Comments on: OBAMA’S “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” RECOVERY http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/11/22/obamas-mission-accomplished-recovery/ Cleaning the Augean Stables of the Health Care Debate Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:07:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Catron http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/11/22/obamas-mission-accomplished-recovery/#comment-449648 Catron Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:03:16 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/11/22/obamas-mission-accomplished-recovery/#comment-449648 "We were in a recession. GDP was shrinking." Well then, Jack4, it should be easy for you to produce the periods and percentages of GDP shrinkage. Without those data, you're just making a gratuitous assertion (otherwise known as shooting BS). “We were in a recession. GDP was shrinking.”

Well then, Jack4, it should be easy for you to produce the periods and percentages of GDP shrinkage.

Without those data, you’re just making a gratuitous assertion (otherwise known as shooting BS).

]]> By: Jack4 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/11/22/obamas-mission-accomplished-recovery/#comment-449647 Jack4 Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:28:44 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/11/22/obamas-mission-accomplished-recovery/#comment-449647 You are putting a political spin on a subject that has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with macro economics 101. I don't like to contribute to the nasty tone of rants on the web, but frankly you have no idea what you're talking about. First of all, GDP was not growing at the time of the election. We were in a recession. GDP was shrinking. More important to your point: Increases in unemployment always lag economic downturns, largely because companies don't like to fire people. Once revenues drop far enough, they have no choice and begin layoffs. And as economic activity slows, self-employment opportunities dry up as well. And no one rehires until they absolutely have to, because they want to be absolutely sure every hire will increase production enough to more than offset the cost adding the employee. This has nothing to do with Bush or Obama; look at a chart that overlays unemployment on top of recessions historically, and the pattern is clear. So of course unemployment during the Bush years would be lower than it is now, as we crawl out of the worst recession in 70 years. There is another faulty premise behind your complaint, that somehow Obama could do something that would get employment down to the average of the rest of the decade. First of all, if you admire Bush, you should believe in free markets and limited government intervention. The reason we believe in such things is because we know government intervention usually doesn't work very well. So why do you expect Obama to solve the problem in 11 months? Especially when it's a problem that he didn't create: the bursting of a bubble with origins in the early 80s, if not earlier. Second, the biggest single portion of the stimulus was tax cuts, of which Bush, of course was a champion. That said, there has been some marginal slowing in the pace of unemployment thanks to the stimulus spending, as governments have used the money to pay salaries for teachers and cops, and hired road crews for municipal projects. If you want to complain about Obama, fine. But then focus on real issues, not macro economic trends that no president, from any party, can control. You are putting a political spin on a subject that has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with macro economics 101. I don’t like to contribute to the nasty tone of rants on the web, but frankly you have no idea what you’re talking about. First of all, GDP was not growing at the time of the election. We were in a recession. GDP was shrinking. More important to your point: Increases in unemployment always lag economic downturns, largely because companies don’t like to fire people. Once revenues drop far enough, they have no choice and begin layoffs. And as economic activity slows, self-employment opportunities dry up as well. And no one rehires until they absolutely have to, because they want to be absolutely sure every hire will increase production enough to more than offset the cost adding the employee. This has nothing to do with Bush or Obama; look at a chart that overlays unemployment on top of recessions historically, and the pattern is clear. So of course unemployment during the Bush years would be lower than it is now, as we crawl out of the worst recession in 70 years. There is another faulty premise behind your complaint, that somehow Obama could do something that would get employment down to the average of the rest of the decade. First of all, if you admire Bush, you should believe in free markets and limited government intervention. The reason we believe in such things is because we know government intervention usually doesn’t work very well. So why do you expect Obama to solve the problem in 11 months? Especially when it’s a problem that he didn’t create: the bursting of a bubble with origins in the early 80s, if not earlier. Second, the biggest single portion of the stimulus was tax cuts, of which Bush, of course was a champion. That said, there has been some marginal slowing in the pace of unemployment thanks to the stimulus spending, as governments have used the money to pay salaries for teachers and cops, and hired road crews for municipal projects.
If you want to complain about Obama, fine. But then focus on real issues, not macro economic trends that no president, from any party, can control.

]]>