The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (90 comments)

  1. There’s nothing that warms the cockles of Mr. Pethokoukis’ heart than bad economic news. But fear not: heads or tails, he always wins.

    When the economy surges, its just the business cycle. When it falters, its due to our Socialist/Marxist/Commie/Muslim/Redistributionist/AwamiLeague Member President.

    But take heart. Newly revised BLS figures suggest that we may have added 20K more jobs per month in the trailing 12 months before March 2012 than originally thought.

    Maybe its not the flouride in the water causing consumer confidence to rise.

    Economist voidoids like me also remember the GDP figure in the 2nd quarter of 2008: a robust 3.3%

    After that, it started to go negative.

    Enjoy the election.

    1. So I assume you blamed Bush for recession, though it started when Democrats took Congress ( both houses), but now it is not OBama’s fault though he is in White House and holds Senate after two years of both Houses with filibuster proof Democrat majority in the Senate. So if whatever Obama does does not matter, can we replace him with literally empty chair. At least we will save a billion +

      1. “So I assume you blamed Bush for recession, though it started when Democrats took Congress ( both houses),”

        That’s like saying WWII started on December 7th.

        Help yourself to the Daily Caller. Strap on that feed bag.

        1. WORLD War II DID start on Dec 7, 1941; until then the war was confined to the Eastern Hemisphere.

          Have you ever wondered why FDR cut off Japan’s fuel supplies in the summer of 1941? Did he REALLY care that Japan was stomping China (as they’d done regularly for at least 400 years), or was he provoking Japan?

    2. Interesting survey came out the other day that showed the perception of the economy segmented by self-declared political affiliation.

      The long and short of it was that GOP partisans and independents both had far more negative perceptions of the economy than Democratic partisans.

      Now, I know that the Democrats like to believe that they are the vanguard of history and all that, but I find it interesting that on this topic of perception and how it can be biased by political leanings, the Democrats are the outliers.

      Must be because they’re so darn smart compared to the rest of us.

    3. Will Obama continue to say “The mess I inherited…” if he gets re-elected? I ask because the economy is really going to tank despite QEternity and 0% interest rate until 2015 recently announced by the Fed. It seems to me the only thing still undestroyed by Bernanke is precious metals.

      1. Yes, because the loans Bush took out on our credit card will still be on the books:

        Medicare Part D
        3 Wars
        5 TRILLION in Tax Cuts on credit
        100% increase in Defense and Homeland Security to the tune of 700B/year, almost 50% of dicretionary monies.


        1. There you go again, blaming Bush. (sigh)

    4. Roger Ramjet

      There are two ways to eviscerate your post:

      1) “In March 2004, when Barack Obama was a candidate for the U.S. Senate in the Illinois Democratic primary, he excoriated President George W. Bush for creating a “jobless recovery.” The month he said that, 334,000 new jobs were created—none of them temporary Census ones—and unemployment was 5.8%.

      “Many other Democrats piled on Mr. Bush at the time. “Mr. President, where are the jobs?” Rep. Nancy Pelosi asked on CNN in October 2003. “The American people will not settle for—nor should the Republicans celebrate—a jobless recovery.” That month saw 203,000 new jobs and 6% unemployment.”

      2) Here are the relevant BLS statistics:

      On February 1st, 2009, the U.S. economy employed 142,099,000 people. Total Employment on September 1, 2012 was 142,101,000 (BLS). There has literally been an increase of only 2,000 net jobs today, despite 3.5 years and trillions of Keynesian “stimulus”. Our economy must create 125,000 jobs/month just to keep up with population growth. 42 months equals 5,250,000 NET jobs JUST TO BREAK EVEN. We’re 5,248,000 jobs SHORT of this mark.

      Obama is a failure because of Obama. He had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and control of the House his first two years. Republicans couldn’t obstruct anything. Under the Democratically controlled 111th congress, he asked for and received:

      1) $830 billion in stimulus (4%of which made it to infrastructure). $3 billion for cash for clunkers, $30 billion in small business loans, $30 billion for mortgage modification, He took over Chrystler and General Motors. ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, Credit card price controls, Jobless benefits for a record 99 weeks…

      Now we’re seeing the results of those policies – Economic Malaise. But this should be no surprise, as Keynesian economic theory has no examples of ever succeeding save for the college classroom and Krugman’s fantasy opinions.

