Graphic: Who Lost The Jobs? Bush Did.
Tweet
Here is the original image.
78 Responses to “Graphic: Who Lost The Jobs? Bush Did.”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Hello, any chance you can post the link to original or larger version of the graph? I have to save this one
And when was Nancy Pelosi crowned speaker of the house? I believe spending originates in congress….Oh and what year did Harry Reid become Majority leader? Keep deluding yourselves that it is all Bushes fault, Its getting long in the tooth as we will see in the midterms.
I’ve added the larger image to the post.
The spending had nothing to do with the job loss. It was the Bush conservative policy of neglect that led to the collapse. It has been Democratic investment that stopped the slide and is returning us to normalcy.
JerseyGeorge, any vote for a Republican is a vote to turn America into a third-world country. But if you vote Republican, you’re too stupid to understand what works and what doesn’t anyway, so any advice is wasted on you. For the sake of my children’s future, don’t vote.
I finished reading Modern Conservatism for Dummies. Boring. The text in each chapter just kept repeating that chapter’s title, over and over again.
I think I’d rather vote for credible problem solvers instead of talking point zombies.
So is this Clinton’s fault or is it Obama’s fault?
“conservative policy of neglect” haha that’s one way to phrasing it. But wrong. It was the liberal policy of reward without risk (Fannemae etc) that failed us. More government intervention will only make it worse. All times of prosperity are driven by the private sector and entrepreneurship. Govt should just get out of the way.
And when was Nancy Pelosi crowned speaker of the house? I believe spending originates in congress…
I can’t believe how often you see this argument trotted out by the ‘gnuts. Maybe Jersey George can tell us how many job-killing bills Pelosi and Reid and their tiny majorities rammed through congress over the threat of a Bush veto?
Clearly the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 is to blame
Umm, I think George Bush was President from 2001 to 2009, not Dec. 2007 to 2009.
If this is supposed to help salve the wound from the devastating chart of the Bush deficits vs. the Obama deficits, it’s pretty much pissin’ in the wind.
More to reality:
Falling flat
More evidence that America is experiencing a jobless recovery.
–The Economist
Dennis – considering many reputable economists predicted the original stimulus bill would be too small to seriously impact job loss in the short term, I trust that your whining means you’d join us in fighting for a second, bigger stimulus that we need?
Yes, because Bush’s unnecessary war in Iraq didn’t do anything to increase the deficit (and the number of Americans dying for no good reason). And it isn’t possible that Bush’s lax oversight helped lead to the collapse.
That is a myth. Government got too far out of the way during a conservative presidency, and that’s what led to the crisis.
Bush deficit v. Obama deficit? Interesting
Deficit when Bush left office = $1.3 Trillion dollars.
Deficit under Obama’s 2010 budget – $1.53 Trillion dollars
That means Obama’s net deficit is only $230 Billion dollars. That’s pretty good, I think.
No?
BTW, Dense, great link.
Bush deficit v. Obama deficit in pictures.
Maybe there’s a pop-up book available.
That’s exactly what this chart is, Duros.
How do you think think it’s any different, because at the bottom of the chart it says the source was the BLS?
Umm, I think George Bush was President from 2001 to 2009, not Dec. 2007 to 2009.
Yes, and that is why the wingnut winge that Obama in one year should have undone all the damage Bush did in eight — and done it without increasing the deficit!!! — is so ignorant and infantile at the same time.
I’m more in the camp with those reputable economists who think the last stimulus was an $800 Billion mistake, Rheinhard.
Really? What are the names of those “reputable economists,” Den’?
You ask as if you doubt me that no “reputable economists” think the stimulus wasn’t such a grand idea.
Do you?
Quaker, do you agree with this statement by Joe Biden:
Changing the color does not mean jobs were not lost under Obama, just that the job loss has slowed. This is the difference between a function and its first derivative.
We need more months when the graph is above the line, not just months where the loss is less than the previous month.
It’s going in the right direction but it still isn’t good.
JerseyGeorge, any vote for a Republican is a vote to turn America into a third-world country. But if you vote Republican, you’re too stupid to understand what works and what doesn’t anyway, so any advice is wasted on you. For the sake of my children’s future, don’t vote.
When conservatives are in charge…
You ask as if you doubt me that no “reputable economists” think the stimulus wasn’t such a grand idea.
