I think obama did something similar, but I think it was more of a "here's the carrot....now go git it!"
Economically, a President has no chance to affect anything until his 2nd year, when his first budget takes effect. I posted a decisive rebuttal of such misleading charts as the one above in a thread last month. Starting the chart correctly, after Obama's budget was passed, completely reverses the results and Obama actually improved nearly every category from the Bush-made lows.
http://leftcall.com/the-republican-lie-that-obama-is-a-job-killer-in-one-chart/ The GOP talking point that ’Obama is a job killer” is debunked in just one chart. President Obama took office in January 2009 when the ‘great recession’ was at it’s deepest. Up to that point millions of jobs had already been lost to the recession and in that month alone over 800,000 jobs were lost. In the following months many millions of additional jobs were lost. Certainly there is a point where we begin to direct blame for the economy towards Obama and away from Bush but it’s foolish at best to blame Obama for the millions of jobs lost within the first few months of his presidency when millions of jobs had already been shed leading up to the oath of office. The 2009 stimulus bill was signed into law in February of that year and you can see in the chart that job losses begin to recede quite rapidly in the following months until finally positive job growth begins a year later in March 2010. It could be argued that positive job growth really didn’t take shape until October of 2010 because much of the job growth (and then losses) from March 2010 to September 2010 was due to the temporary hiring related to the 2010 census. Each month from October 2010 until November 2011 (and now December 2011) has seen job growth. Out of the 35 full months (including December 2011 – not shown in the chart above) Obama has been in office, 18 months (again, including December 2011 – 200,000 jobs created) have seen job growth. More important is the trend. There is no reason to believe we won’t see continued job growth through all of 2012 which will only improve Obama’s creation-to-loss ratio. It is true that there is still a net jobs loss during Obama’s first 35 months and that the unemployment rate is still higher now compared to when he took office but as you can see from the chart that is mostly due to the first year of his presidency which could hardly be blamed on his economic policies. The naysayers apparently would like us to believe the economy should create a few million jobs in just a month or two and if it doesn’t than Obama has failed. It doesn’t work that way. If you dig a deep hole it’s going to take a while to crawl out of it. One thing the naysayers can’t ignore is that the longer we go into Obama’s presidency the better the jobs picture looks, which serves to reinforce that his policies have had a positive effect on the economy and jobs. It also serves to further debunk the Republican talking points of the ‘stimulus failed’ and ‘Obama is a job killer’. http://michigancitizen.com/latest-rightwing-lie-obama-made-the-economy-worse-p9949-76.htm http://www.alternet.org/story/14942..._economy_--_we_need_obama_to_put_an_end_to_it
All I can say is LOL to that drivel. His economic policies were an immediate spending increase from $3T to $3.6T, half the TARP money, and the biggest pork barrel spending bill in history (labeled "emergency stimulus"). The October '10 job growth would have happened in June or July of '09 without all that spending. And on top of that, his policies all his agency appointees and executive orders have caused job growth to be 1/2 what it should (and needs to) be. Here's a clue: the number of people on unemployment, welfare, disability, food stamps, etc., is increasing, not decreasing.
If anything positive actually happened in the last 4 years it was despite Obama, but anything negative in the last 8 years is directly due to Obama. Signed, all republicans.
Your "rebuttal" is reminiscent of a recent performance given by a certain right-wing actor/director tough-guy movie idol who appeared to be deep into the later stages of mental dementia.
Your post is reminiscent of the Obama campaign. No substance, the facts aren't on your side, so attack.
It isn't about republicans being right and democrats being wrong. Clinton was a democrat and I think he was more right (meaning correct) than people of either party since. It is about history and repeating the same mistakes made. The Great Depression was deepened and lengthened by FDR's policies and had no effect over a ~10 year period. So why repeat the same policy choices? Unemployment was 16.3% in 1931 and 17.2% in 1939. It's clear that when govt. spends 25% of GDP, GDP and employment growth is slower than at historical levels of < 20%. Clinton cut govt. spending to ~18% of GDP and we had a boom. Even food service (e.g. McDonalds) jobs paid higher than minimum wage because unemployment was so low it was hard to attract ANY employees at all. Good for the lower middle class.
I agree, politics isn't about right and wrong, it's about being in power. The country comes a distant second. It's pathetic. And it's not going to change regardless of who gets elected. Not until both sides quit viewing it like a fucking sporting event and actually put the country ahead of themselves. Which will happen shortly after never.
Why choose 1931 and 1939, and conveniently ignore the fact that it kept getting worse after 31, to a high of almost 25% in 33? From its peak in 33, it actually dropped to the 17.2 level in 39. 33 is also the year the New Deal was enacted, so it seems if you are going to mock FDR's policies as having no effect, then show when they were enacted, and the true effect they DID have, instead of the faulty use of statistics you use. And, you know, the time frame he was actually in office. Am also not sure when he was spending 25% of GDP in that time frame.
1931 was the year before he was elected. 1939 was the year before WW II and it was WW II that ended the Depression and not govt. interference. It wasn't the massive govt. spending for the War, either - it was the bombing of the other industrial nations' factories to oblivion, leaving us as effectively the only industrial producer in the world for the decades that followed that created the demand that got the economic engine going again. As for % of GDP FDR spent, it was < 10% of GDP when he took office, and ~16% on average during those years. It peaked at near 25% at the start of the new deal. As for FDR's policies having "no" effect, they did have an effect. It was to deepen and lengthen the depression. If they would have ended the Depression or hastened it's end, unemployment would have been lower in '39 than in '33. Fudging unemployment figures by putting people on the govt. payroll to pick up litter on the highways doesn't make the policies successful. Govt. spending doesn't have the positive multiplier effect that Keynesian economists claim. It's rather obvious it has a multiplier sub 1, which is a negative effect. For every $100K the govt. taxes and spends, it is TAKING $1K from 100 people who make $10K so they can't spend it. There's your sub 1 ($9K/$10K = .9).
So Roosevelt decreased the rate from 25 to 17. He didn't increase it from 16 to 17 as Denny said. Denny must have accidentally chosen the wrong year. Tisk tisk, how careless. It started with Republican Hoover, widely despised for 50 years until the Reagan Revolution revised history with BS like, "FDR made the Depression worse and WW2 bailed him out." Is Bush the new Hoover, or is Hoover the old Bush?
After 30 years in the doghouse, Kennedy offered him a bone, to be a member of the new Peace Corps advisory committee! Well I guess that proves that had Hoover stayed President from 1933-1939, the Depression would have been over by 1939.
so look at what he did when he took office. He started in 33. How did unemployment do? DOn't start 2 years prior. He couldn't help it getting worse.
