While accepting Donald Trump's endorsement yesterday, Mitt Romney repeated one of the central arguments of his entire candidacy: "[President Obama is] frequently telling us that he did not cause the recession, and that's true. But he made it worse."
Part of the problem with the claim is that Mitt Romney strongly disagrees with Mitt Romney. The likely Republican presidential nominee has said, consistently and frequently in recent weeks, that the U.S. economy is improving under President Obama. To be sure, the former governor doesn't believe Obama deserves credit for these developments, but Romney has nevertheless said, over and over again, that the economy is "getting better."
He can argue that the economy is better, or he can argue the economy is worse. Even Romney should realize, however, he can't argue both at the same time.
The more glaring issue is how wrong Romney -- at least yesterday's version -- has the facts wrong.
Here's a chart, for example, showing the change in private-sector job totals by month since the start of the Great Recession, with red columns showing the months when George W. Bush was president and the blue columns showing the Obama era.
And here's a chart showing private-sector job totals by year over the last two decades.
And here's a chart showing economic growth by quarter since the start of the recession.
And here's a chart showing the Dow Jones Industrial Average since Obama took office.
The question reporters might want to pose to Romney is simple; in what universe did Obama make the recession "worse"?
Leave a Comment:
You can make the argument Gov. Romney is making. He's not saying the economy is getting better and it is getting worse. He said the economy was bad and Obama made it worse. The fact that it is getting better does not deny either.
If someone spills water and then I spill water, I've made it worse. At some point the water will start to evaporate or disperse and the spill will get better.
Disagree with his conclusion but don't change his argument.
by what statistical measurement was the economy worse under obama after, say, a couple months in office? In fact, after only 5 months on the job, the recession officially ended. So, no, Romney can't argue he made it worse.
This is from the same people who have been telling us for three years that "it would have been worse if ..." is an invalid argument, right?
Good point, DC, the President has constantly said it was much worse than he expected. In essence, I know it is bad but it would have been worse had I not been President.
Steve, to answer your question directly. There are lots of ways to measure economic health. Just taking unemployment, it rose from about 8.3 to 9.9 during Obama's first year and then stayed at about 9.6-9.7 for the next year. So yea, the argument can be made, doesn't mean you have to agree with it. That was my point.
President Obama could not possibly have reversed engines in the time it took to make this mess. Please do not insult our intelligence. Steve, so glad to find you w Maddow!
That is a fair criticism Rob. Personally I think it's something Romney should be prompted to clarify...in that all candidates should be prompted to clarify (I.E. provide evidence) when they make a statement. He should have to justify, w/ empirical information, how he's concluding that Obama made the economy worse. Unless he specifically comes out and says, "He made the economy worse because he did X and here's the evidence to prove it," it's all a bunch of bullpuckey meant to scare people. But that's what all politicians do, unfortunately.
I like your idea, Mouzer. If a politician makes a claim he has to then source the evidence. I'd love to see a candidate propose it and live by it. Things like release tax returns, I believe, were brought about because someone did and it became the norm or the expectation.
You guys are idealists. Candidates are running their mouths all day in front of every microphone and camera thats shoved in their face. You can't bust out charts and graphs a la Ross Perot every time a candidate states an opinion. (I find this annoying on this board that I get challenged to post "evidence" to support my opinion when I post a contrarian viewpoint here)
Obama saying that if not for his $700B stimulus when he took office, the economy would have been worse is an opinion which can not be proved. Romney's opinion that Obama's actions or rather inactions dragged out recovery is also an opinion which of course can't be proved, however I am in this camp. Its the proverbial "is the glass half full or half empty?" Both answers are correct depending on your perspective.
RobDon Says
This is pretty good logic. The problem with Romney's statement is that he states Obama made it worse. He cannot possibly know this, no one can. He is presenting conjecture as fact. That is what is wrong with Mr. Romney's statement. It seems like Mr. Romney cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion. I do not want a President that basis his thinking and beliefs on emotion. Romney "goes with his gut." I had enough of that with Bush II.
RobDon====What???
See Rob? You wonder why I thank you so often for being the sane conservative view. Because then someone has to come on and say "what? provide evidence for something that I claim to be true? that's obnoxious!"
