Here's The Chart That Will Get Obama Fired

[dkf]

As the chart makes instantly crystal clear, the Obama administration drastically underestimated how bad the economy was and drastically overestimated its ability to do something about it.

Could the Obama Administration have fixed the economy in four years had they had done something different?
In my opinion, no.

Given the extent of the damage—and the kind of damage—that Obama inherited, this was always going to be a long slog. As a quick glance at debt-to-GDP charts show, this recession was not a run-of-the-mill cyclical recession. It was a debt-fueled balance sheet recession. And if there's one thing history shows about those, they take years if not decades to fix. (See Japan and the Great Depression).

But Obama certainly could have given himself a better chance to get re-elected despite the horrible economy. If Obama had recognized how bad things were, asked for a much bigger stimulus than he ended up asking for, and, importantly, set the appropriate expectations, he'd probably have been able to pin the blame for the mess where it belongs: On the three decades of decisions that facilitated the debt build-up that eventually culminated in the financial crisis.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-chart-that-will-get-obama-fired-2011-10

[valerief]

1. What about Congress's plan? How does that play out? nt

[dkf]

3. What plan?

You know this stuff just depresses me. If only Obama knew what he knows now...maybe he was too calm when he should have been more alarmist. Apparently he needed a Krugman and not a Romer.

[Solomon]

13. "If only i knew then what i know now"

Classique.

[valerief]

Exactly. What plan. nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

57. See Post #55. Learn the U.S. Constitution and how laws are made.

The WH knew that the stimulus wasn't enough. They wanted a second stimulus, which didn't have the support of the Blue Dogs/Corporatists in Congress.

Get rid of the Blue Dogs/Corporatists and give the president a PROGRESSIVE Democratic Caucus, and then you'll see the change you want.

It's not enough to have a 60 seat Democratic majority if you have Blue Dogs! Get rid of them!

[Skidmore]

18. Jeez, do you understand how laws are made?

[dkf]

20. Don't see a plan. Do you?

[Bobbie Jo]

52. Innocent bystanders, of course. nt

[Ikonoklast]

2. More FUD from the OP.

SOP.

[pintobean]

4. I guess there's no FUD for the employed.

I see FUBAR.

[Ikonoklast]

21. The vast majority of people in this country are gainfully employed.

They are worried that one day, because of the economy being weak, they won't be.

They don't really see it in any other terms.

[dkf]

10. Look I feel bad for the Prez. In my heart I know he did what he thought was best.

Obama knows the reality of what he faces...that is why he calls himself the underdog.

[Bandit]

5. I doubt ver seriously that any Republican that is currently in the Presidential race

could even come close to Obama let alone beat him in a fair election....I am disgusted with Obama as a President. I like him as a person but he is just too easy to roll by the Republicans... What it may do though is really damage Democrats chances in the other elections... Obama is bringing down the Democratic Party all by his lonesome...

[JuniperLea]

59. Ah jeez...

The melodrama around here is getting seriously ridiculous.

He never ran as someone who would run roughshod over Republicans, he ran as someone who spoke of bringing us all together. The GOP obstruction and constant lying should be taken for what it is, not furthered among Democrats for fuck's sake.

[FrenchieCat]

6. You're going into Repuke Territory with that shit......

From Business Insider. Stinks over there.

[pintobean]

14. The chart is factual.

It's the administration's chart from 09 with actual data added. The source is irrelevant.

[JuniperLea]

16. The only thing relevant...

Is Obama's powers of precognition... or lack thereof...

[pintobean]

25. Well, he bet 900 billion of our money on that power.

It gave a lot of us hope. :shrug:

[JuniperLea]

58. No he didn't.

He never misrepresented the situation. He always said it was a horrible problem that was going to take a long time to clear up. I'm not sure where this fantasy story is coming from, but it's getting old.

[FarLeftFist]

17. It's 2 years old that chart. How about an updated one. No one is psychic.

[sofa king]

44. The chart ignores deliberate Republican interference.

The people will not ignore it.

[ChillbertKChesterton]

7. Too busy trying to "compromise" and be the "centrist adult in the room".

He should have overshot it, done far more, demanding action from the Democratic majorities.

