For most of us, the economy is one of the most important issues in this election. But it’s a confusing subject, and it’s difficult to know what to believe. Delving into the facts reveals that the recovery after the disastrous 2008 global economic recession has been remarkably good by many historical, comparative and global standards.
We have been through the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. Back then, it took fully 13 years, major federal stimulus programs and World War II to reduce our unemployment to pre-Depression levels. This time we have recovered significantly in just three-and-a-half years. There are still too many Americans hurting, but the recovery is on the right track.
Unemployment has steadily declined for the past 35 months. The high of 10.1 percent three years ago has decreased to 7.8 percent in September, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. There has been a net average annual increase in jobs of 0.97 percent during this administration — a better rate than either Bush achieved.
Health care cost increases have slowed to less than 4 percent for the first time in 50 years, after going up at three times the rate of inflation for a decade, according to a January Health Affairs report.
The U.S. Department of Commerce reported the economy (gross domestic product) has grown steadily for 13 quarters, with an average growth per quarter of 2.2 percent since quarter three in 2009. A May U.S. Treasury report states that since early 2008, the U.S. economic growth has outpaced that of other advanced economies affected by the global financial crisis.
The private sector is leading growth, at a 3.2-percent rate. The Treasury Department points out the following improvements since the first quarter of 2009: overall business investment, up 29 percent; exports, up 23 percent; corporate profits, up 76 percent. The U.S. Department of Commerce has reported that housing construction is up 15 percent in September to a four-year high.
The Treasury Department graphed the shifted economic trajectory after President Bill Clinton: George W. Bush inherited a budget surplus of 2.7 percent of GDP and policies on track to a $5.9 trillion surplus through 2011. However, his policies created deficit spending of $7 trillion (projected through 2011), passing on to the Obama administration the biggest deficit year in history: 9.2 percent of GDP ($1.3 trillion).
Nevertheless, the Obama administration was able to stabilize the economy, though an additional $1.4 trillion deficit spending (through 2011) was required. Dr. Stephen Bloch of Adelphi University analyzed presidential administrations’ effects on the deficit. Using equivalent dollars, his analysis revealed that Obama has reduced the deficit an average of $264 billion per year of his administration, not counting what he inherited his first year: a rate of deficit reduction not experienced since the post-World War II boom. By comparison, George W. Bush added to the deficit an average of $301 billion per year.
Much of the rescue spending has been recovered. Treasury’s projections of loss due to the Troubled Asset Relief Program have been reduced 80 percent from initial estimates, from $341 billion to $68 billion.
More than half of the $79 billion the Obama administration invested to rescue General Motors and Chrysler has already been recovered. The government had stepped in when no private investor or bank(s) were able to supply funds in time to save the companies (a move opposed by Mitt Romney in an OpEd piece in the New York Times). In return, the government was given equity shares, and the companies were required to restructure, streamline and fast-track energy-efficient vehicles. According to the Center for Automotive Research, an estimated 1.41 million U.S. jobs were saved, considering other dependent industries. Loans have been repaid — early and with interest — and all the Chrysler stock has been sold.
Other concerns about tax burden and the size of government are not supported by the data. According to the U.S. Treasury, from 2009 to May 2012, federal revenues (i.e. taxes) relative to the economy have been at their lowest levels in 60 years, at 15.4 percent of GDP (2011). Obama has shrunk government by 569,000 jobs since June 2009 (GDP would be higher otherwise), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
His predecessor grew government jobs by 2 million. A U.S. Office of Personnel Management table showing the Historical Federal Workforce depicts 846,000 fewer federal personnel in 2010 – including Census-takers — than in Reagan’s last year, when we were not at war, our population was lower (up 26.5 percent since then), and there was no Census.
According to a recent poll of hundreds of professional economists by The Economist magazine, “By a large margin [the 363 respondents] rate [President Obama’s] overall economic plan more highly than Mr. Romney’s, credit him with a better grasp of economics, and think him more likely to appoint a good economic team … Half of respondents graded his record as good or very good.”
