“The White House’s Economic Case for Reelection in 13 Charts” is how The Atlantic magazine’s Derek Thompson characterizes a new blog post by the U.S. Treasury Department. The post presents a baker’s dozen of charts created by Team Geithner to highlight just how successful the Obama economic policy has been. Indeed, it all fits in nicely with President Obama’s campaign theme (via the New York Times, also the source of the above photo whose colors I inverted):
President Obama has a new message: America has gotten its groove back. In ways large and small, Mr. Obama has seized on a narrative of national optimism in recent weeks, offering a portrait of a country that, guided by him and powered by the American worker, is making a comeback. It is a narrative with strong echoes of President Ronald Reagan’s 1984 re-election campaign and one that is intended to provide a contrast with today’s less sunny Republican candidates.
And, of course, it is meant to suggest that Mr. Obama himself has hit his own stride. “I placed my bet on the American worker,” he said Tuesday in a boisterously received speech at a United Automobile Workers conference that was centered on his often-criticized bailout of the auto industry three years ago. “The American auto industry is back.”
Here is the counter argument, though I am presenting it as the case against Obama’s economic policies rather than his reelection. I report, you decide:
EMPLOYMENT
1. The current recovery in the labor market has badly lagged others that occurred after deep recessions. (via the Minneapolis Fed)
2. The official unemployment rate is 8.3 percent, but when you include labor force dropouts and part-timers who want full-time work, the rate jumps to 15.1 percent. (U.S. Labor Department)
3. The actual share of the the population with a job has collapsed and remains low.
4. The size of the U.S. labor force has also collapsed, partly due to discouraged Americans giving up looking for a job.
5. Those without a job have been without a job for a long, long, long time.
ECONOMIC GROWTH
6. This recovery has lagged others in terms of economic output or GDP growth. (via the Minneapolis Fed)
7. Economic growth in this recovery has not just lagged the best recoveries of the past or the average recoveries, but the worst other recoveries, too. (via the Economic Policy Institute)
8. The result of the weak recovery is a huge gap between where the economy should be, in terms of growth, and where it is. (via The Wall Street Journal)
9. And that output gap means there’s an income gap, as well. (MKM Partners)
HOUSING
10. The slow, anemic recovery has contributed to keeping the housing market in a depressed state.
xc
DEBT
11. The national debt has exploded during the Obama administration. (Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget)
12. The White House itself admits that its new budget plan would keep the national debt on a dangerous and unsustainable trajectory. (The White House)
13. The current economic picture doesn’t look anything like what the White House promised back in early 2009. (via the Heritage Foundation)
Bottom line: In some areas, like housing and debt, the trend is in the wrong direction. In other areas, like employment, well, here are the words yesterday of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke: ”The job market is far from normal. Continued improvement … is likely to require stronger growth in final demand and production.”
To me, it all adds up to Stagnation Nation rather than a Return to Prosperity. What voters will have to decide is whether Obamanomics—the $800 billion stimulus, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, anti-energy regulation—has been a net plus or a net minus. Did Obama make things better or worse?
Some of these graphs are missing a lot of information. Graphs 1, 6, 11, and 13 only compare what has happened in the past 5 years, and it’s difficult to gauge without seeing the whole picture. For example, when I visit the source for graph 1 and turn on ’2001′, I find that the recession of 2001 was even slower to recover than that of 2007. I wouldn’t be surprised if we never fully recovered from the recession of 2001, and that’s one of the problems with our current recession. Graphs 3 and 5 seem to support that theory, too. I don’t know enough about the economic policies of 2001 to say exactly what that means, though. Maybe someone else can offer a theory?
I can help you.
The charts are accurately representing what a complete catastrophe obamanomics have been for the country and its workers.
I’m always glad to help.
Fantastic
Hahaha this right here is Conservatism vs Liberalism perfectly.
Liberal: I have some questions after skeptically analyizing the data. I’m open minded and would love some input. Can you offer clarification on certain data point and graphs, so we can foster a greater understanding of the data and make the best decisions?
Conservative: Hahaha ur dumb and we’re right because those charts up there are all right and they show Obama sucks because Obama sucks duhhh how could you not know that Obama sucks the graphs are all true because all graphs are true except for the ones that Obama does obviously he lies but our sources would never lie duhhh
And this folks, is why the American era is ending. It was a great sixty years being a superpower, thanks for all the fish.
I’ll ignore Chris for this one, as obviously everything is the Republicans fault.