Doubting you has proven to be effective and accurate in the past.
You just posted a a link that refutes your argument against government spending on job creation.
You are a moron.
I notice that you haven’t yet….
The larger political issue is that GOP leader Rush Limbaugh thought it was tactically wise to bet that the US economy would never, ever recover from the Bush Recession.
Seriously, they literally thought that the Bush Recession, albeit the worst one since the 1930′s, would never end.
Obama still has seven years to act as steward over the economy. He still has a good two years before he needs to start gearing up for his re-election and trends indicate that job growth will be solid by then, if not robust (just as it was under Clinton).
We know Republicans aren’t very bright, but it was fantastically stupid for them to be against America’s recovery as they did.
You’re deflecting, Den’. Who are these reputable economists you agree with? Or was I not supposed to take that literally?
I’m not deflecting, I just want to know if you doubt me and where you’re coming from with your question, Quaker. Seems you’re the one deflecting.
They were never against a recovery, Jaim, that is false. And they just got three big wins in Virginia, New Jersey and in Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts.
The stupidity is Democrats fucking up now and thinking that continuing to blame it on Republicans is a winning strategy.
You yourself said as much when you attacked Oliver for being an Obama apologist on HCR.
Dems make honest mistakes and will continue to do so.
2001-2006 proves the GOP cannot be trusted to govern America ever again.
Massachusetts and Scott Brown’s election proved the people think the Dems are faring no better. Worse, actually. A vote of no confidence. Then Obama blames it on his not getting the message out well enough. Heh.
Uh huh. This is my scared face.
Dems will win if they run good candidates. The GOP is doomed is it runs Sarah Palin, and that’s looking more likely now. Awesome.
You keep saying the GOP is doomed, yet somehow the GOP keeps winning big elections. The GOP just took Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts and is poised for more big wins this fall. You were happy about the Dems devastating MA loss and you taunted Oliver over it and called him Obama’s fanboi.
You’re a conflicted man, Jaim.
And a perpetual, lifelong malcontent.
No answer? I see. When you said you agreed with “reputable economists,” were we not supposed to take you literally?
I can never tell any more.
I had the answer to that before I wrote the original post, Quaker, I swear to God.
Why do you balk at telling me why you doubt me?
You play games. No problem with that, but you think you’re really clever at it.
Just say “Den, I don’t believe any reputable economists said that.”
Or, “den, tell me what reputable economists you’re referring to so I can google them and tell you about their reputations.”
Just state your intentions first. Simple request.
I play games?
You made a statement. I asked you for more information. Two days later you’re still doing the chicken dance.
I think this might give you a better idea of what happened in Mass. Of course, knowing you, you’re probably going to ignore this and continue your whining.
Quaker in a B: “Really? What are the names of those “reputable economists,” Den’?”
Dennis, a day later: “Just say “Den, I don’t believe any reputable economists said that.”
Or, “den, tell me what reputable economists you’re referring to so I can google them and tell you about their reputations.””
This is why you’re not being believed, Dennis. Because you keep demonstrating you don’t understand what you read.
Same crap you guys always pull, Sean. You, fafaroo and Quaker. One guy starts it, the next guy comes in, and then the third guy takes it to the next level. Did you ever consider that fafaroo has already scoped this one out and knows I had what Quaker seems to want to know?
Why don’t either one of you say why it is you want to know names?
I’ll play your stupid games as long as you want to play them.
Same crap you guys always pull, Sean. You, fafaroo and Quaker.
Whut? Crap we pull? Sainted mother of Vince Lombardi! You said something about economists. I asked “which economists are those” and before you know it, it’s all a conspiracy and Dennis is the victim.
If you don’t want to say which economists you’re “in camp” with, Den’, just follow your leader and say “All of them!”
If I was you, I woulda just said “John Taylor” and been done with it six posts ago.
That would’ve been no fun.
What’s the big deal about saying why you want to know which economists I was talking about, Quaker.
Just say the reason and you’ll have your answer from me.
just say the reason
The reason(s) is/are obvious: to be able to find out more about what you’re basing your view on (to better refute it or see that you may have a point), to make you demonstrate you’re not just unsupported shit up, etc.
That you have to have that pointed out to you just, again, broadcasts how stupid you are being.
