At what point is it Obama's fault?

[Ricter]

Except that it was never me who said Bush was not at fault for his part.

As for the economy and the President, I agree on the tactical level. But like the captain is responsible for all that happens on his ship, Obama is culpable in the deplorable economy and the lack of any recovery. History remembers bad Presidents. They don't remember bad Fed Chairmen so much. i sorta wish they did.

First it was a poor recovery, because it has been maldistributed. Now it is "lack of any recovery", as in no recovery?

But the term "jobless recovery" was not coined under Obama, anyway.

 

[Ricter]

Remember when, back before we noted that the decades long trend of rising inequality was uninterrupted, and before the TPP, when the tea party was calling Obama a socialist? Lol.

 

[Tsing Tao]

First it was a poor recovery, because it has been maldistributed. Now it is "lack of any recovery", as in no recovery?

But the term "jobless recovery" was not coined under Obama, anyway.

Poor recovery, or lack of any (real) recovery. It depends on who we're talking about. If we're talking about the top 1%, then it's a nice recovery. Bottom 50%, no real recovery (see chart).

Are semantics important? Or are solutions?

 

[Tsing Tao]

Remember when, back before we noted that the decades long trend of rising inequality was uninterrupted, and before the TPP, when the tea party was calling Obama a socialist? Lol.

I remember that. I also remember Jobs "saved and created", and "shovel ready" and "here's what unemployment would be if we spend stimulus" etc. Good times.

 

[Ricter]

Poor recovery, or lack of any (real) recovery. It depends on who we're talking about. If we're talking about the top 1%, then it's a nice recovery. Bottom 50%, no real recovery (see chart).

Are semantics important? Or are solutions?

I agree. Our problem continues to be distribution.

The semantics are less important than solutions, you're right, though the solutions have to come from a valid description of the problems.

 

[Ricter]

I remember that. I also remember Jobs "saved and created", and "shovel ready" and "here's what unemployment would be if we spend stimulus" etc. Good times.

All Keynesian type tactics. Thankfully, all were consistently opposed by the (R) and either defeated or diluted.
; )

 

[fhl]

At what point is it Obama's fault? Let's begin with a simple question:

Does it take longer to tear a house down or to build one up again?

Let's make it even simpler so maybe we can get to the bottom of this.

How was the house torn down when there were a trillion dollars of bailouts to keep it standing?

I'm guessing that the only response to this really simple question will be snarky snark.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I agree. Our problem continues to be distribution.

The semantics are less important than solutions, you're right, though the solutions have to come from a valid description of the problems.

What part of the description was incorrect? Are there more people in poverty that in 2007? Have real wages remained stagnant or declined for all but the top 10% of the population? I could go on if you like, but these are all factually correct.

 

[Tsing Tao]

All Keynesian type tactics. Thankfully, all were consistently opposed by the (R) and either defeated or diluted.
; )

How was the stimulus package defeated or diluted? Why wasn't the unemployment rate achieved as advertised? Why wasn't it even close? Republicans did that?

 

[Ricter]

How was the stimulus package defeated or diluted? Why wasn't the unemployment rate achieved as advertised? Why wasn't it even close? Republicans did that?

It was diluted, call it "pre diluted", in the sense that the political climate of the time, particularly the shrill volume of the tea party, but also including the no cooperation vow the (R) made, would have killed a proposal for a stimulus big enough to largely counter the fall in GDP. So it (bigger) wasn't tried, and so the jobs target was missed. All this assumes that government spending can create jobs, of course.