I'm afraid that reporters won't be raising the "Did you mean what you said today or did you mean what you said yesterday?" issues. Journalism has become infested with the notion that there are two sides to every story, even if one side is lying through their teeth. Moreover, I've found that journalism departments at universities don't really teach one of the fundamentals of the profession anymore: A reporter's job is to uncover the truth, not merely repeat what someone says and leave it at that.
Part of the problem is that the "campaign embeds" - reporters travelling with a candidate, especially at television news - tend to be very young people, a few years out of university. They may be decent reporters but they are not very good journalists who are willing and able to press candidates on the nonsense they spout during the day. It isn't until after the conventions that major media assign more senior correspondents and reporters to the campaign so all through the primaries we're at the mercy of kids who lack the experience and confidence to go after the candidates in any meaningful way.
I'm not just speculating but speaking from experience: One hundred lifetimes ago, I was one year out of university and working in television news for 11 months when I was assigned to cover a presidential campaign. I was no more capable or qualified to covering that big a story than was my dog.
c'mon Steve, you're playing dumb, or underestimating your readers intelligence: you're smart enough to understand the argument. RobDon above is right. Sure, it can be refuted, but it's not nonsense, as opposed to much else of what Romney says.
In terms of good thought process, it was worse than nonsense, it was propagating opinion as if it were fact. The problem with Romney's statement is that he states Obama made it worse. He cannot possibly know this, no one can. He is presenting conjecture as fact. That is what is wrong with Mr. Romney's statement. It seems like Mr. Romney cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion. I do not want a President that basis his thinking and beliefs on emotion. Romney "goes with his gut." I had enough of that with Bush II.
REALITY is not Willard's area of expertise
Steve, I may be reading it wrong, but maybe your second chart should say totals by year, rather than totals by month?
As a reminder, the GOP's goal is for President Obama to fail. So, when Romney and others keep repeating that President Obama made the economy worse, they're making a wish...out loud.
Not to change the subject, but I don't know if you (Rachel) have notice that Political has an opinion poll out on you. Here's the link http://www.political.com/OfferSeriesPage.aspx?g=1287e38d661b4e8a9ec2deca0065cccf&nm=01igafw2kuxjar&cct_info=4|29225|359671341|6003886806871|6003886880271|||tc||c|||&cct_ver=3&se=53
The comment above by "Robert Walker" is spam - do not click on it as it is an advertisement and not a news story or poll results!
The economy immediately started to get better after Obama's policies began to take effect so, I'm not sure what water Obama spilled to add to the puddle. I guess that's what makes it an easily refutable argument. It's going to be impossible for Mitt to win the election by arguing that the economy is getting better but not because of the president.
Mitt-stop talking. Please, just stop talking. Obama took us out of the dangerous waters we were in at the end of Bush's presidency and brought about the steep climb to where we are now, and these charts prove it.
The only thing that might possibly have some validity and still fit in with the data is that Romney, when he says "Obama made it worse," means to say something like "the recovery would have been faster except for Obama's anti-business policies." But, that would simply be an opinion, not a hypothesis, because it can't be tested.
And if that's what Mitt means, why doesn't he just say it? I guess because facts and data don't matter to Mitt. Especially telling because his business style has always been an exhaustive review of the facts before making a decision.
These Charts says everything by itself!! So, Romney is wrong! and Out of touch also!! Obama 4 more years!!
Who are you to tell Multiple Choice Mitt that he can't simultaneously hold two contradictory positions? That is what he does.
Romney says the economy has gotten better but Obama has made it worse. I wonder why he doesn't say this instead: "The economy is getting better, but it would have been a lot better if it weren't for Obama. " That would make a whole lot more sense and it would also move the argument into a whole other area, where there would not be any argument over whether the economy is better or not, and all these charts showing the economy is improving would be besides the point. It would instead be all about what Obama could have done.
Instead, Romney is desperately searching for anything Obama did to make it worse, even while he admits it is getting better. And the problem with that for Romney is that even by corrupt conservative standards, Obama has not done anything to make it worse. He hasn't raised taxes and he hasn't increased the size of the government. But Romney can't talk about anything Obama could have done to make it better because the only ways that make any sense at all are proactive and progressive, which to his audience are verboten, so much so that he's rather talk about anything else, no matter how foolish it sounds.