The data show that under Obama’s guidance, our economy is improving, though at a painfully slow rate for many Americans. If we stay the course, we’ll get there. We’re definitely on our way.
Anita Brosius-Scott has lived in Camden for 19 years. She has served on the Camden select board.



Ah, but the facts don’t really matter. The presidential race is all about confusing as many voters as possible about any facts. Ask Mr. Rove, he’ll tell you.
Thats right! It costs me twice as much to drive to work ever day as it did 4 years ago, my groceries cost 25% more, and my taxes have all gone up but the economy is doing wonderfully (per the DNC) so what does it matter whats happening to my floundering standard of living as long as Mr. Obama is telling me to “lean forward” and things are better than they were under George Romney oops I mean Mitt Bush, darn it oh – George Bush who he’s (Obama) running against this election……..yes for the ignorant it is sarcasm but pizanos hit the nail on the head, ask Mr. Axelrod, he’ll tell you, facts don’t matter in a presidential election.
“facts don’t matter in a presidential election” That is alomat a direct quote from the Romney clan. “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.”
Hate to tell you I am a Dem voting for Obama – I’m making a general statement about all political stupidity but it seems lost on the uneducated and ignorant.
Twice as much? Seriously? You didn’t see this coming huh?
Obviously facts do not matter or else Romney and the republican’s wouldn’t even be in the running. The only thing making this election close is the psyops being used to convince the voters that the people who wrecked the greatest economy in the world are the ones who will fix it.
If tax cuts for billionaires and deregulation were effective economic policy we would be seeing it. It would be obvious. The only thing that IS obvious is wealth has shifted up, people are working harder for less and there’s $25 trillion parked offshore doing nothing.
Meanwhile countries that haven’t sold out their workers like Germany are doing fine.
Oh – I saw it coming, and it’ll get much worse I’m afraid – under either administration….
I disagree. There are huge differences. One party is intent on starving workers into submission by creating hardship for the working class while rewarding the bad behavior and greed of the 1% and the other party lead by president Obama is trying to rebalance it.
There’s no question that the 1% has too much power over our economy and are calling the shots to a great extent, but this is still a republic and if we elect smart people we can tweak it back to where it benefits all of us.
It doesn’t have to get worse. We could turn it around in less than a decade if we want by replacing the reasonable regulations on the banks and Wall St, investing in our infrastructure which will stimulate the economy and attract private investment. We can’t afford to spend a trillion dollars per year on ships and planes that will never be used. They are no defense for suicide bombers. Restoring the taxes for the richest American’s is a no brainier. They, more than anyone have benefited from American infrastructure.
My ancestors busted their butts to build America. I busted my butt during my career and the people who worked for me busted theirs. We are entitled to expect our efforts to be compensated with opportunities for our children.
There is a huge difference between the republican’s and the democrats. In the four years since Obama has been president most of his efforts have focused on cleaning up the mess left by the republican’s. The republican’s have been focused on obstructing his efforts and were willing to bring down the whole economy to keep Obama from accomplishing anything.
Romney has demonstrated that he will say anything to get elected, but what he will do is march to the beat of the republican’s and put us right back where we were.
You must be driving twice as far to go to work if it is costing you twice as much as 4 years ago. In Sept of ’08, gas was up to $4.10 per gallon. It then went into a slide leading up to the election and bounced back up within a few months after it. Stop citing false information based on your obviously sketchy memory.
Gas was never$ 4.10 a gallon in 2008-2009 – you sir are a liar and full of BS, I was paying $1.95 a gallon here in Waldo County at the end of 2008. My memory isn’t sketchy at all, seems yours is conveniently locked into denial of the facts, you sir, are a troll…and I hate to tell you I am a Dem voting for Obama – I’m making a general statement about all political stupidity but it seems lost on the uneducated and ignorant.
Before the election gas WAS above $4.00 a gallon, only the fall of wall Strreet brought the price down!Go back and check your facts on the price during the summer of ’08 and you’ll see your were mistaken.