      1. Lance Crossfire


        You say: “He had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and control of the House his first two years,” which is demonstrably false. With the election of Scott Brown and his inaguration on January 2009, the Democrats lost the filibuster proof majority in the Senate within one year of the President’s inaguration. (See Biographical Directory of the United States Congress). So, as is typical of people of your inclination, you are either confused or seeking to confuse.

        1. Scott was elected in a special election in January of 2010.
          His swearing-in was delayed as was that of Franken (Minnesota) in 2009 due to a recount. So Obama had 60 Dems for about a year. The Reps haven’t had that many in almost a century.

        2. Roger Ramjet


          “As people of your inclination” are want to do, you’re deflecting the simple fact that the president got everything he wanted from the 111th congress, with the notable exception of “Cap and Trade”, which he soon after got through a court ruling.

          And now we’re suffering because of it.

          Regarding your claim that “the Democrats lost the filibuster proof majority in the Senate within one year of the President’s inaguration (sic)”, this is not so. There were two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:

          From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman’s challenges came to an end) to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy’s illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and,

          From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha Coakley);

          Also, your math doesn’t add up when you consider the proclivities of Olympia Snow and Arlen Specter… In reality, the republicans never had the 40 votes to stop anything.

          1. Roger, you are including Blue-DOg trash like Ben Nelson, who did all he could to derail the ACA, and Kent Conrad and Lieberman and other Dems who are in the pockets of special interests.

            McConnell has the filibuster blunt instrument, and never hesitated in setting an all-time-record. Obama had nothing.

            I am actually surprised we got as much as we did.

            Stand by to lose the House in 2012, and the Senate, and the Presidency. And maybe, just maybe a couple or three Supreme Court seats.

            My secret hope is that Harry Reid passes the Nuclear Option in February, and beats McConnell with his own blunt instrument.

      2. 2) Here are the relevant BLS statistics:

        Not that I take too much stock in the ability of presidential administrations to “create” jobs, have a look at this FRED chart which shows that Obama outperformed Bush43, and by a wider margin in the private sector.

        Today’s preliminary payroll benchmark revision of an additional 386,000 jobs (453,000 private jobs) widens the gap further.

        1. Roger Ramjet

          Only if you include the last two years, after the collapse of the going market (which was directly cursed by Clinton’s employment of he Community Reinvetment Act).

          Or, in other words, “fail”.

    5. Not a word here from Planck about the 13% dive in durable goods orders, or that’s right, aircraft, but wasn’t there more?

      Nothing about pending home sales dropping 2.6% in August.

      Ah, but things are wonderful!

      1. Unfortunately, I don’t pull out a trend from one month’s statistics. No one who knows the basics of an economy does.

        Thanks for playing.

    6. Thanks for the breath of fresh air, Max. You’re a constant!

      1. Marshmallow Candidate

        Ed Johnson, master of the vacuous one-liner.

  2. John Mcaluney

    We never got out of the recession. It is a depression. No matter how many times BLS reworks its “puts and takes” it still comes up the same, bad economic policy with cheap money is getting us in deeper.

    1. Italy Expat

      Words have meanings. They’re not just talking points. We are not in a Depression, nor are we in a Recession. Economic activity is positive, if slow. What we are debating is whether this president and this Congress are pursuing policies that are helping or hindering the situation.

      1. Richard McClellan

        Yes, words have meaning, although politically correct words are carefully crafted to have as little meaning as possible.

        OTOH, facts are facts. Even if ignored. The “fact” that should chill one’s blood is: Workforce participation overall is at the lowest point in 30 years, but MALE workforce participation is the lowest since they started measuring it in 1948.

        So–we may not be in a “Depression” or a “Recession”, but the last time things were this bad for men was before 1948.

        Guess we need an FDR to juice up a war, get a bunch of those unemployed young men killed off.

        1. Liar.

  3. Too late for Romney. He hitched is wagon to the wrong horse. The media have put up a beautiful smoke screen, burying the stories Romney needs told: 1) a 5% income plummet since 2009 2) a huge loss of labor participation in the 29-49 year-old age bracket 3) substantially higher and still rising health care costs 4) gasoline at 2x the price it was when Obama took office 5) the low-wage nature of the few jobs created over the past several years (remember ‘McJobs’ when Bush was in office?). I could go on.

