Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Republicans are always wrong:
The Obama Boom
Do you remember the “Bush boom”? Probably not. Anyway, the administration of George W. Bush began its tenure with a recession, followed by an extended “jobless recovery.” By the summer of 2003, however, the economy began adding jobs again. The pace of job creation wasn’t anything special by historical standards, but conservatives insisted that the job gains after that trough represented a huge triumph, a vindication of the Bush tax cuts.
So what should we say about the Obama job record? Private-sector employment — the relevant number, as I’ll explain in a minute — hit its low point in February 2010. Since then we’ve gained 14 million jobs, a figure that startled even me, roughly double the number of jobs added during the supposed Bush boom before it turned into the Great Recession. If that was a boom, this expansion, capped by last month’s really good report, outbooms it by a wide margin.
Does President Obama deserve credit for these gains? No. In general, presidents and their policies matter much less for the economy’s performance than most people imagine. Times of crisis are an exception, and the Obama stimulus plan enacted in 2009 made a big positive difference. But that stimulus faded out fast after 2010, and has very little to do with the economy’s current situation.
The point, however, is that politicians and pundits, especially on the right, constantly insist that presidential policies matter a lot. And Mr. Obama, in particular, has been attacked at every stage of his presidency for policies that his critics allege are “job-killing” — the former House speaker, John Boehner, once used the phrase seven times in less than 14 minutes. So the fact that the Obama job record is as good as it is tells you something about the validity of those attacks.
What did Mr. Obama do that was supposed to kill jobs? Quite a lot, actually. He signed the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform, which critics claimed would crush employment by starving businesses of capital. He raised taxes on high incomes, especially at the very top, where average tax rates rose by about six and a half percentage points after 2012, a step that critics claimed would destroy incentives. And he enacted a health reform that went into full effect in 2014, amid claims that it would have catastrophic effects on employment.
Yet none of the dire predicted consequences of these policies have materialized. It’s not just that overall job creation in the private sector — which was what Mr. Obama was supposedly killing — has been strong. More detailed examinations of labor markets also show no evidence of predicted ill effects. For example, there’s no evidence that Obamacare led to a shift from full-time to part-time work, and no evidence that the expansion of Medicaid led to large reductions in labor supply.
So what do we learn from this impressive failure to fail? That the conservative economic orthodoxy dominating the Republican Party is very, very wrong.
*snip*
More at the link.
Republicans are always wrong:
The Obama Boom
Do you remember the “Bush boom”? Probably not. Anyway, the administration of George W. Bush began its tenure with a recession, followed by an extended “jobless recovery.” By the summer of 2003, however, the economy began adding jobs again. The pace of job creation wasn’t anything special by historical standards, but conservatives insisted that the job gains after that trough represented a huge triumph, a vindication of the Bush tax cuts.
So what should we say about the Obama job record? Private-sector employment — the relevant number, as I’ll explain in a minute — hit its low point in February 2010. Since then we’ve gained 14 million jobs, a figure that startled even me, roughly double the number of jobs added during the supposed Bush boom before it turned into the Great Recession. If that was a boom, this expansion, capped by last month’s really good report, outbooms it by a wide margin.
Does President Obama deserve credit for these gains? No. In general, presidents and their policies matter much less for the economy’s performance than most people imagine. Times of crisis are an exception, and the Obama stimulus plan enacted in 2009 made a big positive difference. But that stimulus faded out fast after 2010, and has very little to do with the economy’s current situation.
The point, however, is that politicians and pundits, especially on the right, constantly insist that presidential policies matter a lot. And Mr. Obama, in particular, has been attacked at every stage of his presidency for policies that his critics allege are “job-killing” — the former House speaker, John Boehner, once used the phrase seven times in less than 14 minutes. So the fact that the Obama job record is as good as it is tells you something about the validity of those attacks.
What did Mr. Obama do that was supposed to kill jobs? Quite a lot, actually. He signed the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform, which critics claimed would crush employment by starving businesses of capital. He raised taxes on high incomes, especially at the very top, where average tax rates rose by about six and a half percentage points after 2012, a step that critics claimed would destroy incentives. And he enacted a health reform that went into full effect in 2014, amid claims that it would have catastrophic effects on employment.
