both the House and Senate.  How do you figure the Republicans were the blame for that?

      • valley person

        It wasn’t a sharp fall off. It was a slower recovery.

      • Anonymous

        You’re dealing with libtard math here. You know, demand an outrageous increase in the budget,then when you get a smaller increase whine because you got your budget cut.

        • valley person

          No, you are dealing with math. Math is neither liberal nor conservative. Its completely neutral.  US GDP declined from mid 2008 until mid 2009. The recovery coincided almost exactly with when the Obama stimulus went into effect, It has been climbing steadily but slowly ever since mid 2009.

          https://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=353

          • Anonymous

            Yeah, you’d like us to believe there’s no such thing as libtard math. I cited one little way the libtards mess with the numbers. You may have heard the expression, figures lie and liberals figure.

          • the real valley person

            You “cited” something? Wrong Joel. You opined about something. Citing something means you referenced a fact. Stating an opinion is not referencing a fact.

            The facts are:
            1) the economy was sluggish under Bush for most of his 2 terms, despite his tax cuts and anti-regulatory administration
            2)  At the end of his second term the economy imploded, and sank faster and deeper than at any time since Hoover
            3) The economy began growing again midway through Obama’s first term, after his stimulus went into effect
            4) It has been growing, albeit slowly, ever since
            5) The CBO says the stimulus was the difference between what little growth we had and a prolonged recession
            6) Economic growth has slowed since the Tea Party took over the House, and has focused on cutting the budget

            Those are all mathematical facts.

            Now for an opinion. Republicans have no answer to this economy. Cutting the  budget further, deregulating (what exactly?) and further tax cutting will not do a single thing for this economy. Won’t create a single above minimum wage job. It was all tried by Bush and failed. You guys need a new trick.  

          • Anonymous

            Well RVP, it’s clear to see you don’t know facts from the liberals lies you espouse. So long as you refuse to see the facts you can’t be reasoned with. 

            I never said Bush was the be all and end all. Fact is, I re-registered as an independent rather than be a Republican under GW Bush. So quit your bitching about Bush. Bush was only slightly better than Obozo…but then Obozo is the worst president ever.

          • the real valley person

            Which of the 6 facts I listed do you disagree with? It sounds like you may agree with numbers 1 and 2. From your previous rants we can perhaps agree on 5 as factual but not relevant to you since you don’t think the CBO is a reputable source.

            How about the rest? has the economy been growing since mid 2009 or not? Has it slowed down since the Tea Party took office or not?

          • Anonymous

            Gee,it’s so nice of you to decide what I agree with…it saves me so much time.

            The economy was crappy under Bush because he didn’t know the meaning of the word restraint. Obozo, of course, likes to spend even more than GW Bush did. At the beginning of Bush’s second term the economy imploded when the Democrats took over the Congress…which according to you is what’s important since you insist on blaming the Tea Party for Obozo’s economic collapse.

            Yes, the economy rebounded midway in Obozo’s term…of course he had run the economy so far down the only way it could go was up. And yes, the economy has been growing slowly…so slow, in fact, it’s unnoticeable. 

            And my comment about the CBO’s reading of Obamacare is far from a rant…it’s something you don’t understand called the TRUTH!

          • the real valley person

            So you just said the economy was crappy under Bush. That means you agreed.

            The economy did not “implode” at the beginning of Bush’s second term. It imploded the last year of his 2nd term (FACT), and yes, after the dems won a majority in Congress (FACT). But as fate would have it, the housing bubble burst just as they took their seats (FACT), so they can’t logically be blamed for that. Not the case with the Tea Party. When they took their seats last January, the economy was growing In the 5 quarters prior to the Tea Party ascendancy, the GDP grew at 2 to 5% per quarter, averaging about 3% (FACT). Since the Tea Party took office, growth has slowed to just under 1% (FACT). No implosion, just slowing.

             Why? What has the Tea Party done or not done different than what Obama did or did not do? Only one thing. They cut spending, and stopped further increase in spending.  Consistent with what Keynesian economics would predict, they negated the ability of government to offset the under utilization of labor and capital. And they seem to have proved Keynes right by succeeding at slowing the economy (OPINION).

            OK, so you agree with my fact number 3. Good. Though how you figure that Obama ran the economy down defies logic, since he only took office 6 months prior (FACT), and his only 2 economic acts to that point were the stimulus and auto bailouts (FACT), both of which only went into effect right about when the economy started improving (FACT). So how did he manage to run things down in his first 6 months?

            The unnoticeable slow, as I just pointed out, has been the last 2 quarters, since the Tea Party took office. Growth was quite noticeable prior to that point. We were adding about 100,000 private sector jobs a month.

            Your opinion abut the CBO is just that, an opinion. Truth is sometimes coincident with opinion. More often not. But that is just my opinion. 

          • Anonymous

            Funny how you want it both ways. When the economy goes down, it’s the fault of the Republican Congress but when the economy goes down don’t blame the Democrat Congress. Hilarious…if it weren’t such a tragedy. Oh well, we’ll get to correct things in November 2012 by getting rid of Obozo and the Democrat Senate.