    Let’s see if Romney is smart enough to find a way to go over the media’s head. If not, prepare for four more years…or the financial apocalypse…whichever comes first.

    1. Actually Romney has talked incessantly about all of those things. Maybe you haven’t been paying attention.

      1. Roger Ramjet

        PD’s point is perfectly stated. It’s not that Romney hasn’t been talking about it, it’s that he needs to find a way over their heads. Remember, he hammered Gingrich in Florida and the Media was all-too willing to help him out. Now, not s much.

        He’s absolutely right. My problem is that all he has to do is watch a few reels of Reagan doing exactly that…

        1. Romney HAS been talking over everybody’s heads, especially the 47%ers.

  4. Forget about the US Politics and Main Stream Media. See the lies and the weakness exposed to the world. Our Ambassador and people are dead on our soverign property, our embassies are destroyed in number of nations and Alqueda Flags have been displayed. Our Country represented by President, Secratary of State, UN Ambassador and other Administration people do not condem the terrorism!!! Shocking!!
    This Administration weakness will be exploited by other nations. We have a chance in November to alter the declining national honor.

    1. Why don’t you go volunteer for the Marines, and REALLY do something about the “National Honor”? Otherwise, let my President handle it, he’s doing a fine job.

      1. Yes, what a fine job he is doing…

  5. We are in a Deleveraging cycle analagous to the Great Depression in the United States. The ugly phase ended in 2009 and now we are in the monetary easing phase. It remains to be seen whether policy can get us through this. The Economic Cycle Research Institute believes a new recession began Q2. Data is beginning to confirm this. I am an ardent support of Mitt Romney, having worked closely with one of his companies in the mid 90s. Just watch the debates my friends. And don’t listen to the liberal media polling … their assumptions are really off. They ignore the swing by independents, who care about the economy and their children’s future first and foremost and they oversample democrats. Just because all the pollers do this doesn’t make it wrong. Mitt Romney will be the next president of the United States.

    1. Ken, Have crossed your path before. Given the enormous increase in dollars, my view is a dollar driven inflationary nightmare coupled with a terrible economy. I remember well 1980’s stagflation when prime hit 21%, and the economy was stagnate. Hope I am wrong, but commodities, gas, stock mkt seem to support that argument so far. Read your post twice, take your view seriously, and will be watching carefully, as you suggest.

      1. You’re wrong. Sell your gold now.

    2. I sure hope so. Mitt makes so much sense. There is no way a country can prosper with so much unemployment. But theres lot of comments on MSM that they think hes gonna be relected. i dont know how…

      1. Obama will be reelected because Romney-Ryan’s plan is sheer economic suicide.

        1. Based on what evidence? That lower tax rates overall bring in greater revenues? That we should stop spending money that we do not have?

          Quit using inflammatory language that only serves to scare people, and back up your assertions with cold, hard facts.

  6. Hey, wait, I thought it was all Bush’s fault?

    1. It is!! Except for this inconvenient double dip.

  7. Big truck Joe

    But Romney had such a gaffe prone couple of weeks…
    And Obamas foreign policy had tthe countrys embassies afire and under siege including the middle east, Taiwan and china;
    And had Labor Day gas prices at all tine record highs;
    And had a QE 3 at $40 billion a month to resuscitate the anemic economy;
    And had 50,000 students out of school in a union enforced teachers strike;
    And had murder rates in chicago at comparable rates to war torn Afghanistan;
    And has had continual bad economic data week after week.
    Yet Romney had a bad couple of weeks. Unbelievable!

    1. Amen… how is it that all the media cares about is trying there best to distract from the real issues. Posting stories about nothing and always trying to publish negativity about Mitt and accolades about the biased polls.

  8. Ryan Stewart

    Wow. There is no shortage of rationalizations and conspiracies from you guys. I suppose it is what you have to do to maintain the silly, right wing delusions you were all willfully fed.

    Why is reality so toxic to conservatives?

    1. Reality is hitting conservatives and liberals alike…as in this data…difference is, conservatives choose not to ignore it and blather on like everything is just fine…or actually BELIEVE Obama when he says the “public sector is fine”

      Only an idiot would agree with that!