Yet none of the dire predicted consequences of these policies have materialized. It’s not just that overall job creation in the private sector — which was what Mr. Obama was supposedly killing — has been strong. More detailed examinations of labor markets also show no evidence of predicted ill effects. For example, there’s no evidence that Obamacare led to a shift from full-time to part-time work, and no evidence that the expansion of Medicaid led to large reductions in labor supply.
So what do we learn from this impressive failure to fail? That the conservative economic orthodoxy dominating the Republican Party is very, very wrong.
*snip*
More at the link.
And they are running on the idea "let us try it again".
Great post and sticks a dagger in the heart of modern conservatism. It pulls back the curtain on the litany of phoney CLAIMS by conservatives that they know economic policy.
The in fact know the opposite. They know how to pull the rug out from under the economy and how to increase the national debt by trillions. THEN they blame it on someone else.
They are children.
Republicans are always wrong:
The Obama Boom
Do you remember the “Bush boom”? Probably not. Anyway, the administration of George W. Bush began its tenure with a recession, followed by an extended “jobless recovery.” By the summer of 2003, however, the economy began adding jobs again. The pace of job creation wasn’t anything special by historical standards, but conservatives insisted that the job gains after that trough represented a huge triumph, a vindication of the Bush tax cuts.
So what should we say about the Obama job record? Private-sector employment — the relevant number, as I’ll explain in a minute — hit its low point in February 2010. Since then we’ve gained 14 million jobs, a figure that startled even me, roughly double the number of jobs added during the supposed Bush boom before it turned into the Great Recession. If that was a boom, this expansion, capped by last month’s really good report, outbooms it by a wide margin.
Does President Obama deserve credit for these gains? No. In general, presidents and their policies matter much less for the economy’s performance than most people imagine. Times of crisis are an exception, and the Obama stimulus plan enacted in 2009 made a big positive difference. But that stimulus faded out fast after 2010, and has very little to do with the economy’s current situation.
The point, however, is that politicians and pundits, especially on the right, constantly insist that presidential policies matter a lot. And Mr. Obama, in particular, has been attacked at every stage of his presidency for policies that his critics allege are “job-killing” — the former House speaker, John Boehner, once used the phrase seven times in less than 14 minutes. So the fact that the Obama job record is as good as it is tells you something about the validity of those attacks.
What did Mr. Obama do that was supposed to kill jobs? Quite a lot, actually. He signed the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform, which critics claimed would crush employment by starving businesses of capital. He raised taxes on high incomes, especially at the very top, where average tax rates rose by about six and a half percentage points after 2012, a step that critics claimed would destroy incentives. And he enacted a health reform that went into full effect in 2014, amid claims that it would have catastrophic effects on employment.
Yet none of the dire predicted consequences of these policies have materialized. It’s not just that overall job creation in the private sector — which was what Mr. Obama was supposedly killing — has been strong. More detailed examinations of labor markets also show no evidence of predicted ill effects. For example, there’s no evidence that Obamacare led to a shift from full-time to part-time work, and no evidence that the expansion of Medicaid led to large reductions in labor supply.
So what do we learn from this impressive failure to fail? That the conservative economic orthodoxy dominating the Republican Party is very, very wrong.
*snip*
More at the link.
And they are running on the idea "let us try it again".
Great post and sticks a dagger in the heart of modern conservatism. It pulls back the curtain on the litany of phoney CLAIMS by conservatives that they know economic policy.
The in fact know the opposite. They know how to pull the rug out from under the economy and how to increase the national debt by trillions. THEN they blame it on someone else.
They are children.
It's interesting to note, Isaac...that even in ultra liberal States like Massachusetts the electorate regularly elects Republican Governors to fix their debt problems. They do so, quite obviously, because conservatives actually understand what it takes to reduce debt and you progressives don't!
I know that's a reality that you don't want to admit...but that doesn't make any less a reality!
Yes. Either the actions of the Congress result in an increase/decrease in jobs or they do not.Do you think you've made some sort of point here?I suppose you are going to tell me that not allowing the completion of the XL pipeline didn't kill any jobs.
Congress doesnt create jobs.
...and scene!
You wingnuts go talk it over and come to some sort of consensus.