[JuniperLea]

8. So...

Obama should get the axe because he can't predict the future effectively enough for you? Pft... I'll send Sister Doraldine over to him right away! That'll screw up your wet dream but pronto!!!



Good morning! I say what a joy it is to look ahead and show you the signs of your future. So much happiness is in store for you the most brilliantly lighted stars are put to shame by the brightness of your light! Oh, happiness what an elusive thing you are, but thank GOD you were born beneath this star!

Drop another coin in the slot and I will tell you more!

[rgbecker]

9. I think Obama went with the best advice available at the time.

Sure, there were economists like Krugman who said it would take a lot more, but on the whole, the mid main stream advice was as he did. Could he have convinced congress to go along with a bigger stimulas....I doubt it...remember, congress had just approved the TARP bailout to the tune of 750 billion and that only after they turned it down, (Only to watch the Dow Jones submarine.) The combined was the biggest temporary spending spree other than for military purposes ever. Could Obama have increased it by a billion or two?...maybe. Would it have made any difference? doubtful. I think the monday morning quarterbacking on the stimulus decision needs to be put in perspective.

[dkf]

19. The Monday morning thing isn't really on the stimulus, just the politics of it

I think consensus is that it would have been hard to do more.

Blodget's point is that Obama should have mentally prepared us better for ongoing difficulties. One wonders if that works though, because the more scared we are the less we spend and the more budgets contract.

I don't know what the correct answer is. Maybe there is none.

[FarLeftFist]

22. It's a learning lesson for the next depression. Isn't that all we can do, learn from the past.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

55. The Obama Team KNEW precisely that it would require a lot more stimulus

In fact, Joe biden said many times that the White House wanted MORE stimilus, not less. The problem is that the ODSers are convinced that Obama runs the Legislative Branch and has control over the Blue Dogs and Corporatists in the Democratic Party who went along with the Republicans on the tax cut deal.

This is key to understanding what really took place.

Unrecommend for the utter lack of respect for history and the U.S. Constitution. The President of the United States is NOT head of the Congress, the Courts, or the Country. He is the head of the Executive Branch, NOT the Legislative Branch!!!!

[FarLeftFist]

11. OMG THEY UNDERESTIMATED AN ECONOMIC CRISIS THAT HASN'T BEEN SEEN IN OVER 70 YEARS!

And handed down by one of the most corrupt, shadowy administrations. Guess what? EVERY SINGLE ECONOMIST UNDERESTIMATED THE ECONOMIC CRISIS.

[dkf]

24. Yeah...we expect super Obama...Or maybe I did.

I know it's too much to ask for. I'm just sad for him and us.

[FarLeftFist]

26. Super humans are too much to ask for. So are psychics. He has admitted that the problem was bigger

Than anyone estimated.

[dkf]

34. Yup. I really wanted him to do well.

I'm glad he has Michelle to support him. It must be hard.

[FarLeftFist]

38. Don't feel bad, he's accomplished more in 2 years than most Presidents do in 2 terms

And he's only been in for 2 years. Many more victories to come.

[girl gone mad]

37. BULLSHIT.

Go read the economic forum from that era. Many economists were telling the White House precisely how bad it was. I gave up a lot of my free time to call, write, blog and do everything in my power to get that message out.

I can tell you that from my own experience, the administration's attitude could best be summed up by that picture which used to be so popular here: "chill the fuck out, he's got this!"

We were shunned and ignored in favor of the green shoots, trickle down crowd.

[FarLeftFist]

39. Really, in 2007 MANY economists were telling this? He's not the one who bailed out Wall St.

And again, he admitted to underestimating the size of the problem he was handed on day ONE. Let it be a learning lesson. At least he's open-minded to problem solving unlike the GOP.

[girl gone mad]

43. Yes, many economists told him this.

For people who gave up time out of our lives to push the administration to take more effective action, but were repeatedly called "Debbie Downers" and "Gloom and Doomers" and told we were wrong to be concerned, this type of historical revisionism doesn't sit very well.