Pure fallacy, try again.
I am remembering very clearly. I had a 60-mile one-way commute and the gas price was indeed what I stated it to be. I also remember criticizing the oil companies of trying to buy the election for the Republicans by lowering the oil prices throughout the fall leading up to the election. I also remember waiting until just after the election to fill my double fuel tank because prices were dropping steadily leading up to the election.
Sigh. GDP was 2.8% in 2010, 1.8% in 2011 and an average of 1.7% this year. We have 47 million people on food stamps – the combined populations of Australia and Canada. The unemployment rate has declined due to the millions of folks who have given up looking for work.
What makes this numbers particularly damning is the fact that we were told if the “stimulus” passed, unemployment would be under 6%, yet it hasn’t come close to that number while we’ve seen billions of taxpayer dollars appropriated to now-bankrupt businesses, essentially throwing taxpayer and borrowed money down the drain. Further, if we tracked inflation as we did back in the 70’s and 80’s – including the price of oil and housing – it would be greater than 15%. But if you have to buy gas or groceries, you already knew that.
If this is success, please feel free to re-elect the President.
There are an estimated 57 million people living in Australia and Canada in 2012. You have understated this figure by 10 million people. If you are misstating simple facts that are verifiable in a matter of 90 seconds on the internet, how can people trust you with the other more subjective statements that you make?
You
know, part of me wanted to cite all my sources, facts and figures, that sort of
thing. Although I mostly use readily-available information from the IRS, US
Debt Clock and Bureau of Labor Statistics, I like to cite “smaller”
websites; my favorite was treehugger.com and their 2008 Gas Prices Year in
Review. Just so I won’t be accused of making things up, I’ll leave this here: http://goo.gl/JpJo6 You’ll notice the numbers
down at the bottom, where on December 31, 2008, a gallon of regular cost $1.61.
Today, a gallon will set you back $3.50 according to AAA: http://goo.gl/1vikK I know my numbers are “subjective,”
but if they weren’t, I’d say that’s a 117.39% increase in four years. Forward!
That
said, why bother using rationale to build my arguments? I doubt the folks who
consider the past four years successful can be bothered with statistics. I foolishly
used population websites with numbers based off older data…you got me! You even
went for the jugular by stating I was off by ten million, which would leave me embarrassed
if the federal budget deficit wasn’t five orders of magnitude greater than my
mistake; I thought the smart guys were supposed to be in Washington?
$5,800,000,000,000 in new debt and what do we have to show for it? Oh, almost
forgot: http://usdebtclock.org You may
want to click fast, as we’re borrowing at a rate of a billion dollars every six
hours: http://goo.gl/ukCs5
These
numbers aren’t opinion, they’re facts. Again, I’m not trying to tell you who to
vote for. If you’re better off than you were four years ago and the country is
moving in a direction you’re proud of and happy about, you should vote to
re-elect the President.
Don’t bother telling Obama’s sheep facts, it just makes them mad.
If you have a face to face debate with an Obama supporter you have to wear a face mask to protect yourself from the spittle.
Obama with 300+ electoral votes.
Go Barack!
Don’t bother telling wingnuts facts, it just makes them mad.
We Obama supporters love facts. If it weren’t for the fact that Obama is the better candidate, we wouldn’t be supporting him, would we?
But facts are nothing but an liberal conspiracy to right wingers, and doubly so when those facts cast Barack Obama in a remotely positive light. Look, Obama-haters, you’re entitled to your own opinions …
Notice out the other side will choose to fixate on minor mistakes, definitions of words, sources, ect, anything but an intelligent debate on the point or principle being made.
Keep focusing on the result and you will never see the solution.
As long as people fail to understand basic macroeconomic principles they will keep voting for republican’s. The US economy is not your household budget. Not even close.
The only thing wrong with the US economy is the skim being taken at the top by people who are focused on mining the remaining value instead of creating it and the obscene military spending. Get a grip on those and the economy will be restored in a decade.
