Somebody needs to remind the Three Stooges that The Great Recession began in 2007, that recovery commenced after Obama’s stimulus programs took effect, that many red states would have been up the creek had those programs not been there to bail them out, and that the U.S. economy is presently on track to attain the highest annual GDP in the nation’s history.
Which is not to deny that a serious deficit problem exists. The point they’re totally ignoring is that a responsible administration prioritizes problems. It deals with the emergency of a possible total economic collapse first, the widespread human suffering that accompanies a severe downturn second, and the effects of a slow economic recovery and increased federal deficits third. That’s pretty much the way the recession–which began over a year before Obama’s election—has been addressed.
The GOP really needs to work up a new song and dance routine before the next presidential election. You’d think by this point they’d have realized the old routines are no longer working. It’s gotten to the point where the audience has to routinely accept hyperbole as a statement of reality. Maybe it’s just becoming too difficult to achieve the necessary suspension of disbelief.
“This is Part 2 of a 3-part trifecta on the disaster movie that is already President Obama’s second term. Today, let’s take a look at the economy as it hurtles toward the cliff in 3D, on that giant imax screen that we call real life.”
Very vivid. The music, reminiscent of a televised pro wrestling event, is quite stirring. I think I can actually hear the wind whistling through this guy’s ears.
that recovery commenced after Obama’s stimulus programs took effect
The recovery began in June, 2009. The Stimulus Bill was signed into law in the middle of February, 2009. Tell us exactly how in three months time a bill, of which most of the funds hadn’t been distributed yet, managed to end the recession by itself. If that was the case, we would have seen immediate improvements in the unemployment rate and other areas starting June, 2009. Please provide your evidence.
Tell us exactly how in three months time a bill, of which most of the funds hadn’t been distributed yet, managed to end the recession by itself.
I don’t believe I said that the stimulus bill ended the recession by itself. The stimulus bill was as a stop-gap measure that interrupted a rapidly worsening chain of events propelled by a precipitous decline in consumer spending, which could easily have developed into a deep depression that would have been extremely difficult to recover from. Stimulus kept the wheels of the economy turning. Without it, untold millions of average Americans could have faced personal economic disaster.
Where would the Governor of Texas have been without stimulus funds? Like every other republican in the country, he likes to pretend it was his own policies and his own policies alone that helped his state to weather the storm.
that recovery commenced after Obama’s stimulus programs took effect
The recovery began in June, 2009. That was BEFORE not after Obama’s stimulus plan took effect.
Greg
11 years ago
What I said and how you want to interpret it seem to be two different things.
Apparently it’s convenient at the moment to declare that The Great Recession was over as of June 2009.
We can alternate that observation with several subsequent years of Recovery? What recovery? and today’s assurances that Nothing is really any better and The economy is hurtling toward a cliff.
another vet
11 years ago
@Greg: The recovery was declared to be over with in June, 2009. If you were to average the unemployment rate during the recession and compare it to the average during the recovery, you will find that it was lower during the recession. You will also find that more people are dependent on government handouts now during the recovery when there should be fewer. Those are not the signs of a good recovery. Think about what is being said. The more people receiving government aid, the better the economy is doing. It should be the exact opposite, at least in a society that is not supposed to be built around socialism, but then again perhaps that is the goal. The more people become dependent on government handouts, the more secure they are as a voting block.
The recovery has been very slow and the battle is not over yet as much as you may want to declare it to be so. We have yet to see what the full impact of Obamacare will have on the economy. Perhaps that is why Obama is backtracking on parts of it before the mid terms. He knows it will derail a very fragile recovery and that in turn will cost the Party big time.
“Three-quarters of entitlement benefits written into law in the United States go toward the elderly or disabled. That’s according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And a big chunk of the rest goes to working households. Only about 9 percent of all entitlement benefits go toward non-elderly, non-disabled households without jobs (and much of that involves health care and unemployment insurance).”