      1. Can you read a graph? The graph above is showing me continuous positive GDP growth under Obama, in spite of the desperate efforts of the GOP Congress to throw America under the bus. The DOW has gone from 6800 in March 2009 to 13,400 today, an almost 100% jump. Pethokoukis would be singing the praises of the President if he wasn’t a Deomcrat, that’s obvious for all to see.

        1. It is also trending downward, and is overall the worst recovery of any recovery in our history.

        2. I can read a graph. This one looks like a slow fade since the mid-90s, punctuated by painful dives and weak rallies. The real “real GDP” is probably even worse, since the “real GDP” is adjusted using the cooked official inflation rate, not the actual rate, which is much higher, and driven by “stimulus” spending, money printing, and other chicanery. The Dow hasn’t made some miraculous recovery under Obama. Look at its “growth” when indexed to commodities such as oil or copper. Negative!

  9. Stefan Stackhouse

    Between underlying population growth, the likely understatement of inflation, and the inherent uncertainties and imprecision of GDP measurement, it is likely that there has been no real growth of any import since the downturn of a few years ago. In other words, what we are seeing is not a “V”, or a “U”, but rather an “L”. It is about to become a “double L”, or a “sideways W”, as the fiscal cliff will certainly bring on yet another downturn.

  10. I couldn’t help noticing that, on the yearly graph below, that the bars above 0, in other words, positive GDP growth, only started AFTER Obama took office, rather than when George W. Bush of the GOP was in office in later part of 2008 and very early 2009. After a few months in office under President Obama, the GDP was, once again, in positive territory. People CAN read graphs, ya know.

    1. Yes they can read graphs…and they can see that the last few years are the worst “recovery” on it. They can also see that for most of Bush’s presidency, growth was pretty good. As for the 2008 housing crash, thank both parties, but primarily the Dems, for trying to get anyone with a pulse into risky mortgages.

    2. Well, SOME of us can read graphs. WTH are you talking about? GDP was positive the whole time Bush was in office except maybe the last quarter. GDP was negative growth for almost 2 years under Obama and has been anemic since getting above zero despite a massive stimulus, multi-trillion dollar deficits, and the literal printing of a trillion plus to buy our own debt.

      People need to learn a little economics. Things will never get better under Obama because he thinks he can have his cake and eat it too. You can’t cheat math. If you create new taxes and restrict free enterprise you simply cannot avoid killing the economy. True story.

  11. Leftcoastrocky

    Romney proposes to increase tax cuts for the wealthy, to raise defense spending and to balance the budget. The only way he can get the arithmetic to work is to get rid of the mortgage deduction (which will cause an already fragile real estate market to crash).

    1. This is what most people with a brain call the new math. Besides the fact that Romney is categorically not promoting tax cuts for the rich immediately calls into question your credibility. I’m no Rman supporter, can’t hold my nose and vote for a Rino 2X in a row but the lie that he is looking to lower taxes for the rich has been so thouroughly debunked I have to assume you are a) a troll, b) misinformed, or c) an obamabot who just regurgitates Demonrat talking points, but since you are on this site, it is most likely you are a troll.

  12. The info below constitutes “nuff said” about this author and the institute he represents. No credibility. Obviously they want a “back to the past” solution. It’s in their interest.
    “Some AEI scholars are considered to be some of the leading architects of the second Bush administration’s public policy.[3] More than twenty AEI scholars and fellows served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government’s many panels and commissions. Among the prominent former government officials now affiliated with AEI are former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, now an AEI senior fellow; former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities Lynne Cheney, a longtime AEI senior fellow; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, now an AEI senior fellow; former Dutch member of parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an AEI visiting fellow; and former deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, now an AEI visiting scholar. Other prominent individuals affiliated with AEI include Kevin Hassett, Frederick W. Kagan, Leon Kass, Charles Murray, Michael Novak, Norman J. Ornstein, Richard Perle, Radek Sikorski, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Peter J. Wallison.” (Wikipedia)

    1. Better still, a commentary on the state of “conservative” thought today. (Hint: its not genuine conservatism)

    2. john reilly

      note this above comment is totally ad-hominum

      ELFIR does not cite one fact or intellectually argue the facts.
      he does note refute one fact , chart or conclusion

      This is typical left wing smear tactics, never EVER use facts just attack the persons

      its really quite pathetic

      These folks are incredible

    3. So what’s your point? The GDP graphs are a GOP conspiracy? Most of the article is graphs and a lengthy Reuters quote. So anybody that repeats raw data is not credible? I would say that those who wish to pretend are the ones that are not credible. You had a government monopoly for two years and 4 whole years with the presidency and the senate.