Michael,
Graph one: go back to the source and click on “Compare Recessions”. Although it did take Bush longer than Obama it is because there was less to “recover” from. In those years people complained about 5-6% unemployement, not 8-10%. You also need to define “recovered from the recession of 2001″. Do you mean back to pre-slump levels? It took 48 months. If you mean for it to adjust to where it “should have been” levels, Chart 8 can show that Bush went above expectations after the recovery.
Graph 6: This one is a little confusing if you are not used to charts. If you go to the source it shows the “Change in US Ouput” for recoveries. This only includes the time after the “recovery” started, not from when one president or another took office. Click on the “recession” button and you will see a black dot on both lines. This is the point that the “recovery” box starts from. This might clear up chart 6.
Graph 11: Besides being cartoonish and silly looking, this just states that since Obama has taken office we went from roughly owing 30-40% of GDP to over 100%. There are no qualms about the fact that Obama has added more to our debt than any other president.
Graph 13: This was created by the Obama administration (minus the red line to show actual) and therefor only shows his time in office. That is why this only goes back to 2007-2008 when he started (I know 2007 was Bush’s admin, but after elections and prior to taking office this plan was built). The significance of this is showing that borrowing nearly $5 trillion and adding more to the national debt than we will ever pay back has not worked. His famous quote of “Give me this money, and we will not go above 8%” will come back to haunt him in this election cycle.
Graph 3: This shows what percentage of people have a job (notice it is different from “unemployment”). While Bush held up at 62-64%, which is par for the course (not really amazing, not horrible), Obama has had the % at 58% the entire time. Even with his budget expanding and the hiring of more people to the government (which is a burden since they do not create revenue) Obama has not been able to raise this number. In other words, as he is hiring “public sector jobs” a similar amount of “private sector jobs” are disappearing.
Graph 5: People on unemployment and for how long. This graph is telling of the current administration and population. Bush peaked in “length of services (ie unemployment)” in 2005, which makes sense because this was the end of the economic slump, so more jobs were opening up, allowing more people to return to work. Obama did something different. He extended unemployment to 99 weeks (almost 2 years) which means if you lost your job in 2008, you were allowed to collect until 2010. The reason his number is so high is this policy which allows them to stay on for longer, so it was not an option under Bush. This might “exempt” Obama, but he made the law. So these numbers demonstrate that he enabled people to leave the job market for two years and then try to return (amazingly at 98 weeks 90%+ of ppl on unemployment find a job) they attrophied most of their skills and are not competitive anymore. He offered, Americans took it.
Here is the bottom line: No president is 100% responsible for their economic situation. Obama inherited a horrible economy (most blame Bush, but he is only a minor actor in what happened) but relied on the same system that crashed the economy to fix it. He is borrowing and spending at an astronomical rate. If the US was a business, we would be bankrupt and closed. The only way to “fix” this is to have a balanced budget ammendment to the constitution, reduce taxes on the lower 75% for four years, then on the top 25%. Cut government spending way down (which means Americans will have to accept the fact that they dont get so many “freebies”, look at Greece), eliminate tax loopholes, and allow the people to work.
Michael, what you’re missing in #1 is that the chart is comparing the current recession to other deep recessions. 2001 was not as deep a recession as those in the chart. If you want to see what you’re missing, go back to the #1 link and hit the “compare recessions” button.
which only points out the problem with this method:
of course when you compare the worst recession in US history to other recessions the worst one looks bad… That’s borderline tautology. A fairer comparison would be to compare the 2007 recession to both the milder recessions of the past and the more severe great depression. Guess what happens when you do that? You find out that once again the AEI has no allegiance to the truth.
Tlaloc, how exactly does adding another point of reference make the current recovery look any better compared to the data already being used? Sure, it would make the graphs for this recession/recovery look better in comparison to the Great Depression, but that’s about it.
Adding a slower runner to a race doesn’t make the current runners objectively faster.
Another lib with a reading comprehension deficit.
The comparison is between recoveries of like recessions. For this recession, Obama’s ‘recovery’ is the worst and most anemic by far as compared to recessions of similar depth.
I can understand that with these plain facts, the only thing you want to be compared with is the Great Depression – which, by the way, was another recovery that was retarded by stupid Democrat policies.
Want a real recovery ? Throw this miserable failure and his crooked cronies out of office.
Michael – the difference is the depth of the recession. Click on the “compare recessions” button and you get a different perspective. With such a deep recession one would expect a more dramatic recovery – sooner.