          • just doing the math

            Actually, that will not happen as the
            Republicans in Congress have a higher
            unfavorable rating than Obama. So
            don’t get to confident.

            “Republicans also have lost ground against Obama in trust to handle the economy. In June they held a numerical edge, 45-42 percent. Since then preference for the GOP has dropped by 6 points, to 39 percent, while Obama has held steady at 42 percent. Likewise what in June had been an 8-point GOP advantage in trust to handle the deficit has shrunk to 3 points, 42 vs. 39 percent, now.”
            ABC NewsWashington Post Poll.Sept. 6, 2011

          • Anonymous

            Amazing…in another comment you criticize me for a typo, yet you screw up the language by saying “don’t get TO confident.” Well, jerk, it should be TOO confident. So, if you can’t get the language right don’t be smuggly correcting my typos.

            And what does a public opinion poll have to do with the facts? RVP was trying to have it both ways to his favor. I correctly called him on it. It has nothing to do with what respondents to a poll think. Get a clue.

          • just doing the math

            Earth to Joel,
            I was refering
            to your name calling.
            You are unable to
            make a point without
            including name calling.
            Like I wrote above, you
            are just angry and old.

  • Reper

    I do not know if this comparison is fair because this recession is deeper,
    where is the chart that compares us to the great depression?

    • JSSmith210

      That’s a valid question, and I think it could be valuable.  However, for now allow me to point out the drop-off took place between mid-2008 and early 2010.  That’s the same period of time as all the stimulus packages – including Bush’s – and corporate bailouts; nothing stopped the slide.  Prior to mid-2008 – when the first stimulus package went into effect -the economy was on track to match those 1981, 1990 and 2000.  It’s hard to argue that’s just a coincidence.

      As it happens, the same sort of efforts took place in the early years of the Great Depression as well.  I suspect a graph including it would show a remarkable similarity to this one.  We’ve tried this sort of economic policy before and it’s failed then, too.

      • valley person

        The drop off was between early 2008, after the housing bubble had fully burst, and mid 2009, when the Obama stimulus began.   The slide was mostly stopped by the TARP program. Without it credit would have been locked up tight and many more businesses would have had to pay people off. In mid 2008 Lehman went ass over teakettle, which is what started the investment bank dominos toppling.

        The early years of the Great Depression were for the most part an era of government doing nothing, even tightening the money supply. Basically the government did then what Republicans are advocating today. Less spending, tighter credit, tighten all the belts, liquidate everything and everyone until you get down to nearly nothing. 

    • the real valley person

      I don’t want it any particular way. I’m saying if one is looking for a correlation to be a plausible causation, then one needs to pay attention to when one event happened related to another event. The Dems took office AFTER the housing bubble burst. In the 6 years during which the bubble inflated, the Republicans had control of Congress and the presidency. when the Republican/Tea Party took control last January, the economy was still growing reasonably well. It has gone down since.  Draw your own conclusions from those facts.

      As for the election, we will see. The only entities way below Obama in favorability are the Tea and Republican parties. Maybe people will want to elect them, and maybe not.

  • IwantPerry

    Everything this guy has tried to do has been weak. What is the surprise?

  • Rupert in Springfield

    The point here is none of this is a surprise. Obama was told at the outset the stimulus trickled out money too slowly. Robert Reich said it, Larry Kudlow said it, everyone warned him. He didn’t listen and got the predicted results, a stimulus few regard as a success and for which new statistics, jobs saved, have to be invented to justify it at all. The BO saddled the economy with a massive new entitlement, Obamacare. As predicted by virtually everyone it dragged the economy down. I stated right here on this blog business would go on strike and refuse to hire. I got accused of going John Galt. Well, John Galt is here. All that cash business is sitting on? That’s the result of refusing to hire until they know the costs. John Galt is here.

    • valley person

      John Galt is here? Businesses are “on strike?” On what planet? They are hiring plenty…overseas.  How is the economy being dragged down by a health care program that is not even up and running yet?

      • Rupert in Springfield

        Sorry my writing was so unclear. I would usually assume in a post about the national economy the reader would take the word “here” to mean the USA, not overseas, nearby planets, various galactic nebulae or the trans dimensional sense of the word.

        To clear the record I use the word “here” to mean within the USA, and by within the USA I mean “here” in this time period and current dimension. Obviously “here” would not cover business hiring overseas to escape the economic climate of “here” that “here” being the USA, current time/dimension.

        Got it now?

        Can you please not belabor the obvious in an attempt to be clever. “Here” is a fairly easy to understand word and feigning confusion that “here” encompasses the entire planet is utterly idiotic I wish you would finally once and for all realize it does not make you look at all clever. It makes you look like a fool.

        • the real valley person

          Only you used the word “here” as in “right here on this blog.” I assumed you didn’t mean corporations were supposed to increase the number of paid bloggers on Catalyst. 

