Carly Fiorina, a Romney campaign surrogate and failed U.S. Senate candidate, argued a couple of weeks ago that the economic conditions President Obama inherited weren't that bad. By January 2009, she said, "the recession, we now know from the data, was over."
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) made a similar case yesterday, arguing that the economy was not in "free fall" when Obama took office. On the contrary, the far-right senator said, "President Obama's policies took effect ... and as a result the economy totally stalled."
Now, admittedly, I don't expect much from Johnson, but the public shouldn't forget what actually happened. Let's revisit a post from June, and look at the nation's GDP before and after "President Obama's policies." Note, once the stimulus kicked in, the economy immediately started growing.
And in this chart we see private-sector job growth before and after the stimulus. Note, once Obama's Recovery Act kicked in, job growth immediately improved. Also note how severe the job losses were when the president took office.
And here's a chart showing the Dow Jones Industrial Average before and after the stimulus. See that low point in March 2009? That's just before the stimulus kicked in.
I understand the tactic Johnson and Fiorina are using. If the public forgets just how awful conditions were when Obama took office, voters will also forget how much the economy has improved on the president's watch. It's in the interests of assorted hacks, cranks, and amnesiacs to argue that Obama wasn't really dealt that bad a hand, so there's no reason to give him credit for getting the nation on a stronger, more stable track. It's why Fiorina, with a degree of shamelessness that's slightly unnerving, claims the recession was "over" by the time Obama was inaugurated.
But for those who care at all about reality, the facts should matter. The crisis that began in late 2008 was the worst since the Great Depression. Nothing else comes close. The global economy stood on the brink of catastrophic collapse; then Obama took office; then his policies took effect; and the economy started to improve. Technically, the recession ended six months after Obama became president, which wasn't a coincidence.
Political players can and should argue about whether those policies were sufficient and what the effects would have been to alternate approaches, but the fact that the president took the lead in rescuing the economy during a once-in-a-lifetime crisis is not in dispute.
Leave a Comment:
Hi Rachel, thank you for posting these facts as always you ROCK BIG TIME GIRL!!
GO OBAMA!!! A---L---O---H---A!!!
Speaking of repetitive amnesia. President Bush was reelected because of the fear of terrorism and an irrational thinking that he was the commander-in-chief to go after the terrorists. President Obama is the commander-in-chief who actually got it done. President Bush was reelected promising tax cuts and increased defense spending would create jobs. President Obama was elected to start fixing the unprecedented damage done by Republican economic policies that don't work. Once again fear is driving an irrational reaction causing a lot of people to forget or ignore the realities that Republican economic policies don't create jobs, even though we are still facing the results of those devastating policies. If you're saying president Obama's plans haven't created enough jobs, you're acknowledging they have created jobs and therefore reelecting Pres. Obama's plans we will create more jobs. The choice is between Mitt Romney engaging in more policies that don't create jobs or president Obama engaging in more policies that do create jobs. The real fear, is that fear will once again lead to amnesia and the irrational thinking that policies which led to 9 million jobs lost, will now create jobs.
I think you have it about right, although I'd suggest Romney will use defense spending to boost employmdent, as GW used housing construction.
The basic difference between Obama and Romney is that Obama wants infrastructure improvement to recreate a strong middle class, to shoulder more of the tax burden, in order to save social programs - i.e. deficit spending by the government directly to improve roads, bridges, health care, education, etc.
Romney, on the other hand, is aiming to reduce taxes and direct deficit spending toward defense spending, via government contracting via the private sector.
Note that Romney has not said that he will REDUCE deficit spending, during his term(s), only NOT INCREASE it. Current deficit spending is at $1.1 trillion/year. Romney does not project a "balanced budget" until 2020 or 2022, AFTER his Presidency (or at the end of two terms). Sooo...he can keep his "promise" and add roughly $8 trillion more to the national debt.
That also allows Republicans to promise "privatization" of social security and medicare won't impact those 55 and over - i.e. they'll continue deficit spending for at least eight to ten years.
Promises, promises.
If you are REALLY concerned about deficit spending and the national debt, bring Ron Paul back. [I'm not...but I don't look to either Democrats or Republicans for quick fixes.]
P.S. Defense spending always appeals to Republican politicians, because it's one of the few things they understand that their base understands, they need government for. And, it's easy to regulate, cut on and off, etc. It would not surprise me to discover some day a taped conversation between a Congressperson and lobbyist for some aerospace company, with the politician requesting a new weapon system that requires x number of new jobs to build. Popular saying in the industry is that "it's always feast or famine."
What 100% red-blooded, flag-waving, patriotic American is going to turn down a request from a four star general, who says "I need this for the defense of the country?"
check the tape, during the debate last Tuesday, Mitt Romney said this while challenging the President over his 401 retirement account, Mitt" my 401 account has been in a blind trust for 8 years now" that statement may not be totally true or he has not been telling us and the Federal Election Commission the real truth, Mitt Romney told them that his 401 retirement account has been in a blind trust since 1999 which is a five year differents from what he just said in the debate. one good question is how come Mitt did not say that his 401 has been in a blind trust since 1999 like he has before.
Hmmm...questions about Mitt's finances are like a "black hole." They go in, but nothing comes out.
I think there is a high probablity that he accepted an immunity from prosecution agreement from the IRS in the 2008 to 2009 time period, over a Swiss bank account established in 2003.
And, I believe I've heard him say, on videotape, words to the effect that "blind trusts are easy to get around, you just tell the trustee what you want done."
I do know this in 2008 my wife's 401k account lost over 10,000 dollars because of the failure of Wall Street, today it is just getting back that 10,000 plus and I dont what to see it gone again
I just woke up in Oz to news of a Gallup poll putting Romney ahead by 7 points.
The thing that really pisses me is, if Romney wins, he'll benefit from the much improved economic position - which may be a springboard for good job growth etc.
Sad irony.
I wish the Dems had been much tougher years ago. How bad is it that the Dems only effective voice in Congress is Bernie Sanders - the rest are useless.
And Bernie isn't even a Dem... He is an Independent
We have a few women in Congress with some brass cojones. Barbara Boxer for one. But I do love Bernie :0)
Robert Reich, former Scty of Labor under Clinton tells us that the two greatest obstacles to economic recovery are:
1-the lack of demand caused by unemployent, underemployment and an environment where companies are hesitant to hire because of fear of the unknown. Approximately 70% of the economy is demand-driven
2-the huge disparity in wealth distribution between the top 1-5% of society who control the majority of asets, wealth, etc. Reich says that there has not been such an income/wealth disparity since the 30's prior to the Depression
Until demand is increased by more jobs and greater income equality we will not be able to shrug off the effects of the Great Recession. The problem with the economy is not due to the deficit entirely but to lack of demand. We can return to reducing the deficit once the country is generating 150-200K new jobs per month.
Yes, indeed.
Consumer demand is the basic 'job creator' - which relies on confidence to spend which relies on jobs (security).
The other 2 job creators are business capital and public spending.
All 3 are needed. The astounding idiocy of Romney saying "I'll create 12 million jobs" and then "government doesn't create jobs - job creators [the 1%] create jobs" is a classic case of getting twisted by claiming half the story.
The job creation requirements are pretty simple to explain. Beats me why the Dems have let the Repubs get away with such bull@!$%#.
right on Helena I agree totoally
What we need to see in these graphs is not just "Steve Benan, Maddow Blog", but all of the data references where he's pulling the numbers from. Otherwise, to try and convince those in the GOP bubble gives us no more evidence than when Faux News posts an incorrect graph. What is he pulling the data from? Just list it!
Carly Fiorina was horrible CEO at HP, yet got her golden parachute. She thought she could buy the Senate seat against Barbara Boxer. We sent her packing along with Meg Whitman, who spent a ton of her own money early to show us who she was.
These are former CEOs, we don't need CEOs in our politics, especially ones that cut U.S. jobs and send them elsewhere.
Rmoney-former CEO. Chief Exec Outsourcer and Caymans Elite Offshore account holder. Let's send him packing, too.
Icing on the cake: Ron Zerban takes Ryan's seat.
Yes, Fiorina was FIRED from HP, much to the delight of its stockholders and the thousands of employees she mismanaged. Now she's saying the recession was over when Obama took office, but he made it worse. Repeating, the recession was over, but he made it worse. When the recession was over, the recession started. Or, uh, it was worse than a recession, because the recession was over. It was like, uh, a zombie recession, a recession that wouldn't die. Yeah, it was really, really, bad. An Obama-un-recession.
All-in-all, an historically lame recovery, wouldn't you say? Who out there is "feeling" this recovery in their bones? Can you honestly blame the Republicans?
No need to answer these questions, just think about it before you vote.
Yeah, you should think about the fact that we were headed for a depression and not just a recession, but what has he done for you lately.
I don't understand how Carly Fiorina opinions are even considered credible. Her failure at HP - Market Value halved during her tenure as CEO - before she was asked to resign. She's #19 on the Portfolio's Worst CEOs Of All Time list. see http://www.cnbc.com/id/30502091?slide=3
You can't expect a high living standard based on a Service economy. The price
of labor here to make something competitive on the world market, no longer
exists. Even the items we do produce often involve parts made somewhere
else. Very few really want to do a hard days work. Even our prisons don't
require any real work. We have become soft and assuming. Not good survival
traits.
republican'ts get over it!!!
To be fair to Carly Fiorina, she is an expert at taking over enterprises and running them into the ground.
Responding to a question much earlier about the auto bailouts, check Democracy Now. Romney had already made millions with his investment in a hedge fund when DELCO auto parts went bankrupt. He was arguing in favor of letting Detroit go bankrupt because they were prepared to do the same thing - scoop up the company at pennies on the dollar, bust the union contracts, and outsource all the jobs to China. That is how Romney made $15 to $115 million on the DELCO bankruptcy and they were all set to do the same thing with GM. The vulture funds held the auto industry and government over the barrel with no auto parts coming unless DELCO got $12 billion of the auto bailout with no conditions. They immediate send billions on to the vulture companies and closed every US plant with union workers and sent it to China. Here is another source: The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza?page=full
Steve - would you please update the charts as much as possible and repost. I've got a crazy uncle with objections and conspiracy theories...
"... distinguishing what is real from what is merely a facsimile was boiled down to its essence by Bill Parcells, the successful, former NFL head coach with two Super Bowl rings to his credit. Coach Parcells lamented players who made excuses for poor or unacceptable performance. Those players typically attempted to rationalize their particular team’s slow start, for example, an 0-3 record out of the gate, with a proviso that the team really was 'good' and would turn it around. Coach Parcells would have none of it, however, formulating his standard response: 'You are what your record is.'
"For anyone who has played team sports, it is apparent that such a statement is unassailable. Rarely in life does reality tend to be that black and white."
Read more at
http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2012/10/distinguishing-wheat-from-chaff.html
Definitely true that although football metaphors are ridiculously popular in politics and management jargon, they have limited validity in real life.
While I love the succinctness of the graphs, other than the author, can anyone provide the source material for the data ?
You only have to watch the 47% video again and you will see Romney telling the story of
him and folks from bain visiting a factory in China and he mentioned they were looking to set up using the facility.
He also mentioned thousands of women behind barb wire and sleeping several to a room.