Obama in Elkhart, Indiana today once again makes
the provably false claim that the economy is in the
worst shape since the Great Depression.
(AP photo/Charles Dharapak)
Considering that a lot of bills have been put forward by Congress in the last 70 years, this is really saying something.
Dr. Robert Barro is one of the most influential economists in the world.
From The Atlantic via Stephen Spruiell at The Corner, who got it from Will Wilkinson.
This is probably the worst bill that has been put forward since the 1930s. I don't know what to say. I mean it's wasting a tremendous amount of money. It has some simplistic theory that I don't think will work, so I don't think the expenditure stuff is going to have the intended effect. I don't think it will expand the economy. And the tax cutting isn't really geared toward incentives. It's not really geared to lowering tax rates; it's more along the lines of throwing money at people. On both sides I think it's garbage. So in terms of balance between the two it doesn't really matter that much.
It is common knowledge that the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush (43) tax cuts spurred the economy back into shape. By contrast, the FDR spendfest in the 1930's, as well as attempts in Japan and Argentina to spend their way out of recessions did nothing. These are proven (and disproven) models.
Obama's combination of mega-spending and welfare payments tax rebates to people who don't pay taxes (as opposed to cuts in the tax rate), are a double-whammy of pure Socialist folly.
One keen Democrat notes that this is neither a stimulus bill nor a pork bill. It is actually a permanent Democrat patronage bill, designed to create an army of people beholden to the Democrat Party for decades to come.
And yet Obama bleats on with The Big Lie (here (today), here, and here) that the economy is in the worst shape since the Great Depression.
This lie is so easily disproved, and yet (surprise!) the MSM won't call him on it. Jammie Wearing Fool via Gateway Pundit has a little graphic that shows that, far from the worst economy since the Great Depression, our economic situation isn't even nearly as bad as downturns in the 1970's and 1980's.
The Big Lie is that Obama knows this and yet deliberately uses phony numbers and rhetoric to pass a bill that may itself cause a depression.
Change we can believe in?
Joe Biden: We may take a beating in 2010 over the stimulus
Obama's Pork Store: Public support for pork bill plunges 8% in a week
Zero Republicans vote for massive Obama pork bill
Look where the stimulus money is going
Special Report: Obama's First 100 DaysExclusive examiner.com coverage of the Obama administration's promise to bring about change.
Comments
Obama shows up in a town in Indiana that has lost an RV business -- they have left town. Not another business is even considering going to that town or state to do business. What kind of jobs is this stimulus package going to create there -- it seems more like a welfare bailout for those people who don't want to leave the area. He seemed to hit a town that is hurting and could easily be manipulated into believing everything he said about the urgency, emergency, importance, get-me-elected-again bill!
"Common knowledge that the ... tax cuts spurred the economy back into shape." WTH is this guy smoking!?!
Oh, wait, sorry. My bad. He's a republican shill. He's smoking elephant dung.
Tax cuts, along with un-regulated, over-leveraged, make-a-quick-buck investments, plus the war on Iraq, are what got us into this mess.
i agree with fred.
Let the economy fix itself.
We need no goverment of anything close to its size now. Every single problem, be it economic or social will be solved by either markets totally on its own.
Just more proof that only idiots graduate from Harvard!
jeffk: The democrats forcing banks to make risky loans to ppl who cant afford them got us into this mess. Look at history, throwing money at people who dont pay taxes LOL. I will quit my job and you give me 20% of your paycheck ya ?
Reublican's have done a bang up job for the last eight years and now Obama has to fix all of their screw ups. And you are looking to him to have the magic answer. There is no specific answer to these problems.
Instead of criticizing why don't YOU tell us the answer to the big problem.