That your only response when called out on any of your shit (“You took my literal statement literally?” “You want me to actually name the people I’m using as support?” and the ever popular, “But… over there!”) is baseless accusations that we’re being ridiculous is yet just more broadcasting.
Are any of these economists named Schmidt by any chance, Dense?
What about upstate NY? A democrat now sits in a District that hasn’t seen a democrat in close to a century and all you can talk about is Ted Kennedy.
And BTW, we will continue to blame Bush for all the things he fucked up, in that he was the worst president in a century.
No, he said the GOP is doomed if it runs Sarah Palin.
But it’s easier to claim he said something he didn’t so you can rail against a position not taken, right?
Sean, you’re a complete idiot and a tool of the highest magnitude. When fafaroo said that or very similar, he may have been wrong on the merits of what he was arguing against you, but he was spot on in general. Jaim is well aware that he has made that prediction countless times on here.
If I was you, I woulda just said “John Taylor” and been done with it six posts ago.
–Quaker in a Basement
———————-
No, I was going to start with the obvious answer, Quaker:
Martin Feldstein, An $800 Billion Mistake
I’m not surprised Zython lacked the mental capacity to look that up, but you? And Sean D. Martin? I actually thought you had your reply to Feldstein all written up and stored away on a Word document well before you even asked me the first question.
Or maybe you did.
I did say economists in the plural, though, didn’t I?
Let’s Stimulate Private Risk Taking
–By ALBERTO ALESINA and LUIGI ZINGALES
Mr. Alesina is a professor of economics at Harvard. Mr. Zingales is a professor of finance at the Chicago Booth School of Business.
Congratulations for not trying to pass off Luskin.
Martin Feldstein? He was great in Young Frankenstein, wasn’t he?
Ahem. Now that we have that moment of jocularity out of the way, let’s move on for a look at those conservative economists our friend here is “in camp” with, shall we?
Mr. Feldstein:
Huh. Looks like our pal Dennis has played a clever misdirection on us. The original question that started this tiresome nonsense was from Reinhard:
It turns out Den’s “reputable economists” agree with Reinhard! And all this time, we thought Den’s answer was no! Ha! Funny joke, Den’.
Even more from Den’s “reputable economist” that he totally agrees with:
What great ideas! I wonder why the Obama administration didn’t do these things. Oh wait…!
“Aha!” I hear you say. “But Quaker, that’s just one of Den’s ‘reputable economists.’ You wouldn’t be cherry-picking here, would you? What about the others?”
To which I say, “Don’t talk with your mouth full. It’s gross.” The solution from Alesina and Zingales that our friend is totally on board with:
Awesome! Tax cuts for the rich! Double down on those derivatives! Don’t tax the winners and bail out the losers!
Maybe you shoulda gone with Luskin after all, Den’.
Quaker, who could’ve predicted that all along here you were merely baiting me into showing you a few economists who thought Obama’s stimulus was a mistake so that you could pick a few passages or tidbits of information to try to make some point? Never in a million years would I have. But you got several things wrong and you were also very sloppy.
Feldstein wrote that article in the WaPo back in January of last year, before it was voted in. He called it an $800 billion mistake for several reasons, but mainly that it must be done right. He didn’t argue that it should be bigger then, and he certainly doesn’t argue that we should do another stimulus now because the first one wasn’t big enough. Feldstein called it a mistake then, and his concerns then turned out to be true, but it wasn’t because he agreed with Rheinhard that it was too small.
Missing the Target
I’m not sure what little pieces of information you’ll post and highlight to make some other kind of irrelevant point, but Feldstein didn’t say then or now we need to do another stimulus bigger than the last that was too small. He was in favor of fiscal stimulus, but not the way they planning to do it then and not the way they did it. He’s not in agreement with Rheinhard at all to do a bigger one now.
You got this one wrong, I’m afraid. Very wrong.
You had three days to prepare, too.
Curiouser and curiouser, Den’.
In this latest link, Mr. Feldstein seems to think the tax cuts in the stimulus plan were a bad idea. Further, he says that giving money to states to avoid tax increases was also a bad idea.
Are you sure you’re “in camp” with this fellow?
Oh, wait. Silly me. Now I get it.
