Obama takes credit for a hopeful correlation
From the AP's Steven Hurst in the C-J...
Buoyed by good news on the jobs front, the White House claimed credit Sunday for reversing the downward economic spiral...
Of course! They hope we'll confuse correlation with causation-- and they hope that things will continue to get better. But they also...
...braced out-of-work Americans for a slow recovery.
Nice move. First, it's likely given all the interventions and bone-headed policies. Second, it's smart to hedge bets politically.
The administration's line is that there's steady, if slow, progress in repairing the economic ruin that President Barack Obama repeatedly has blamed on his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush.
"Line"...yep! Barack, it's your recession. George kept it going-- and for some reason, you insist on continuing his policies and adding a few more kicks in the shorts.
Summers said Obama is preoccupied with creating jobs.
That's a bad sign-- and indicates he has not yet learned the lesson-- that he cannot create (net) jobs.
posted by Eric Schansberg @ 9:07 PM
7 Comments
7 Comments:
There is a "recovery" of sorts going on that is being fueled by the printing press and public sector pork. It will prove illusory probably sooner than later but provides opportunites.
It does seem disingenous that Obama refuses share the credit with Bush who gave us the first 700 billion.
Actually, the economy recovery is starting to accelerate. This is going to be a replay of Reagan's "Morning in America"—but with the political parties reversed.
I acknowledged that there was a recovery in progress.
Yes, Reagan started us down this road in the 80's but if you think sustainability will be 10+ years this time around, I'd have to say you are mistaken...
We shall see.
The Reagan recovery was built on a.) recovering from the reduction in inflation; b.) significant marginal tax rate cuts that encourage producer/worke (supply-side) productivity.
Also, he did not embrace a series of cost-increasing and risk-increasing policies-- as Obama has. Obama and Bush have worked hard to keep the recession going. If Obama continues to intervene, a sluggish economy is the best we can hope for over the next few years.
The NY Times this morning has an article laying out the case that the current recession and recovery mirror the early 1980s: Why So Glum? Numbers Point to a Recovery (Floyd Norris, April 8).
Thanks! I'll read it and reply.
One could make comparisons like that with an E100-level of knowledge, so that may be quite appropriate for the NYT.
Reagan also benefited from his work with Carter (the only good, significant thing accomplished by Carter) to deregulate key industries (in transport and communication). Obama will have no such boost.
OK, two problems here:
1.) People are likely to confuse the absence of a "recession" (officially speaking) with a much healthier economy. But the two are not mutually exclusive. One sees this in the political wisdom of Obama not wanting to talk as if the "recession" is over.
2.) Contrary to the other two recessions, we did not have Presidents and Congresses passing legislation that made business more costly and/or more risky. Just looking at the numbers, perhaps. Adding in the qualitative impact of those policies, much more doubtful.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home