Can I just say though the numbers on the chart for the 70's and 80's are true, no where on the chart does it show the numbers prior to those recessions because I can assure you they don't show that prior to those recessions were the biggest economic surplus in US history! I'm also sick of people saying FDR's "new deal" didn't work when any one with half a brain can clearly see it was the new deal and not WW2 that pulled the US out of the depression. So I mean unless you are one of those of the half-brain variety how bout you just say to yourself "well obviously going the way we're headed isn't gonna work so how about we take this left with out bitching and moaning and see where it takes us"
Where exactly did you do your research? It is widely regarded as fact that FDR's massive amount of spending during The Great Depression (known as The New Deal in case you don't remember your Middle School history class) got us out of The Great Depression. Now, granted, calling this recession as bad as The Great Depression is going overboard, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have that potential. Besides, know one knows yet whether this will work or not. If it doesn't, congrats, you get another Republican in office. If it does, another 4 years could very well go to Obama. We just have to wait and see.
I'm pretty sceptical about your chart showing comparisons with previous recessions. We're not even at the bottom of the market yet - and already the figures are similar to those from the 70s and 80s. The amount of jobs the US economy shed in the last quarter is particularly alarming.
And since when were people who don't pay taxes eligible for a rebate? Do you know what a rebate is?
Barro is eminent and can back up his own arguments. I suggest you leave the job to him.
Anyone who uses such a small comparison case, "common knowledge", and a quote from someone no one knows, should not be allowed to operate a computer. Use some real facts for a change.
You know. Like CharlesSchwab did in their article "Recessions: How Does This One Compare?" I would link it but your site doesn't allow it.
You only used recent recessions to make the situation look worse than it actually is when the truth is that this recession is on par with recessions that came after major wars.
So. Please. Never write an "educated" article again.
SERIOUSLY.... SERIOSULY THIS IS WHAT YOU THINK! YOUR DUMB TO THE POINT IM NOT EVEN GONA RETORT.
Wow, pretty good stuff dude~!
RT
www.privacy-center.be.tc
"It is common knowledge that the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush (43) tax cuts spurred the economy back into shape. By contrast, the FDR spendfest in the 1930's, as well as attempts in Japan and Argentina to spend their way out of recessions did nothing. These are proven (and disproven) models."
Really? Come on, man. It is definitely not common knowledge that those tax cuts worked, especially Reagans - the trickle down theory of economics was at the right place at the right time, and it very well may be common knowledge now that high end tax cuts DON'T WORK.
Additionally, putting "harvard economist" at the beginning of a report doesn't automatically give it credibility.
This is one of the worst pieces I've ever read. So slanted, so misinformed. I urge anyone who buys into this stuff to do some real research.
Is this...satire?
I sure hope so.
This guy is a jackass! Give them Democrat's a chance. The Republican's sure has made a mess of things with their ideas and spent money in Iraq that will never be recovered.
If your not part of the solution, then your part of the problem. Where do you think this article falls?
Try being a real journalist, this is the worst pile of writing I have ever read.
You seem to be using a snapshot as a visual reference. You do realize it's not the present value of economic measurements but the trend? At least upgrade from a table to a graph - I think you'll find your statement more difficult to defend.
On top of this, you don't actually present an alternative. I could have written this on my lunch break, but would be ashamed to publish it.
You got a better idea BILL?
...and carbon dioxide does not contribute to global warming...
It doesn't take much research to discover that the methods used to determine unemployment rates have changed--get this-- in the 1990s. The numbers you are comparing are apples and oranges. If we used the methods of the 1930s we would currently have an unemployment rate of 17.5%. Also, unemployment did not peak until 1933, 4 years after the crash in 1929. If we look at 1 year after the crash (1930), the unemployment rate was 8.9%. In other words, less than 1 year after the crash of 2008, we are already double the unemployment rate that occurred during the Great Depression at a similar time during it's cycle. And we are already above the PEAK unemployment seen in the 1980s.
Mr. Bill Dupray could I please just say you deserve no credible writing job any where! any where! I think any one that's taken a high school economics or history class would agree.....though you could always work for FOX news they're pretty good at completely overlooking facts resulting a republican based poppycock thats right i said poppycock
@Tommy: Do your friends call you Butters?
@Jack: Why don't you point some of the misled in the right direction. Or can you only turn left???
For eight years republicans ran this country along with the economy into the ground. I think it's time for republicansto sit down and shut up, especially republican economists.