I forgot. Anyone who disagrees with Obama for any reason at any time is automatically on your team. Doesn’t matter if a complete reversal of principle is requried.
Now I remember.
But you got several things wrong
You neglected to mention what these might be. Can I ask you to name them, or will that send us off on another three-day game of Duck, Duck, Goose?
Quaker, I read economic analysis every day, and a good part of the day. I deal with Goldman, Morgan Stanley, BAC-ML, Citi, etc. and then send it all to me gratis. Not to mention what I get on my Bloomberg terminal. I have yet to find one economist that I agree with them on everything. There are some who I disagree with on most things, but even then, not on everything.
So this little exercise you and I are doing; your little game of name the an economist so I can pick at him and see whether you are on board with him or not, is really rather pointless.
What I said to Rheinhard is how I feel; that I wouldn’t join him in agreeing that the first stimulus was too small and we need a second one now even bigger than the first; that I’m in agreement with those economists that think the stimulus was a very expensive mistake. Feldstein was one of them. You haven’t shown that not to be the case. You seem to want to do everything but that.
You’re the one doing the deflecting, and you’re the one being dishonest here. Something you are always very quick and very cocksure to say about me.
Sloppy, Quaker.
You’re the one doing the deflecting, and you’re the one being dishonest here.
Deflecting? Dishonest? Pish and tosh, good fellow. I have no idea what you mean.
I’ll simply accept that all of the “reputable economists” you cite all agree that a federal government stimulus was necessary, even if they differ on the best way to execute it.
I’m glad we got that settled.
Quaker, I read economic analysis every day,
There’s a line from A Fish Called Wanda that would go nicely here. But let it pass.
It was the liberal policy of reward without risk (Fannemae etc) that failed us
This is code for “It was poor people and minorities that caused the recession.”
I loved that movie, what is it?
You neglected to mention what these might be. Can I ask you to name them, or will that send us off on another three-day game of Duck, Duck, Goose?
1) You said Feldstein and the other two economists agreed with Rheinhard. They didn’t. Feldstein was for a stimulus, and he’s one libs brought up continually to argue that even conservative economists were for stimulus. But he was never a fan of what Obama did before he did it, and certainly not after. Not even close. You failed to exhibit at all, or even correctly, how you came up with how he’d agree with Rheinhard that a second, bigger stimulus was needed- that the first one wasn’t big enough.
2) You said I misdirected. I didn’t. I told Rheinhard that some economists thought it to be an $800 million dollar mistake. You chose not to attack me for saying that or listing reasons that the economists I listed wouldn’t fall into that category (they do), you cherry-picked things they said that you mistakenly posited that they agreed with Rheinhard (they didn’t). You misdirected.
3) You listed a couple things Feldstein suggested that Obama put in place- tax credits to purchase cars and a tax credit for home improvements. Feldstein has been highly critical of the Cash for Clunkers program, but even then, so what that Obama did do some things for which Feldstein wished for him to do? It had nothing to do with the argument. It had everything to do with why you wanted me to name any economists on here and why you were afraid to say why you wanted names and let other posters here cover for you and chide me. You fashion yourself a bit of a hero on this blog in that way. It’s dishonest.
4) You mocked the tax incentive ideas of Alesina and Zingalese for their tax-incentive ideas to spur growth and stimulate the economy by saying “Awesome! Tax cuts for the rich! DOuble down on those derivatives! Don’t tax the winners and bail out the losers!” They didn’t say that, not even close. You were wrong there and not just because of your use of hyperbole. Nothing in their article said anything about derivatives and there is no hint of their even advocating it. Zingales has been vocal against the overuse of derivatives by large banks. But aside from your errors here in this case, what the heck did it have to do with listing them as two economists who thought the original stimulus was not a good idea or who would oppose a second one. Again, nothing. It was just your silly little baiting game you recruited other dolts into playing along with you on.
Very poor, Quaker. Very poor.
1) You said Feldstein and the other two economists agreed with Rheinhard. They didn’t. Feldstein was for a stimulus, and he’s one libs brought up continually to argue that even conservative economists were for stimulus. But he was never a fan of what Obama did before he did it, and certainly not after. Not even close. You failed to exhibit at all, or even correctly, how you came up with how he’d agree with Rheinhard that a second, bigger stimulus was needed- that the first one wasn’t big enough.