And yes, he did bail out Wall Street. Most of the trillions in bailouts happened on his watch. He also whipped for TARP I. As I've said before, he was probably the single Democrat most responsible for ensuring that it passed. I was up for days making phone calls to stop it. We knew he was twisting arms to get it through quickly.

[former9thward]

45. He did help bailout Wall Street, like it or not.

He left the campaign trail in September, 2008 to demand that Democrats in Congress vote for the bailout bill. He said to do otherwise would be "irresponsible". Most of the bailout funds were distributed in the beginning of 2009 under his administration.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Frosty1]

15. Subliminal messaging at its finest

:crazy:

[RainDog]

23. Economists Stieglitz and Krugman stated the stimulus was too little

in addition, there was no jobs problem to put money into things like infrastructure, which would have guaranteed construction businesses, for instance, that they would be paid - this one would have been really useful considering the housing bubble that burst really hit that industry in other sectors.

the sad thing is that Republicans have not demonstrated any ability to deal with the economy either. The last Republican president put the largest tax break for the wealthy into play and the result was ZERO job growth for a decade - in comparison to an avg. 20% in other decades.

iow, Obama needs to stop listening to conservatives and start listening to Nobel Prize-winning economists.

[Cool Logic]

27. There are quite a few charts that make it look ugly...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pvHht1OyAgM/Tk7UMubJi9I/AAAAAAAAAKE/Ebl19QFMgBw/s1600/Picture+5.png

The fact that he ignored what the People viewed as being the most important issues will not help him either.

[Kingofalldems]

29. Not fooled.

[pintobean]

31. About what, the facts?

If the information is incorrect, please correct it.

[Kingofalldems]

33. Google Robbie Cooper

Responding to #27.

[pintobean]

36. I know what you responded to

and you can post whatever it is you want me to know. My google's broke.

[Kingofalldems]

40. I just gave my opinion on a post that used an extreme RW source

for chart #1. Sorry that offends you. Google broke? How does that happen?

[pintobean]

42. I'm not offended

but is the information in the chart correct, or not? You seem to be disputing it. I would expect the info to come from the right. Neither side advertises their weaknesses.

[Kingofalldems]

47. The poster is now gone--he was a zombie

That's what offended me, not specific criticism of the President.

[pintobean]

50. Thanks for letting me know.

The mods rock. I assume you get the assist. :thumbsup:

[Bobbie Jo]

54. Go figure...nt

[SidDithers]

28. Unrec...

keep trying.

Sid

[eridani]

30. People are less concerned with charts and graphs than with the question

--of whether or not Obama is on their side. He's been equivocal about that, though getting much better lately.

[baldguy]

32. That doesn't take into account the people activly trying to destroy the economy & the country

The GOP in Congress.

[Rex]

35. On a real roll tonight.

:eyes:

No chart will get Obama fired, that is silly talk.

[bluestate10]

41. The election won't be about Bush versus Obama.

The election will be about whether a republican can offer anything better. The conclusion now is that no republican in the field can. Romney has lead shoes based upon his history, that will be exploited.

You OP fail to show charts that show massive job loss under Bush, with the loss curve shrinking under Obama to the point where there has not been net job loss since the spring of 2010. Go ahead and pull charts, there will be others that completely destroy your argument. In the end republican sock puppets will be left with the harsh reality that the race will come down to Obama against a enormously flawed republican.

[Fool Count]

46. Stimulus is crap. The best job creation plan would be a dramatic increase in tax rates

on the rich. Then they might think about putting more money into expenses (like workers' salaries) instead of profits and executive compensation.

[Motown_Johnny]

48. you do know those projections were based on falsified Bush era inrformation

don't you?

[lib2DaBone]

49. Obama could have fixed the economy.. and more.. but he chose not to...

[Kingofalldems]

51. Delete--wrong thread.

[ProfessorGAC]

53. I Question The Validity Of The Pale Blue Line

They're comparing a projection to a live dataset and making what i would call a wild false equivalency.

And, the very publishing of the chart in the Post is indicative that they've drawn a conclusion.
GAC

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

56. See Post #55. Unrecommended!!! n/t