Yes James exactly....CO2 does not contribute to the global warming not taking place and witches don't cause boils either.You have Obama's Democratic Constituency Good Times Act exactly pegged. Congratulations
Regardless of whether or not you are a democrat or a republican one thing is for certain in this whole situation. WE and our Gov't are spending entirely too much money. We as a people are putting ourselves farther in debt everyday, because we believe that we have to live beyond our means. We believe we have the right to do that, because our credit score says we can. We have people who can barely afford a 50k house, getting approved for a 500k house. We have people buying TVs on credit that they can't afford. We have people speculating in the home market, trying to make a quick buck. Now the house of cards is coming down and those people are asking for help. They are asking for tax payers to help them out of 90k worth of credit card debt. Asking us to help them find a way to continue to stay in a house they couldn't afford to begin with. It's complete idiocy. Now the Gov't is wanting us to bailout Wall Street (which we have already, and they say they need more money). We have the big 3 coming to us asking us for money now as well. But guess what? We helped them out 30 years ago (Chrysler to be exact), and now they are wanting more.
People talk about how this isn't worse than the depression. Please, if the gov't continues to let the Fed Res. print as much money as it wants, we will have something far more worse than the depression. We will have a country with negative GDP, double digit unemployment rates, and hyper inflation. These are things that will haunt us for decades to come. The Gov't needs to realize that we cannot spend our way out of any problem, ever! Whether it be Keynesian economics or Austrian economics, they would both tell us that right now, we need to be a period were we are cutting spending. We need to cut the fat away and get as lean as possible.
We need to either see our military downsize, or pull all of the troops not on american soil home and shut those bases down. People tend to forget what caused the Roman Empire to collapse. Standing Armies. The Roman Empire found that it could no longer support the size of the military, because of how far it reached. We need to be mindful of history, otherwise we will repeat the same mistakes over and over. Which we as Americans, seem to be pretty good at.
Yes James exactly....CO2 does not contribute to the global warming not taking place and witches don't cause boils either.You have Obama's Democratic Constituency Good Times Act exactly pegged. Congratulations
Chris: Instead of lobbing cliche insults, why don't you explain what in the article is "poppycock"? Stop being an intellectually lazy liberal and EXPLAIN your position instead of using FOX News as a straw man. Thank you. I look forward to a more detailed critique.
This article is ridiculous as are this economists statements.
Wow, your article is extremely disappointing. I was really hoping for a "Here is the Situation, Here is the given plan, Here is how they expect it to work, Here is why it may not work, Here is another idea, Here is why it would work, Here is why it wouldn't work". But I you simply saying "This isnt going to work, because it isn't going to work" is good enough. I do like how you said that the method of government spending as been proven, and disproven, which is true. But you don't tell people that there is no "Proven" method to economic recover. I understand you are a republican, but cant you be a journalist as well?
Mark: If you take the time to examine your history, you will find that it was congressional Democrats that refused to regulate Fannie and Freddie in the lead up to the collapse. You will also find that the problem had a lot to do with the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act which took place in two phases--during the 80's (Reagan) and 90's (Clinton). CLINTON DEREGULATED SUB-PRIME LOANS. Do your research.
Right on! You hit the nail on. It was Hoover, and not FDR, who saved America in the 30s.
It takes a Democrat to mudsling a Republican, and it takes a Republican to scare others away from Democrats over to Republicans. Especially when your chart hasn't even covered the whole year yet Mr. Dupray. Unemployment is well over 10% and not to mention that this not only going to effect America, but the World. To heck with it agruing with a Republican is trying to talk your dog through a wall that is missing an ear. Go libertarian if you are going to actually worry about the people and the economy and not what is going to effect your church community.
Where's the 'facts' to back up all of these opinions? I did not read one word of "Here's why I think this" or, "Here's the historical/logical reasoning behind this". Basically, this is shoddy journalism.
Mark: If you take the time to examine your history, you will find that it was congressional Democrats that refused to regulate Fannie and Freddie in the lead up to the collapse. You will also find that the problem had a lot to do with the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act which took place in two phases--during the 80's (Reagan) and 90's (Clinton). CLINTON DEREGULATED SUB-PRIME LOANS. Do your research.