Micheal – I was referring to Chart 1 and your comment re: 2001, but I think it generally applies. That is why most comparisons are to 1981, another deep recession – but in that case a strong bounce back in economic growth and employment.
Would anyone be surprised that the Downgrade Administration would grade itself on a curve to make it sound like its National agenda of Socialism is actually working?
Are you better off than you were $4 TRILLION ago?
Does this even feel like a recovery?
I first warned everyone I knew that this would happen during the 2008 Primaries. What we are now living is what happens when a complacent voting public, overwhelmed by a media proselytizing for its hero, puts into authority (1) a person raised as a child (in foreign schools) to believe in the evils of American imperialism, (2) a person raised as a high school/college student by overt Marxists revolutionaries to believe in the evils of American capitalism, and (3) a person further indoctrinated as an adult in ultra-liberal theology to believe that anyone who achieves the American Dream must have stolen it from the mouths of minorities who truly earned it but had no champion to save them. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the intended results of the life of Barack Barry Sotero Obama. In November vote for a broke-legged kangaroo, a radioactive orangutang or a glowing gypsy groundhog, but for America’s sake – vote anyone but obama (ABO).
Amusingly, all of the actual, released, detailed plans by the Republican contenders are worse than Obama.
You see, they all push for cuts cuts cuts, we expect this. But instead of taking the cuts and applying it to our massive deficit of $1.2T, they take all the cut money, and instead they lower taxes with it.
Keeping the deficit the same.
They claim “if you give the richest a massive tax break, you’ll improve the economy so much that the deficit will fix itself”
If you guys honestly buy that line… I’m shocked. You’re all so skeptical about anything that Obama says. But then these guys all want to cut spending and NOT CUT THE DEFICIT! The plans are all out there. They have no interest in cutting the deficit.
Please go look at the reviews of the economic plans of Romney/Santorum/Gingrich. All of them are projected to add more to the debt than Obama, because of their massive, expensive tax cuts. The last major tax cut under Bush cost this country between $2 trillion and $3 trillion, all added straight onto the debt. We didn’t cut spending to match — we never do. And we won’t going forward. No President is going to cut Social Security and Medicare to pay for a Tax Cut for the Rich.
Please please please follow your fiscal noses and realize a turd when you smell one!
They’re all talk! You can’t lower the deficit by blaming Obama (lord knows Obama tried exactly that by blaming Bush!) The only way to lower the deficit is to BALANCE THE BUDGET.
You can’t balance a NEGATIVE 1.3 trillion by GIVING AWAY ALL OF THE MONEY YOU CUT!
Please don’t vote in another big-spending Republican…
you know, I simply don’t believe you. Democrats have no credibility when it comes to money, finance, and taxes. History is what it is. Tax cuts are NEVER “expensive”, ENTITLEMENTS are expensive. Now, hmmmmm, let’s see- who benefits the most from maintaining or enlarging entitlements? Hmmmmmm- who benefits the most from federal worker’s insane pension plans? Hmmmmm- who benefits the most from stupid “investments” and “bailouts”, ALL at the taxpayer’s expense? Hmmmmm- who benefits from public employee unions and the cost of their membership? So Chris, not everyone is a fool, but from where I stand, Democrats are sure trying hard to make fools of people like you.
You can’t balance a negative $1.3 Trillion deficit by giving away all the money you cut…
You know how you do balance it…by giving all the rich people and corporations the long term stability and confidence necessary so that they want to start investing and growing again.
If the rich and the corporations have the confidence in the economy, they will invest to create the jobs.
Once we start getting those MILLIONS of people back to work, once we get the adult workforce labor participation back up to pre-2008 levels, those MILLIONS of people will not only be employed, but they will be PAYING TAXES!
Once we get all of those MILLIONS of people PAYING TAXES again…well I think anyone with half a brain can see where this leads!
The question is how do we get the rich and the corporations to want to start growing again.
Drop the capitol gains taxes to a civilized level, stabilize and simplify the tax code, and any number of other simple tried and true fixes for troubled economies.
JUST GET RID OF THE RIDICULOUS KEYNESIAN CRAP… and maybe we can get through this.
Bob and Joe are both right. The larger the public sector, the smaller the private sector. Since the public sector spends but does not create wealth, there can be no growth in the economy (or jobs) unless the public sector is shrunk. Once it’s shrunk to an appropriate size, the private sector will have the resources and motivation to create wealth and jobs. The evidence of these simple truths is in all the failed state owned, managed and controlled economies whose corpses litter the pages of history: USSR, Cuba, N.Korea, Mao’s China and others. Long live free enterprise, capitalism.