    4. So according to you anybody and everybody at AEI automatically has zero credibility.
      So, um, could you spend just a moment or two explaining how you arrived at that “obvious” conclusion?

      Really a rhetorical question. Lefties like you have a history of not responding when you are called out on your fallacies.

    5. The data in the article is from the Commerce Department and Reuters. Your’s is from Wikipedia. Talk about ’nuff said.

  13. What does the 26 cities with a population over 250K and the greatest poverty level have in common?

    All are heavy unionized and all have been controlled by Democrats for many many years!

    Does this fact and the Blue States bordering on Bankruptcy penetrate the mental fog surrounding. the Liberal mind and their emotions that they use in place of thinking?

    Of Course NOT!

    Never have so many been oblivious to the obvious.

    They still think the Democrat Politicians are concerned about their Welfare.

    The same party and polities that reduced the black population into welfare bondage and the most dependable Democrat voters will work just as well for the rest of the population.

    Just reduced them to poverty and Depending on Welfare and you have a Democrat voter for life!

    President Zero and the Democrats are pursuing the same polities and spreading poverty for the rest of the Nation that have turned those cities and blue States like Calif., Illinois, New York etc. into basket cases and made them dependable votes for the Democrats!

    The more the Democrats can spread Poverty, Welfare and the Entitlement mentality the more Democrat voters they make and the closer they get to a Third World Socialist Food Stamp Paradise controlled Lock, Stock and Barrel by the Democrat party!

    1. the red states are takers (they get more from fed gov’t in benefits) and blue states are givers (they give in to the fed gov’t more than they take out). Maybe red states should secede from the union as a patriotic gesture

      1. Ever looked at it on an individual level? Or is it more convenient/misleading to look at the breakdown by state?

        On a “people” level, do you supposed red people the takers or the givers? Look it up if you don’t know.

    2. Blue states would have far fewer fiscal problems if it weren’t for red state socialism. If the blue states are so awful send them back their money.

    3. The best way to fix this mess is to start blowing up buildings that house newspaper production facilities

    4. Two things –

      1) You have obviously never been to Honolulu.

      2) There are more things in common than Democratic leadership. Look at demographics.

      You argue like a retard.

  14. Isn’t it time that we stopped fighting the tired old Keynesian and supply side battles of the last century? As economist James Hamilton has shown nine of the last ten recessions have been caused by spikes in fossil fuel prices. That was certainly true in 2008 and another spike in fossil fuel prices in early 2011 has had many worrying about a double dip recession for nearly a year. It is good that there are new sources of oil, but these are not the cheap easy sources of the past. Higher productions cost mean higher prices that choke off economic growth. At $90 a barrel it is difficult for our economy to have sustained economic growth. Neither stimulus measures or tax cuts and deregulation are going to fix this. It may be a long time before we see a period of sustained economic growth. We are truly in uncharted territory.
    Both parties are failing us miserably at this point. The tragedy of this election cycle is that no one is discussing the central issue of our time. Meantime, the solutions being proposed will not address the problem that we have.

    1. The 2008 recession was caused by a spike in fossil fuel prices? And pigs fly.

      1. it was bc of clinton’s “all americans right is to own a home” which started sub prime loans which led to the collapse along with nafta. To Blame Bush is like blaming jews for the holocaust

  15. dyinglikeflies

    From a quick look at the chart above it’s clear the Bush recession was the worst of the lot. Can’t vote for Romney and get the same policies as put us there. ’nuff said.

    1. dyinglikeflies – the policies Bush followed were the ones Obama doubled down on. Massive deficit spending. Artificially low interest rates. Government forcing banks to make loans to people who can’t afford them. Printing money like there’s no tomorrow.

      Many bad policies are done by *both* parties – the notion that Bush and Obama’s policies are all diametric opposites is a simplistic, childish, and utterly untrue view.

