Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)The Obama Recovery Has Been Miles Better Than the Bush Recovery [View all]
The Obama Recovery Has Been Miles Better Than the Bush Recoveryby Kevin Drum at Mother Jones
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/12/obama-recovery-has-been-miles-better-bush-recovery
"SNIP......................
Do you see what happened? The Bush recovery looks a bit healthier and the Obama recovery looks a bit weaker. Why? Because we added government jobs. Bush got a nice tailwind from increased hiring at the state and federal level. Obama, conversely, was sailing into heavy headwinds because he inherited a worse recession. States cut employment sharplypartly because they had to and partly because Republican governors saw the recession as an opportunity to slash the size of governmentand Congress was unwilling to help them out in any kind of serious way.
This is obviously not a story that conservatives are especially likely to highlight. But there's not much question about it. Bush benefited not just from a historic housing bubble, but from big increases in government spending and government employment. But even at that his recovery was anemic. Obama had no such help. He had to fight not just a historic housing bust, but big drops in both government spending and government employment. Despite that, his recovery outperformed Bush's by a wide margin.
There are, of course, plenty of caveats to all this. First of all, the labor force participation rate has been shrinking ever since 2000, and that's obviously not the fault of either Bush or Obama. It's a secular trend. Second, the absolute size of the labor force started out smaller in 2001 than in 2010, but it grew during the Bush recovery, which makes his trend line look worse. Its growth has been pretty sluggish during the Obama recovery as people have dropped out of the labor force, which makes his trend line look better. These are the kinds of things that make simple comparisons between administrations so hard. And as Krugman points out, it's unclear just how much economic policy from either administration really affected their respective recoveries anyway:
I would argue that in some ways the depth of the preceding slump set the stage for a faster recovery. But the point is that the usual suspects have been using the alleged uniquely poor performance under Obama to claim uniquely bad policies, or bad attitude, or something. And if thats the game they want to play, they have just scored an impressive own goal.
.......................SNIP"
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
23 replies, 2912 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (23)
ReplyReply to this post
23 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
No recovery can be robust without domestic production of durable goods.
House of Roberts
Dec 2014
#1
You left out that he was born in Kenya and is a Muslim! Sheesh, where does this stuff come from??
George II
Dec 2014
#14
I'm still recovering from the 1st bush recession, in real unadjusted dollars
TheKentuckian
Dec 2014
#18