          But you still didn’t bother to explain. How is the economy being dragged down by a health care bill that hasn’t gone into effect yet?

          • Rupert in Springfield

            So you have no idea how legislation that is extremely likely to raise the cost of employees in the future might make business think twice about hiring in the present or outsource overseas as an alternative?

            You seriously have no clue as to why that might be?

            Seriously?

          • the real valley person

            Companies that already provide comprehensive health insurance benefits will probably be paying less with Obamacare than without, since it includes cost saving provisions and larger pooling. MacDonalds, one of the companies that will see costs go up because their insurance will have to be improved, just hired 60,000 new employees, which sort of negates your premise doesn’t it? And has Wallmart stopped hiring? I don’t think so.   

            Sure, raising the cost of doing business here probably drives some jobs overseas, especially labor intensive manufacturing that is export oriented. Free trade agreements make that move easier. But are you arguing that our wage and benefit and regulatory structure should be lowered to match China and India?  If not, what then?

            And no, I don’t think companies avoid hiring today because of what their costs might be 2 or 3 years in the future. I don’t know anyone who does business like that. They hire today to produce goods or services in demand today or the near future. Businesses, including I suspect your own, typically staff up based on a 6 month to 1 year backlog.  I don’t know of a single business that would fail to fill orders today out of fear of what the extra employee needed ot do so might cost 2 years from now. Do you? If they do they are throwing away market share. Which is more risky, letting a competitor have part of your market or hiring additional staff you can always lay off later if things tail off?

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >MacDonalds, one of the companies that will see costs go up because their
            insurance will have to be improved, just hired 60,000 new employees,
            which sort of negates your premise doesn’t it?

            McDonalds was one of the lucky companies that got a waiver from BO care at the time of that hire back in April.

            Congratulations, you have just shot down your own argument. It is rare that your obliviousness leads to such a concise defeat, but here you have excelled.

            How in the world could you have been such a boob as to pick this example?

            >And no, I don’t think companies avoid hiring today because of what their costs might be 2 or 3 years in the future.

            You might not think it, but you are probably the only one.

            Companies put a lot of effort into outsourcing or relocating to overseas or right to work states specifically to avoid overly high labor costs. You are probably unaware of this, but it takes quite a while to set up an assembly plant for an iPhone China or a Boeing jet in South Carolina. 2 or 3 years to move overseas or build a plant in a right to work state would be not at all an uncommon time frame.

            Your point here really is ridiculous, and you could have avoided such an absurd assertion with simply a moments thought. I will advise you once again to please think for a moment or two before making such obviously ridiculous assertions.

          • the real valley person

            Congratulations yourself. The Macdonalds waiver was short term, not long term. Which shoots down your argument that companies won’t hire now because of possible cost increases later on. 

            “You might not think it, but you are probably the only one.”

            No, I’m not the only one. Most businesses make hiring decisions primarily on 6-12 month projections added to current demand and their productive capacity of the moment. If they need to add capacity to meet market demand and increase their profits, they do so unless they want to stay small for other reasons. The link below is to Forbes Magazine for God’s sake, and agrees with me, not you.

             https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2011/09/03/why-do-companies-hire/

            The unemployment rate in right to work states is as high or higher than in unionized states. Look it up. We’ve been here before. But yes, some companies follow the cheapest labor they can find. I said that. And companies that set up long term manufacturing facilities do so based on long term projections. But the Boeings of the world are very rare. Most modern manufacturing plants are cheaply built, here today and gone tomorrow.

            My point is that your point is ridiculous. You provided absolutely nothing to back up your claim that companies are not hiring today due to potential costs of Obamacare tomorrow. Its nothing more than an assertion absent fact, as usual.  The companies that are hiring today do so to make money today and tomorrow. They don’t factor in an unknown, the cost of Obamacare to them, 3 or 4 years down the road.

          • Ardbeg

            Don’t worry, he’ll be back for another schoolin in the next post

          • the real valley person

            I know. I want to send him a bill. 

          • 3H

            LOL.. you mean like in the way you check your facts? You know, like the one where you claimed John McCain lead the Republican field the entire during the primaries?  So, did that make you a boob?

      • Rupert in Springfield

        Sorry my writing was so unclear. I would usually assume in a post about the national economy the reader would take the word “here” to mean the USA, not overseas, nearby planets, various galactic nebulae or the trans dimensional sense of the word.

        To clear the record I use the word “here” to mean within the USA, and by within the USA I mean “here” in this time period and current dimension. Obviously “here” would not cover business hiring overseas to escape the economic climate of “here” that “here” being the USA, current time/dimension.

        Got it now?

        Can you please not belabor the obvious in an attempt to be clever. “Here” is a fairly easy to understand word and feigning confusion that “here” encompasses the entire planet is utterly idiotic I wish you would finally once and for all realize it does not make you look at all clever. It makes you look like a fool.

    • Anonymous

      Many economists, including Paul Krugman and Robert Reich, called for a much bigger stimulus — at least 3 times what it was.