      Bush grew government, increased the deficit and grew the debt. Obama has done the same times two.

      It should be no surprise that we are getting the same results.

  16. John Rauber

    +8 percent unemployment.
    <1.5 percent GDP growth
    -$4,000 in median income.
    +15 million in new food stamp recipients.
    $4/gallon gasoline.
    +$5 Trillion in new debt.
    U.S. Ambassador murdered.
    Al Qaeda flag flying over U.S embassy.
    Aimless in Afghanistan.
    And he . . . goes on the View? This is not a serious man. In love with being President but utterly clueless when it comes to actually governing, leading the country. A failure in the job by ANY measure. 40 days to decide. What are you gonna do?

    1. From a quick look at the chart above it’s clear the Bush recovery and recession was the worst of the lot. Can’t vote for Romney and get the same policies as put us there. YUP.

      1. Oh really? See that 8% growth after Carter’s recession? Additionally, just curious, Obama keeps talking about how bad he’s had it. During Bush’s term we had: Sep 11, Two wars, Madoff scandal, Housing Bubble Burst (Thanks Barney Frank & Dems!), and Financial fallout from housing bubble. Obama’s had what? A warm summer and Obamacare?

      2. Freethinkerguy

        Do people like you even think or are you set on autopilot? Bush started two wars, a giant unfunded entitlement, put on steel tariffs, and encouraged a weak dollar policy. Those are policies of a true liberal. Bush was no conservative. Obama simply followed in his footsteps. We’ve had 12 years of incompetence. It’s time to go a different way. Vote libertarian.

        1. Obama will be re-elected if libertarians “vote libertarian.” That will guarantee another 4 years of incompetence. Tell me you’re smarter than that.

          1. Does anyone think that the people who finance both party’s don’t know what they’re doing? It’s just random……If you traded 10000.00 paper dollars for silver dimes in 1964 they would be worth about 250,000.00 today. Why? Because silver went up? No….because both party’s have supported the system that prints money out of thin air. That way they can spend all they want and some other generation will pay. Do you people hate your kids? Why do you think there is no competition to both party’s? They are financially the same and the backers fight tooth and nail to keep it that way. They don’t care about your issues. Guns, gays, health care. They care about stealing your money. They print it. They use it first. they get it without inflation….Then it goes into the system and degrades your dollars. You’re to blame folks. If you’ve supported either party you have choosen to cripple your kids in the near future. They are laughing at you. Inflation is coming. $40 billion a month in QE3 guarentee’s it. 1 quadrillion in derivatives waiting to explode ensures it. Google it rocket scientist! Blindness will be no excuse in the end.

          2. i’m a hardcore libertarian, i considered voting for gary johnson, especially if paul was his running mate, but i will plug my nose and vote for romney because this country cannot survive another 4 years of arrogant incompetence

        2. What does Bush and Obama have to do with Romney? Quit it with the moral relativism. Bush isn’t my favorite but the difference in ideology between Bush and Obama is light years apart.

          1. Well, y’see, the Democrats think they can win an election against Bush. It’s what they did in 2008, and they’re going to keep trying it for as long as they think it’s going to work.

            Hell, they’ll probably still be running against Bush in 2020.

            Why would they want to run against Romney? They guy is a moderate, pragmatic, intelligent establishment type who has proven he can win an election in a New England state- their stronghold. It’s much easier to make the election about Bush again.

        3. Finally someone says this. Obama and Bush policies were the same: Blow-out spending w/ borrowed and printed money, vs. Growth policies with less regulation under Reagan and Clinton. Obama’s “reform” is to kill all remnants of Reagan-Clinton economy and doom us to European flatline.

      3. Actually, no.

        See, the stronger the recession, the stronger the recovery tends to be.

        Bush’s (2001) was a fairly weak recession, hence a weaker recovery. Look at all the others to see this.

        Except with Obama. He had by far the biggest recession and also the weakest recovery. One of these things is not like the others….

        You are simply closing your eyes to the truth.