Oh, very well. I only quoted Feldstein in that post, so my jape should have said, “One of Den’s ‘reputable economists’…”
Score one for Den’!
2) You said I misdirected. I didn’t. I told Rheinhard that some economists thought it to be an $800 million dollar mistake. You chose not to attack me for saying that or listing reasons that the economists I listed wouldn’t fall into that category (they do), you cherry-picked things they said that you mistakenly posited that they agreed with Rheinhard (they didn’t). You misdirected.
I was trying to be generous. The general tenor of your responses have been that there should never have been a stimulus at all. But then you linked to a conservative economist who is now and has always been in favor of a stimulus. I credited you with a clever joke rather than reveal that your link contradicted you.
3) You listed a couple things Feldstein suggested that Obama put in place- tax credits to purchase cars and a tax credit for home improvements. Feldstein has been highly critical of the Cash for Clunkers program, but even then, so what that Obama did do some things for which Feldstein wished for him to do?
These were suggestions that Feldstein offered before the stimulus was enacted. Guess what? They became part of the stimulus! You’re “in the same camp” with people who suggested doing exactly what was done!
4) You mocked the tax incentive ideas of Alesina and Zingalese for their tax-incentive ideas to spur growth and stimulate the economy by saying “Awesome! Tax cuts for the rich! DOuble down on those derivatives! Don’t tax the winners and bail out the losers!” They didn’t say that, not even close.
Sure they did. I quoted the relevant portion for you. If you need me to explain it in simpler terms, just ask.
Of course, knowing you, you’re probably going to ignore this and continue your whining.
Can I call ‘em or what?
I swear, trying to follow what you write is a challenge sometimes.
What was Jaim arguing against me? And you’re now agreeing that he was “spot on”, while in your initial reply to his post you said he keeps being wrong.
Sorry, rereading that I can see where it might be confusing. Skip the part about fafaroo; I was just interjecting that some of the names fafaroo called you when you two were bickering over the Gates-Crowley episode might have been justified on the merits even though fafaroo was dead wrong in the argument.
Regarding the malcontent Jaim, he has stated many, many times that the GOP is doomed. He knows he doesn’t need the condition to include us running Sarah Palin, because it doesn’t matter in his view from all the times he’s stated it. He did say in that instance that the GOP is doomed ‘if they run Sarah Palin’, but what I said, that he keeps saying the GOP is doomed, is also true.
That’s what happens when guys like you want to get in on a brief exchange between two parties- you have no idea of either person’s history and then you want to argue on a one-word qualifier that likely may have pertained to previous conversations.
Zython, you so desperately crave the attention and to be treated like a big boy. It’s why you say and do stupid shit. Nobody, not the conservatives and neither the liberals, gives a rat’s ass about your links to loony lib web sites that you think is so important. You’re right, I ignore all your links.
One day when you grow up you’ll thank me for this.;
…you have no idea of either person’s history …
Yeah, Sean. Dennis keeps a file. So just watch it.
So what you’re saying is that you are unable to refute anything in the evidence I have linked?
Nobody, not the conservatives and neither the liberals, gives a rat’s ass about your links to loony lib web sites that you think is so important.
This coming from a guy who links to Stormfront to support his arguments is hilarious.
Dennis, you need to learn that just because you don’t like what I have to say, doesn’t make me wrong. The fact that you believe that you have any moral or intellectual standing on anything is nothing short of arrogant.
Dennis, you need to learn that just because you don’t like what I have to say, doesn’t make me wrong.
Ding ding ding ding ding! Winner!
What’s with Dennis using the word “malcontent” so many times in the last 24 hours? Did he just learn the word yesterday or something?
Good luck with that one. Schmidt.
‘s OK. So do I. Why, in just this last week alone I’ve added bookmarks to when Dennis said it was up to others to provide support for his arguments, posted links that counter his own arguments (thought that move was trademarked by Farris), took over a dozen messages to understand that when someone asks “Which economists are you referring to” they want to know which he’s referring to, etc.
No, you’re wrong. Government intervention gets us out of the potholes that corporate deregulation gets us into. The depression was ended by the New Deal. Government spending. Government created jobs. This recession (and the depression) were caused by Bush’s deregulation of big business and poor fiscal policy. (read, big spending on corporate welfare and two wars off budget.)