If the main focus of the bill isnt "how can we incentivize people to be more productive, and to spend less than they earn", how on earth could you think that a bill like this would work?
Throwing money at people has the exact opposite effect: you're giving them a dole, which will make them more dependent, and ultimately less productive.
Look, food, medicine, clothing, shelter, those aren't magically summoned by a politician who waves their hand and makes it appear. They're the result of real, productive labor. To receive more, you must find a way to put forth more productive labor, and the way you know if you value your time more than you are being paid is if you continue to work at your current job.
If you people want to live in fantasy land, fine with me. Just don't drag us down when the ground disappears from under your feet (ie nor you nor the government provide the goods, services, and ultimately jobs you depend on to sustain your standard of life - private businessmen who look to produce instead of looking for a handout do!)
If you persist in this delusion, your world will crumble.
Yes, excellent point, John. Much of the problem IS Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which overturned G-S. How could anyone get the idea that the bill from Gramm (R-TX), Leach (R-Iowa) and Bliley (R-VA) was anyone's fault but Clinton's? Some people still won't acknowledge his roll in that Lindbergh baby thing!
john:Looking back at history you will find that the majority of Clinton's time in Office, Republicans controlled BOTH the House and the Senate. The bill that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act was sponsored by Phil Gramm (Republican) and Jim Leach (Republican) and passed along party lines with REPUBLICANS voting for it and DEMOCRATS voting against it. Because Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate by nearly a 2/3 majority (enough to override a veto), Clinton chose not to Veto the bill even though most Democrats did not support it. Get your facts straight.
Cliff: Clinton signed it as law, didn't he? And by the way, your forget to acknowledge that Barney Frank refused to re-regulate sub prime loans. You omit the fact that the Clinton Justice department even threatened to launch lawsuits on lenders that did not give enough mortgages to minorities--even if some of them were unqualified to receive loans. And how about the fact that the two biggest recipients of donations from Fannie Mae were (D-CN) Chris Dodd and (D-Il) BARACK OBAMA. In fact, it was the former CEO of Fannie Mae, Frankin Raines, who served as an "unofficial" adviser to the Obama campaign.
I never said that Republicans did not support the repeal of Glass-Steagall. All I said was that Clinton supported it. Mark, take more time to read what I write.
John:I did check my history and I found out that when Clinton left office this country had a surplus economy. When things changed the republicans were to greedy and stupid to make the adjustment. So like I said, sit down and shut up.
Mark: I was also responding to your ludicrous claim (or insinuation) that it was Bush that caused the financial mess.
Yes, agreed, it's ALL Clinton's fault. How some people are so simple-minded as to give some of the blame to the party in power over the last eight amazes me! Why bother with that when you have Clinton to blame? Btw - the regs you refer to apply only to banks and thrifts - which represent about 27% of the mortgage market. Had they never made a single loan, we would still be in a meltdown.
Cliff: I NEVER SAID IT WAS ALL CLINTON'S FAULT. Stop being so simplistic. My point was that this mess has virtually nothing to do with Bush policies. It's nice to know that you don't really READ what I write.
This article is at best shoddy journalism, at worst an attempt to intentionally mislead readers. Your "source" to prove that tax cuts work to stimulate the economy is a link to a website promoting tax cuts. What's worse, their research is only marginally more detailed than what is presented here. FDR did not fail. Here's a well researched article for those interested enough to read it: "www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020603/fdr-failed-myth"
wow, people believe this?
I thought Americans had generally come to their senses.
Facts are, we're in trouble, the bill that's being passed is the best idea that's come forward yet.
Cliff: We are in a meltdown because of those bad loans. Just because the economy has gotten worse in several other areas does not mean that the troubled assets were not the CAUSE.
Mark: We did have a surplus economy 2 out of the 8 years Clinton was in office. Bush did spend like a drunken sailor. The Democrats' solution?? SPEND MORE. Mark, for someone who claims to be a deficit hawk, you seem to be a little bit misguided on what party has a better handle on the issue. SO, I suggest you take your own advice and "sit down and shut up."
Speaking of actually reading.... That's what I said: how can some people blame the party in power? Bush's econ policies were GREAT. The proof's in the pudding.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!