A suggestion: http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465002609
I’m just wondering where you got your Doctorate in Economics. I assume you have one since you seem to be saying exactly the opposite of most economists. The unemployment rate has not declined for the reason you suggest because that is taken into account when the rate is calculated and has been for some time. This is merely something conservatives try to bring up to try to fool people. Unfortunately too many fall for it.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics must be a “conservative” then. Their data shows the Labor Force in January 2009 was 154.2 million while it was 155.1 million in September 2012 while the population grew approximately 11.5 million (Census Bureau). Almost 11 million have been added to the population while only 1 million have been added to the Work Force. Employment increased from 142.9 million to 143 million or 100,000. Do the math: the unemployment rate is dropping due to the denominator (Labor Force) getting smaller.
and even with the denominator getting smaller, unemployment is back on the upswing…
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/02/news/economy/october-jobs-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
LOL….it is those with a ‘doctorate’ in economics that actually believe we can sustain exponential expansion of bank credit without ever having to pay the principle…
pretty soon they’ll be rehypothecating useless comments such as yours to attain ‘value’ in their ‘assets’
People can look at trends and projections and come to their own conclusions, though the truth is that it matters little in the short term who wins the white house next week. Romney will not be able to wave a wand and make things better anytime soon.
Let’s just say Romney wins and takes new approaches. It will be years until the results of such policies can be seen. If improvement happens before then, it can be credited to residual Obama policies, not Romney policies, just as if things continue to stagnate or take a turn for the worse. Though one can be certain that Romney would claim credit for the former, and blame Obama for the latter. That’s partisan politics.
I wouldn’t say things can’t turn around quickly. An across the board tax cut for all brackets would definitely stir things up. One statistic u dont hear mentioned at all is disposable income…the amount of money each of us have, (yes, even those evil rich people who make over $200,000.oo) in our pockets at the end of the week/month after all financial obligations have been met. That is the one simple concept so many miss. Despite the overwhelming number of financial terms and figures economists and politicians like to throw around, our economy operates on one simple concept….how much money do we have in our pocket to spend. The more money in each pocket, both rich pockets and poor pockets, the more times money changes hands…and each time it changes hands, it generates a tax…the difference between fast nickles and slow dimes….I’ll take the fast nickles every time!!!!
In such an economy, any such extra would likely be squirreled away or used to pay off debt, not spent, at least by those who really need it. The truly rich (not evil, just rich) have been well insulated in this recession for the most part.
At best in the short term, I’d expect Romney to re-extend the Bush cuts, not implement anything radical. We’ve had the Bush tax cuts for how long? Can we say unequivocally that these cuts are helping us recover from the recession? I can’t say that they haven’t, though tax cuts are clearly no panacea.
“In such an economy, any such extra would likely be squirreled away or
used to pay off debt, not spent, at least by those who really need it. ”
But money that’s ‘squirreled away’ is put in banks or credit unions, which circulate it; and when it’s used to ‘pay off debts’, guess what the former creditors do with it?
Dean was referring to “disposable income”. The paying down of debt of consumers is good for a healthy economy and future spending, though it’s not a short term solution – it’s not fast nickels, it’s slow dimes.
It is clear to most people that when you give rich people more money, they do not spend it back into the economy, but rather hoard it away. It doesn’t change hands again, as fast as it would if it went into the hands/pockets of someone who isn’t rich.
It always surprises me when people refuse to acknowledge this plain truth, or try to contradict it.
There are more than enough studies out there to show that a tax cut for the wealthy does not result in an increase in spending. A tax cut for the middle or lower classes does result in higher spending.