      4. You really think Obama can create jobs? After assuring us “millions” of green jobs that in reality became a money laundering payback scheme to campaign contributors like Solyndra and the California Democrat Committee (that somehow was an investor in Solyndra) … after “saving” GM, which in reality was a plan to seize the company for the union, and will soon go bankrupt (again) … after “saving” teachers, in reality, moving public taxpayer money into teacher pensions … after a US ambassador is murdered, lied about as to why from the Secretary of State, the UN ambassador and the president himself on Letterman, then ignored and referred to as “a bump in the road” … after promising to “cut the deficit in half in my first term” but in reality adding $5 TRILLION to the debt … after promising to be “the most transparent in history” but in reality stonewalling Fast And Furious and a host of other crimes via Eric Holder?

      5. bush’s policies didnt get us there- they were clinton’s/ Nafta sent jobs overseas- glass stegal aloud banks to get to big and lose what was going on, freddie and fannie are dem outposts. in 06 bush and mccain and other republicans told the dem congress about the dangers of sub prime loans, barney frank and chris dodd ignored the warnings- the blood is on dems hands. today 7 of 9 surplus states are run by republicans, liberalism does not work- dont tread on me taxed enough already

    2. Brilliant analysis. If only Romney’s campaign had half a brain, they’d simply produce an ad almost word for word along the lines of your posting, including powerful visuals, and graphic illustrations of these accurate figures, culminating in obama’s smug, arrogant “eye candy” comment on the view. Run it until election day and watch people wake up!!!

      1. What brilliant analysis? The same old stuff: The economy is weak and therefore we are going into a recession.

        Historically, recessions happen because of an external shock, bursting of asset bubbles or tight monetary policy. For now, Europe or a war in Middle East are the only reasons that we could go into a recession. Otherwise, the economy is just going to limp along, but no recession.

      2. Romney has made two major mistakes. His entire campaign should have been molded around 1) labeling Obama as a liar that you cannot trust anything he says (which there is plenty of evidence to backup) and 2) running against the liberal main stream media in addition to Obama. In one swoop, you put the idea in voter’s minds that they should discount or at least skeptically view anything Obama or the MSM says.

    3. Amen John!

    4. Not much of a choice here. His main opponent campaigns one out of three days, and believes that his being elected will somehow magically address our economic predicament.
      In fairness not all our news is bad, the stock market has doubled since January 2009, job growth is anemic but in positive territory, 401 accounts have rebounded. The rest of this list, slow growth, high employment, high gas prices, more social safety net needs, additional debt are what can be expected in an economy struggling against the headwind of high energy prices. Focusing just on the financial crisis misses the point. Neither party is addressing the real issue.

    5. Bill O'Brien

      Too many people out of work. We’re going broke as a nation. I’m voting for Mr. Romney.

  17. has us at .7% growth for 3q.
    this projection was before the downward revision of 2q.

    watch, as the actual number comes in at .1% growth…

    ‘obama saves us from another recession’.

  18. Obama’s anti-business, anti-growth, anti-jobs, anti-energy policies have given us the worst recovery in history, and the worst UNEMPLOYMENT for the longest period since the Great Depression. And those lousy result have been purchased with the most massive wasted corrupt spending and nation destroying DEBT in all of history. Obama is killing our economy almost single handedly. Meantime to pay for Obama’s insanity the Federal Reserve is pumping sugar in our veins. Hundreds of billions of funny money making every dollars in every persons pocket anywhere in the world worth less. A massive Obama tax that hits the poorest Americans hardest. Yet even with the funny money pouring into the system oil prices have ceased to rise and have started to fall back even as we found out growth in Q2 wasn’t just bad it was terrible. The numbers under Obama always seem to get worse after the headlines die out. Obama is taking our nation down the path to utter economic catastrophe folks. If Obama is reelected in a year or two the 25% UNEMPLOYMENT in Spain may look good to us!

    1. so true- people are not even focusing on the economy, but other things, and who is more likeable. Who cares? This president as been a neolithic diaster and to vote him in again would be death to america as we know it- our kids, and kids kids will have nothing left- more of the same means more disaster and more economic stife, more government control and worse health care- Romney has always been good and doing as he syas and accomplishing what he sets out to do, and i believe he will do as he says. I cannot stand the guy, but its not about the guy- its about having a better president then what we have now, people are not better then they were 4 years ago, on top of that his foreign policy is a complete utter disaster, just like his domestic agenda, a real change needs to happen for hope to be attained- change needs to be made we need a new direction, then hope will arise

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content