Chris, lowering the tax rates have historically increased tax receipts to the federal government.
How about the graph of filibusters? How can Obama be expected to fix the economy with no help from congress? http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/02/10/3878726-graph-filibuster-out-o-control
Don’t obsess over the charts. they are fundamentally correct. The big issue is shrinking the size of the unproductive, wealth-sapping government, at all levels. That will turn the entrepreneurs and wealth producers loose, create millions of new jobs, and get us on the right track again.
Take a look at #3,4,5. To me, those look like something you would expect to see if you were on a crash course towards a government model other than a Republic/ Democracy. On a graduating scale of unacceptability choices might include socialism, marxism, or communism. All of these options might also explain a lot of other trends we’ve observed with respect to government getting invovled in everything from soup to nuts. (lightbulbs, school curriculum, school choice, school lunches, health insurance, automobiles, religion etc).
Our nation’s workforce are becomeing willing to take the path of least resistance; and the current assistance programs train people to be dependent. It does not empower people to ‘try’ to get out of their current situation.
We’ve had heard about trends regarding people no longer searching for work, but a visual says it better. I would love to see our GOP contenders stop allowing Obama pick the fight (health mandate), allow the courts to settle it; and talk about where our country is headed and accompany their talking points with slides to shore up their argument. (A picture is worth a 10k words.)
With all of the money that has been spent, we could all hav recieved a mil or so $’s. Tell me that would not have stimulated the economy. Not serious, but you get the point.
Take a look at #3,4,5. Those look like something you would expect to see if you were on a crash course towards a government model other than a Republic/ Democracy. On a graduating scale of unacceptability choices might include socialism, marxism, or communism. All of these options might also explain a lot of other trends we’ve observed with respect to government getting invovled in everything from soup to nuts. (lightbulbs, school curriculum, school choice, school lunches, health insurance, automobiles, religion etc).
Our nation’s workforce are becoming willing to take the path of least resistance; and the current assistance programs train people to be dependent. It does not empower people to ‘try’ to get out of their current situation.
We’ve had heard about trends regarding people no longer searching for work, but a visual says it better. I would love to see our GOP contenders stop allowing Obama pick the fight (health mandate), allow the courts to settle it; and talk about where our country is headed and accompany their talking points with slides to shore up their argument. (A picture is worth a 10k words.)
With all of the money that has been spent, we could all hav recieved a mil or so $’s. Tell me that would not have stimulated the economy. Not serious, but you get the point.
You might enjoy tracking the money. http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx
I don’t know about anybody else but I think these graphs are pretty darn racist. The graphs would look much better if we adjusted for affirmative action. Heck, I bet they would be the best graphs ever!
Would like to see correlations extended to include timelines 1929 – 1934 and 1935-1939.
Wey hey, I’ve been collecting Obamanomics charts for a while meself:
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/obamas-economic-successes/
What has to be understood when you look at any data regarding our countries current recession is that it was very nearly a second great depression! It seems fair to say, that a depression might be the most honest capitalist market function but we’d be defending our borders instead of starving on the streets. I don’t believe another large war would have the effect on our economy that the WW2 did, but it’s an argument of what-ifs. Where we are at was the outcome of the desperate infusion of unregulated money by congress in 2009. That was the fault of both parties had enough strength in the congress to have put some qualifiers on the money being given out, making sure the money didn’t go into the pockets of CEOs.
Further, considering the huge amounts of mortgage fraud that has been uncovered it seems dubious to lay the blame of our staggering screwed over work force at the feet of our President. The lack of credit after the recession started, in a country like ours which tries to stay ahead of cyclical business cycles (boom, bust) meant that everyone in our country was caught with more debt than cash flow – and that’s been a problem since the 90s as rising health care, tuition, and insurance costs have put the squeeze on a lot of people. The fact that tuition costs rise in the face of your supposed communist and socialist trends of our government suggest to me, that it’s not the economic policies of our government but the lack of money in the economy – even after the huge infusion of cash in 2009! Corporations have the most money, and could do the most for our country but even over the last years when we have a huge need for employment, they move there jobs to foreign countries. Putting all of these things on the shoulders of the President, is a fallacy – scapegoating. Considering the number of congress persons who’ve retained there seats for many years, those are the people I’d hold the most accountable.
Great post. Funny thing about when the downturn on the graph begins, though. Looks like either there were systemic problems there, or Obama has the power to singlehandedly destroy the US economy.
Food for thought!