That's why you hear so much about "regime uncertainty." Presumably, just the very thought of some Islamofascist atheistic socialist in the White House was enough to give every Job Creator in the USA conniptions and vapors, even though the the heroic Republicans in the Senate were able to mostly keep him from rounding up all of our guns and putting every white Christian in FEMA death camps.
He can not say that because they are the party of NO, so they slowed much of what Obama tried to do. So they want to be general and not specific. I am sure what he is really saying is "Obama made it worse for the top 1%" Yeah because he pushed a few regulations in a unregulated economy when he had both congress and the senate. As far as business is concerned that makes it harder for them. Bush 2nd, actually caused the crash by deregulated everything, except 'Glass Steagall' because Clinton already took that down. He was doing the deregulation when the economy crashed. His last act for his masters the 1%. Do we feel resentful, yes we do. Common people are very regulated and have to obey so many laws.
Why would anyone chance voting in another 1% stooge of a Republican who does not want their (money purses=1%) regulated. Those people are either a open bigot or a closet bigot or out of their cotton picking mind.
P.S. No matter how much you try and make Obama look bad, he can never be as bad as a (1% whore's) that has become the Republican Candidates..So give it up, bigot's you haven't got a chance, and hate wont put a (white man) back in the presidency. I know you all you think that your race is everything, maybe it is about time you just consider yourself and everyone else human huh?
Romney and Trump. One executive gets the endorsement of another (and an orange one at that).
"The economy is getting better, but it would have been a lot better if it weren't for Obama. "
doesn't get the base motivated. Romney is a politician. Newt is a politician. Obama is a politician. Politicians all exaggerate, promise, accept bribes and lie to get elected. Yes the technical definition of a recession is 2 or more quarters of contraction and thus the recession ended after June, 09. However the 2nd half of 2009, 2010, 2011 and the first month of 2012 does not feel like a growing economy to the 8.5%+ unemployed, millions of underwater homeowners and drivers pumping $4 gas into their cars. The unemployment rate is understated because it does not include the millions of job seekers who have given up looking for work and have dropped off the unemployment roles.
Bernanke has pumped up liquidity by keeping the discount rate at an unprecedented 0% interest rate. Lowering interest rates typically gets the economy going by spurring demand from businesses to borrow money to invest in their business. However even with the discount rate at 0% this hasn't been enough. So we had QE1 and QE2 which didn't work. Even this expansion of the Fed's balance sheet of buying US debt has not moved the needle on our growth and significantly reduced unemployment. Bernanke has said that rates will stay low until 2014 while admonishing Congress yesterday that they need to reduce the debt or he will be forced to raise interest rates which will reverse any recovery.
Business has chosen not to invest and hire workers because of Obama's anti-business policies (healthcare mandate, looming higher taxes for sub-S owners, more regulations) and banks have tightened up their lending standards due to Dodd-Frank and other new financial regulations making it harder to borrow. Its nearly impossible to get a mortgage for new home let alone refinance. Does anyone believe that the creation of the Consumer Protection Agency will make it easier to get a mortgage?
So I am in the camp that any Republican nominee's policies will be more business and job friendly with if not a smaller federal government, at least a smaller rate of growth of government than what we have from the current administration.
This is great logic. It requires an assumption however. That assumption is that the President or the "government" if you will, has sufficient force to drive the economy. The economy is driven by businessmen and the billions of interconnected contracts throughout the world. Thinking that the American tax structure is sufficiently powerful to affect the worldwide contract grid is a bit naive. Compare the size of the world economy to that of the US economy to put things in perspective.
Apparently having 0% interest is not enough to spur the economy as you suggest. No argument here. Apparently the problem with hiring has nothing to do with "free money." If free money does not help business hire then tax breaks (cheaper money) will do nothing. Hey, this is YOUR logic. So, it must be the other side of the equation; there is no demand for products hence, no reason to hire. Thank you for pointing that out.
You mentioned the "price of gas." You insinuated but did not say that it was Democratic policies, or the President's policy or actions that have resulted in $4 gasoline. Hmm, I thought that is was the open "free-market" that controlled that. Do you really want any president to have the power to control that? I do not. We control a tiny percentage of the worlds oil supply. Do you really think the big oil producers give a darn about who is president in the US or which party controls congress. This is naive beyond belief.