I’m thinking that a significant part of the growth of the percentage receiving federal aid is probably a function of a rapidly aging U.S. population. This makes it difficult to deal with, unless we want to reduce assistance to those least able to cope with its absence. It’s a problem.
another vet
11 years ago
@Greg: According to the CBO, the huge increase in SNAP had nothing to do with age.
The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744; net monthly income of $338 after the standard deduction and, for certain households, deductions for child care, medical expenses, and shelter costs; and countable resources of $331, such as a bank account.
Somebody needs to remind the Three Stooges that The Great Recession began in 2007, that recovery commenced after Obama’s stimulus programs took effect, that many red states would have been up the creek had those programs not been there to bail them out, and that the U.S. economy is presently on track to attain the highest annual GDP in the nation’s history.
Which is not to deny that a serious deficit problem exists. The point they’re totally ignoring is that a responsible administration prioritizes problems. It deals with the emergency of a possible total economic collapse first, the widespread human suffering that accompanies a severe downturn second, and the effects of a slow economic recovery and increased federal deficits third. That’s pretty much the way the recession–which began over a year before Obama’s election—has been addressed.
The GOP really needs to work up a new song and dance routine before the next presidential election. You’d think by this point they’d have realized the old routines are no longer working. It’s gotten to the point where the audience has to routinely accept hyperbole as a statement of reality. Maybe it’s just becoming too difficult to achieve the necessary suspension of disbelief.
Very vivid. The music, reminiscent of a televised pro wrestling event, is quite stirring. I think I can actually hear the wind whistling through this guy’s ears.
@Greg:
The recovery began in June, 2009. The Stimulus Bill was signed into law in the middle of February, 2009. Tell us exactly how in three months time a bill, of which most of the funds hadn’t been distributed yet, managed to end the recession by itself. If that was the case, we would have seen immediate improvements in the unemployment rate and other areas starting June, 2009. Please provide your evidence.
@another vet, #2:
I don’t believe I said that the stimulus bill ended the recession by itself. The stimulus bill was as a stop-gap measure that interrupted a rapidly worsening chain of events propelled by a precipitous decline in consumer spending, which could easily have developed into a deep depression that would have been extremely difficult to recover from. Stimulus kept the wheels of the economy turning. Without it, untold millions of average Americans could have faced personal economic disaster.
Where would the Governor of Texas have been without stimulus funds? Like every other republican in the country, he likes to pretend it was his own policies and his own policies alone that helped his state to weather the storm.
@Greg: This is exactly what you said:
The recovery began in June, 2009. That was BEFORE not after Obama’s stimulus plan took effect.
What I said and how you want to interpret it seem to be two different things.
Apparently it’s convenient at the moment to declare that The Great Recession was over as of June 2009.
We can alternate that observation with several subsequent years of Recovery? What recovery? and today’s assurances that Nothing is really any better and The economy is hurtling toward a cliff.
@Greg: The recovery was declared to be over with in June, 2009. If you were to average the unemployment rate during the recession and compare it to the average during the recovery, you will find that it was lower during the recession. You will also find that more people are dependent on government handouts now during the recovery when there should be fewer. Those are not the signs of a good recovery. Think about what is being said. The more people receiving government aid, the better the economy is doing. It should be the exact opposite, at least in a society that is not supposed to be built around socialism, but then again perhaps that is the goal. The more people become dependent on government handouts, the more secure they are as a voting block.
The recovery has been very slow and the battle is not over yet as much as you may want to declare it to be so. We have yet to see what the full impact of Obamacare will have on the economy. Perhaps that is why Obama is backtracking on parts of it before the mid terms. He knows it will derail a very fragile recovery and that in turn will cost the Party big time.
This is from an article that appeared last September. The point still seems relevant:
I’m thinking that a significant part of the growth of the percentage receiving federal aid is probably a function of a rapidly aging U.S. population. This makes it difficult to deal with, unless we want to reduce assistance to those least able to cope with its absence. It’s a problem.
@Greg: According to the CBO, the huge increase in SNAP had nothing to do with age.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43175
I agree with that point.
The huge increase in food stamp program costs had to do with the recession, which hit the poor and working poor the hardest. Feeding America also provides some facts and statistics. Among them: