Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama on the Economy: 'We Didn't Know How Bad It Was' (300 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Find me a single economist who stated (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loge, FG

    that the 4th q 2008 number would be revised down 5% and Mitt will give you 10K.  That's why we shouldn't read comments from intellectually challenged posters like yourself. Never again.

    There are only 2 things in life I believe about religion: There could be a God and I'm sure as heck not him.

    by Irixsh on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 05:35:59 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Truth really hurts when you have to look in the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Celtic Pugilist

      mirror.   The 4th quarter is meaningless the picture is very clear.  Incompetence breeds  incompetence.  

      •  Krugman has a blog post (0+ / 0-)

        where he reviewed what he said in Jan 2009 and acknowledged unemloyment was higher than he thought it was going to be.

        As this blog points out, Krugman underestimated unemployment
        http://consultingbyrpm.com/...
        "Suppose that we’re looking at an economy that, absent stimulus, would have an average unemployment rate of 9 percent over the next two years; this plan would cut that to 7.3 percent, which would be a help but could easily be spun by critics as a failure"
        And Krugman did a blog that reviewed his predictions that acknowledged in part that unemployment was worse than he projected in 2009

        Then you have to consider this:
        Krugman "6 Jan 2009 – Since it takes $300 billion to reduce the unemployment rate by 1 percentage point" for a year ($600 billion for the two year Recovery Act)

        What are the chances Obama could have gotten $1.387 trillion for the recovery act? Zero. No way was the GOP going to give Obama enough money to deal with the problem because if they did, their #1 objective would be lost: to defeat him in 2012.

        To over come the filibuster, after very contentious debate, etc, the Senate voted 61-36 with two abstaining to approve the Recovery Act.

        •  More spending was never the answer, the (0+ / 0-)

          fundamentals were invisible to the admin, they just did not and still do not understand basic economics.

          •  Is that why the vast, vast majority of (0+ / 0-)

            economists strongly recommended substantial stimulus spending? Because economists don't understand basic economics?

            Again, your claims don't line up with the reality of what happened.

            Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs
            http://www.usatoday.com/...

            CNN Money:
            Second stimulus not needed - survey
            August 31, 2009
            76% of respondents polled by the National Association for Business Economics say the government should cut spending over next two years.

            An increasing number of economists agree with the government's response to the recession, saying they believe the economy is on the road to recovery, according to a survey released Monday.
            http://money.cnn.com/...

    •  Jobs data in late 08 was like jumping off a (0+ / 0-)

      cliff. The country and economy had been in free fall for at least four months when Obama took over. Don't rewrite history.

      When the first stimulus didn't lower unemployment, Obama failed to propose a direct jobs program that would have cost $100 bil. and employed 3 million people. His failure to act later in 09 when Dems controlled Congress has sealed his fate today. And he might lose the election because of his failure (and Congress) to be bolder when they saw the DATA and KNEW it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site