What you say sounds reasonable to someone that does not understand how global markets work, or the comparative size of the world economies, or the construction of logical arguments. Within your own discussion you destroy your own arguments. You bring out figures and talk about the technical definition of "recession" and unemployment rate, this makes the hollow arguments sound good. I am pretty sure you "feel" that you are correct. That is the problem, you base your arguments on assumptions that "feel good" but do not stand the scrutiny of real thought. Obama's "anti-business" policies have given business the best profit margins in their lifetimes.
I find it astounding that you actually believe this nonsense that you just preached. I should not, you base your "beliefs" on emotion and what feels and sounds good and them search for facts to justify your opinions. You state opinion as fact. There is a difference. The whole point of the scientific revolution was to demonstrate that this thought process does not work. You still live in the middle ages with vast numbers of your Republican friends. You are what got us into the mess. You never learned to think. I'll stick with Obama thank you, he does.
Sincerely, Michael Gerety
"Business has chosen not to invest and hire workers because of Obama's anti-business policies...."
Empirical evidence defeats this assertion. See the attached McClatchy article:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/01/122865/regulations-taxes-arent-killing.html#ixzz1WnAbTmEQ
Second, what anti-business policies? Cutting taxes for small businesses? Accelerating the depreciation schedule? Obamacare doesn't qualify - MORE small businesses are voluntarily offering medical care to employees due to it's positive elements for them.
Ned - your article states in the beginning of your cited article: McClatchy canvassed a random sample of small business owners. Just like how statistics can be manipulated to support your point, a random sample i.e. small sample of rural inn owners is not empirical evidence, rather its anecdotal. Any cub reporter with an agenda or slant to get their story published to generate cash can cite any anecdotes it wants to support his story.
Michael - First off lets dispense with the name calling and insults. I am trying to have an intelligent debate or push back of the one sided narrative here. Comments such as "You still live in the middle ages with vast numbers of your Republican friends. You are what got us into the mess." is insulting, hyperbolic and broad brushed. Are Dems blameless for "what got us into the mess"?
My comment was a pushback to Steve's narrative that the economy is doing well as evidenced by the graphs to show that the economy has expanded since 6/09 and unemployment is down. So hip, hip, hurray, good times are here!!! I think most folks will agree that we are NOT in an expansion economy, notwithstanding Steve's charts and graphs.
My insinuation about $4 gas is that this administration does not have an Energy Policy. It delayed a decision of the Keystone pipeline until 2013 even though a big part of Obama's base, Labor is demanding approval of the pipeline to increase jobs. Is the delay til 2013, so that he can approve this after he gets reelected so as to not face the wrath of the greenies today? Obama's DOE has approved billions of loan guaranties to now defunct companies such as Solyndra, however he doesn't do a thing about encouraging natural gas drilling and the conversion of diesel engines to burn natural gas. North America has enough petro, coal and natural gas to not have rely on middle east oil. Opening up more federal lands for exploration and production will not only increase jobs but lower our energy costs.
Obama came out swinging against business as soon as he took office. He got his stimulus, figured that was enough to right the economy and spent the next 2 years pushing his agenda which was primarily healthcare. Then after 3 years he plaintively asks businesses "why don't you hire more?" Obama has no clue as to how the economy and businesses work. Larry Summers has admitted that just the Stimulus alone was not enough to get the economy going. Obama as a community organizer, state senator and junior senator has never managed any organization or budget. His policies have reflected this - expanding the role and size of government, increase the scope of financial regulations, stay mute on any sort of energy policy for fear of alienating the environmental wing of his party. His ineptitude of negotiating with the opposition party has been demonstrated and bemoaned by bloggers on this board.
So yes I disagree with Obama's policies and will not vote for him in the fall - thats my feeling.
Careful. Bush (dad) claimed recession was over on the campaign trial, and lost to Clinton. Technically, he was right--but jobs lagged and people certainly didn't feel that everything was fine.
The job situation is getting better, but it certainly isn't great. Income levels have not improved, and most people's major investment, their house, isn't doing so well. Not to mention that Wall Street doing great isn't a lot of comfort to those losing their pensions.
We stopped the bleeding, did the surgery, now we have to make sure the patient takes the medicine (Wall Street reform), and finishes rehab. We're getting better, but there's still a ways to go.
Question
from Germany
:
How is it possible
for Mitt Romneys dad to run for president when he was born in Mexico?