COngress would nt create jobs. The companies building the pipeline would have created those jobs. That's the wonder of it. No government funding whatsoever. But Obama killed it. Because he hates American jobs.Yes. Either the actions of the Congress result in an increase/decrease in jobs or they do not.Do you think you've made some sort of point here?I suppose you are going to tell me that not allowing the completion of the XL pipeline didn't kill any jobs.
Congress doesnt create jobs.
...and scene!
You wingnuts go talk it over and come to some sort of consensus.
Congress passed the XL Keystone pipeline bill that would have created jobs that would have created jobs. There is no question that it would have created jobs. Obama vetoed it.
COngress would nt create jobs. The companies building the pipeline would have created those jobs. That's the wonder of it. No government funding whatsoever. But Obama killed it. Because he hates American jobs.Yes. Either the actions of the Congress result in an increase/decrease in jobs or they do not.Do you think you've made some sort of point here?I suppose you are going to tell me that not allowing the completion of the XL pipeline didn't kill any jobs.
Congress doesnt create jobs.
...and scene!
You wingnuts go talk it over and come to some sort of consensus.
Congress passed the XL Keystone pipeline bill that would have created jobs that would have created jobs. There is no question that it would have created jobs. Obama vetoed it.
And if Congress fully funds the FDA, FEC, USDA, IRS, SEC, and about 20 more departments, they would all hire more inspectors, more regulators, creating jobs.Aha. What we have here is a failure to comprehend.Yes. Either the actions of the Congress result in an increase/decrease in jobs or they do not.Do you think you've made some sort of point here?I suppose you are going to tell me that not allowing the completion of the XL pipeline didn't kill any jobs.
Congress doesnt create jobs.
...and scene!
You wingnuts go talk it over and come to some sort of consensus.
My point is government cannot and does not create jobs. That is not the same as saying Congress' actions do or do not result in an increase in jobs. Congressional action frequently kills jobs, as we saw in the Keystone Pipeline debacle.
I realize this distinction is way too subtle for someone of your limited intelligence and education. But take my word for it. Or ask an adult.
And if Congress fully funds the FDA, FEC, USDA, IRS, SEC, and about 20 more departments, they would all hire more inspectors, more regulators, creating jobs.Aha. What we have here is a failure to comprehend.Yes. Either the actions of the Congress result in an increase/decrease in jobs or they do not.Do you think you've made some sort of point here?I suppose you are going to tell me that not allowing the completion of the XL pipeline didn't kill any jobs.
Congress doesnt create jobs.
...and scene!
You wingnuts go talk it over and come to some sort of consensus.
My point is government cannot and does not create jobs. That is not the same as saying Congress' actions do or do not result in an increase in jobs. Congressional action frequently kills jobs, as we saw in the Keystone Pipeline debacle.
I realize this distinction is way too subtle for someone of your limited intelligence and education. But take my word for it. Or ask an adult.
Taxes.Sigh. Who pays for all these government jobs you want created, Synth?
I already answered that question.And I'm STILL waiting to hear an explanation from you why the Obama Administration came up with "jobs created or saved"!
Taxes.Sigh. Who pays for all these government jobs you want created, Synth?
Wrong.And if Congress fully funds the FDA, FEC, USDA, IRS, SEC, and about 20 more departments, they would all hire more inspectors, more regulators, creating jobs.Aha. What we have here is a failure to comprehend.Yes. Either the actions of the Congress result in an increase/decrease in jobs or they do not.Do you think you've made some sort of point here?I suppose you are going to tell me that not allowing the completion of the XL pipeline didn't kill any jobs.
Congress doesnt create jobs.
...and scene!
You wingnuts go talk it over and come to some sort of consensus.
My point is government cannot and does not create jobs. That is not the same as saying Congress' actions do or do not result in an increase in jobs. Congressional action frequently kills jobs, as we saw in the Keystone Pipeline debacle.
I realize this distinction is way too subtle for someone of your limited intelligence and education. But take my word for it. Or ask an adult.
I already answered that question.And I'm STILL waiting to hear an explanation from you why the Obama Administration came up with "jobs created or saved"!
Tell me: why did baseball statisticians come up with WAR - Wins Above Replacement - a few years ago?
Taxpayers.Taxes.Sigh. Who pays for all these government jobs you want created, Synth?
And where do taxes come from?
