View Full Version : Define 'worse'

08-20-2012, 04:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For over a year,<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Mitt Romney argued on a nearly daily basis that President Obama inherited a brutal recession but then <u>"made it worse."</u></span> By March, even the Republican candidate gave up trying to say this with a straight face, and switched to a new line -- the economy improved under Obama, but the president shouldn't get credit.

Yesterday, however, Romney's running mate picked up the old talking point as his own. "Now, let's be candid, President Obama clearly inherited a very difficult situation," Paul Ryan told supporters in North Canton, Ohio. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"There are no two ways about that. Problem is, <u>he made things much worse.</u>"</span>

Indeed, defending himself for being for and against Recovery Act investments at the same time, Ryan added the stimulus "didn't work" and "did nothing to stimulate the economy."

It's tempting to just send Ryan a copy of Michael Grunwald's new book, "The New New Deal," which is arguably the best book on the Obama presidency to date, but since I doubt he'd read it, let's instead review some charts I first published in June after Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office,<span style='font-size: 14pt'> joined economists in arguing emphatically that the Recovery Act was a success.</span>

Here, for example, is a chart showing the nation's GDP before and after the stimulus. Note, once the stimulus kicked in, the economy immediately started growing. </div></div>

link (http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/17/13337744-define-worse?lite)

Have they no shame?


08-20-2012, 04:47 AM
But its all krappynomix anyhow.
No matter who wins, theusofa loozes.

U might recall that the england prime minister haz reneged on hiz rightwing krappynomix promises. Pity. I wish he had stuck to hiz promises.

Would the GOP renege?
How would they renege?
What would they do?

08-20-2012, 01:18 PM
This is the mirror image of the hypothetical the Dems put forward.

Without the stimulus, things would have been far worse. (True, but hard to prove definitively, or quantitatively, to someone dedicated to doubting that.)

So here's what Romney is really saying: things would have been much BETTER without the stimulus.

Also hard to prove, and really, impossible to even hand wave any data to show it. Because it is, of course, false.

As between these two hypotheticals, Romney has the far greater lift and burden, because there is literally no evidence to support it.

I guess they'd say, look at the other 11 recessions, and didn't they come back faster? Yes, but they were the normal Fed interest rate hike recessions, solvable with lowering the Fed interest rates that had been hiked. Not a financial meltdown recession, more akin to the Great Depression, and therefore not at all like the recessions most people have experienced in their lives.

08-20-2012, 04:30 PM
No, most peeple dont experience recessions, recessions occupy most of theusofa history (since say 1860), so recessions dont kum along, prosperity kums along. Even in the modern era, ie "in their lives".

But aktually there aint no prosperity. What theusofa haz iz permanent recession, ie a real nonemployment rate of more than say 10%. If theusofa had a real rate of less than say 5% then praps then one kood call it prosperity.

But 1% shood be attainable, even with krappynomix.
And without krappynomix say 0%.