“The more money in each pocket, both rich pockets and poor pockets, the
more times money changes hands…and each time it changes hands, it
generates a tax…the difference between fast nickles and slow
dimes….I’ll take the fast nickles every time!!!!” Perhaps I’m reading this wrong but you seem to be indicating that a tax decrease will actually end up bringing in more tax revenue than the government loses though the tax cut. This simply is not true and there is no evidence to support it. What tax cuts do is simply increase the deficit by reducing tax revenues. It that is not what you were suggesting I apologize. If it is what you were suggesting, you are wrong. cf http://rricketts.ba.ttu.edu/Tax%20Rates%20and%20Revenues.htm
If things are so good, then how come we are regularly having 350K+ first time unemployment benefit recipients every few weeks? I guess it takes a Harvard elitist to figure out millions are still out of work and everyone is elated. I am sure all the liberals who don’t have jobs and are getting welfare will tell you things are marvelous. Healthcare has gone down? What planet are they figuring this out on? Then no one should be complaining at how outrageous it is for the cost. Is this article trying to say under Obama he has actually created tons more jobs than Bush? We have more people on food stamps and disability benefits than ever before. We had a low unemployment rate under Bush which means jobs were available and people could find one if they looked hard enough. GDP? Wow! It is anemic now and we are supposed to think it is wonderful? We have been printing fake money for how long now under Obama? Obama hasn’t created nothing. He actually has “bet” on all his Solyndras and battery companies and the Volt. Great bets! Wonder how all those fossil fuels would look right now in NY and NJ. We are moving along so well, no one should be complaining about no work. This is the same guy who said he KNEW how to fix things and if he couldn’t get it done in 3 yrs he should go. I AGREE! Yes, things are really going well…who are you trying to kid?
homey, you’re making stuff up again. typical.
Shermy, not so, I just pay attention to financials and what REAL economists say. Not politically motivated ones. It doesn’t even take an economist to tell you what is going on. And you really believe this country is doing well? Take a good look at the real unemployment numbers by the BLS…the ones they don’t use. Yep, just what we need…4 more years of the “new norm”.
“I just pay attention to financials and what REAL economists say” 10 to 1 you’re referring to the Wall Street Journal which is probably the most politically financial news in the country if not the world.
Never read it in my life. Sorry, WSJ is not on my list. Neither is Paul Krugman.
No, the REAL economists say that our economy is improving thanks in no small part to our president’s economic polices. A terrible recession isn’t something that just disappears overnight, you know.
Go ahead, find me a serious economist who says that Obama’s policies are destroying our economy. Oh, wait, you can’t, because they’re aren’t any. Darn.
The answer is easy. You can’t correct the level of destruction caused by the republican’s in three years. It’s a wonder that President Obama has been able to accomplish what he has accomplished considering that the republicans sole objective is to destroy him and obstruct any attempt to improve the situation.
Get rid of the republican’s and we will see just what this country can do.
We DID get rid of the republicans for the last 2 years under Bush and for the first 2 years under Obama the repubs couldn’t stop a fly. And still NO BUDGET from the senate..dem senate…not one dem voted for Obama;s budget proposals and remember all those “shovel ready jobs”? So with the dems controlling the house AND senate under Bush and having COMPLETE filibuster proof control under Obama, we are supposed to beleieve things were done to make the economy better? If that is the case, I sure hate to see what another 4 more years under these people will bring. I suppose if we keep going like this and another 20M go on food stamps, the dems will be elated.
Sure. And all those economists who disagree with you are wrong. After all what do people who actually study the economy on a daily basis know.
In the world of democrats, Obama has done a remarkable job. He has increased the deficit by $4 trillion dollars, has never had a budget since he’s been in office, passed Obamacare with a straight party line vote, promised to be transparent but is not, promised change but lied, promised to end the Bush tax cuts then lobbied to keep them not once but twice, lied about Libya, said he would work with both parties but remained more partisan than any president in recent memory, in short, he has lied about everything. Yeah, lets re-elect a liar, a non leader, an incompetent and clueless community organizer.
President Obama has done a remarkable job for the reasons Ms. Scott pointed out. The same reasons that the Washington Post and NYT’s gave for endorsing him. The accomplishments are even more significant in light of the relentless obstruction of the republican party who’s stated goal is not to fulfill there oath to the country, but to destroy Obama. Those are just the things we can see. There are no doubt many other power struggles going on out of our sight.
You can repeat your nonsense until your blue in the face, but there is no getting around the fact that the republican’s caused all of this in there 8 years in power. If their so proud of what they have done why are they keeping Bush/Cheney hidden along with the rest of the neocon hawks?
The choice is between going back to the policies of Bush or continuing on with Obama’s demonstrated accomplishments.
Let’s see now. 1. Never had a budget. Hard to have a budget when you have republican controlled House and don’t have a super-majority in the Senate to prevent a filibuster.
2. Passed ACA by straight party line vote. You seem to forget about all the changes the republicans required in order to get this badly needed bill passed.
3. End of Bush tax cuts. Yes he’s agreed to extend them but once again you seem to forget that was a demand by republicans who control the House in order for Obama to get others things that were necessary.
4. Partisan. He’s actually tried to be bi-partisan but it’s very difficult to accomplish when you have the republicans stating that their only goal is his defeat rather than doing what is good and necessary for this country.
There are things about Obama that I don’t like but at least I have a pretty good idea where he stands which is more than I can say for Romney. And to have a republican president with the possibility of a republican house is simply asking too much. This country simply cannot take an other Bush style era.
So call him all the names you want it merely shows your lack not his.
1 Democrats even voted down Obama’s so called budget. Senate vote 100 to 0 against.
2 Changes to the ACA were not because republicans demanded them. They were to get moderate democrats on board.
3 Listen to his speeches when he ran for president the first time. He lied.
4 He talks bi-partisan in public. Behind the scenes he has not even tried. Read the Woodward book or simply look at his actions. Obama can lie straight faced with the best of them.
You just insulted liars.
The Obumabots say don’t beleive your lying eyes or your ears for that matter..Just put on those rose colored glasses , take a drink of Koolaid and cast your vote for Obuma…Foodstamps , section 8 and where’s my Obamaphone ??
WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO KID WITH THAT REPORT?
Libs can try to dazzle us with crazy math and half truths. Fact is America is hurting and the Messiah hasnt saved us. Cant wait for Donald to say your fired
Anita Brosius-Scott’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/anita.brosiusscott
She is just a disinterested observer, of course, like most of the BDN’s op-ed contributors. (The picture of her posing with a cardboard cutout of Obama nicely complements her op-ed.)
As many of us predicted in 2008, electing Obama and his promise of European style socialism would give us an economy just like Europe has seen over the past 20 years.
If he is reelected, why would anyone think this would change? Businesses will continue to find greener pastures, entitlement programs will continue to grow and gas prices will continue to rise – just like in Europe.
The only thing we know for sure is that Obama has promised he will raise our taxes to help pay for all the spending. This is not the recipe that made America the greatest country in the world.
What was the recipe? And what were the tax rates when the USA rose from irrelevance, to world power, to superpower?
You’re absolutely nuts if you think this country was built on low taxes and no government spending. Which isn’t an endorsement of excessive or wasteful spending, though we’d never have become a great country, if doing it on the cheap was our historical philosophy.
“The data show that under Obama’s guidance, our economy is improving,
though at a painfully slow rate for many Americans. If we stay the
course, we’ll get there. We’re definitely on our way.”
Yes, by all means let’s stay the course. At this rate, give obama another 15 or 20 more years and we might actually be at the point we were when he first took office!
I certainly hope we never get to the point we were when Obama took office, with the collapse of the housing and financial markets courtesy of Bush and the neocons 8 years of spend, spend, spend.
History has a bad memory, a lesson from Tommy Douglas.
Tommy Douglas recites one of his favorite stories.
Introduction by Pierre Berton, video by Doug Taylor.
“The
Cream Separator” is an analysis of the capitalist economic system. This
story was suggested by Tommy Douglas’ reading of Lewis Mumford, who had
argued: “During the age of expansion capitalism gave cream to the few,
whole milk to the middle classes, and a blue watery residue to the
majority of farmers and industrial workers, agri- cultural labourers and
slaves.” The way in which Douglas adapted this rather arid analysis to
his rural audiences testifies to his oratorical genius.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE5fOJfKRNk