Housing industry takes two “unexpected” hits in December

posted at 3:25 pm on January 20, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Not just once but twice in as many days, news media have used the word “unexpectedly” to describe serious economic bad news in the housing industry.  Yesterday, CNBC used it to report on homebuilder sentiment as housing sales fall and foreclosures rise.  And unemployment has builders wondering when they can expect to start selling houses again at all:

US home builder sentiment unexpectedly fell in January to the lowest level since June on concerns over the weak labor market and high foreclosure volume, according to a survey on Tuesday that pointed to a patchy recovery in the housing sector.

The National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index for January slipped to 15 from 16 in December, below market expectations for a reading of 17.

The survey blamed the setback in sentiment on the weak labor market, which has produced the highest unemployment rate in 26 years.

A reading below 50 indicates more builders view sales conditions as poor than good.

A reading of 15 apparently means “epic fail,” then.  Given today’s report on housing starts in December from the AP, which also uses its favorite word on economic bad news, that hardly should come as a shock.  However, the AP report offers an unexpected reason for the decline:

New U.S. housing starts unexpectedly fell in December, likely the result of unusually cold weather, while producer prices rose for a third straight month.

The Commerce Department said on Wednesday housing starts fell 4 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 557,000 units, pulled down by a drop in groundbreaking activity for single-family dwellings. Analysts polled by Reuters had expected housing starts to rise to 580,000 units. …

Groundbreaking activity dropped a record 38.8 percent to an all-time low of 553,000 units for the whole of 2009.

There is some good news, albeit perhaps in a direction the White House would not have preferred.  Multifamily starts rose the last two months, meaning that rental demand has increased — likely a byproduct of foreclosures and unemployment.  Permits for buildings rose in December, which hints at better times ahead, but it’s unclear whether those are permits for single-family homes or multi-family dwellings.

The cold weather in December gets the blame for the bad news in the AP report, but CNBC’s report makes it clear that the sentiment in the home-building industry is deeply pessimistic — and that has nothing  to do with the weather.  Home builders don’t see a market reappearing in the near term, thanks to chronic high unemployment and the next round of foreclosures that merely got postponed by Obama’s stimulus and bailout programs.  Until employment improves and people can hold mortgages they can afford, builders are not likely to start another boom or bubble.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

HAMP has turned out to be the most understated EPIC FAIL of the Obama administration.

BPD on January 20, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Democrat administration. Bad economic news must be downplayed, blamed on previous administrations or seen as an aberration, i.e. “unexpected”. Isn’t journalism wonderful?

SKYFOX on January 20, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Carbon-emissions cause everything, including AIDS.

Holger on January 20, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Huh.

I never knew nails were this temperature sensitive…

catmman on January 20, 2010 at 3:28 PM

What would be truly unexpected would be if people quit demanding McMansions and cookie-cutter suburbs, and school systems weren’t based on one’s zip code. But who am I kidding?

Dark-Star on January 20, 2010 at 3:30 PM

Yet another “un{fill in the blank}” report. If that’s all the prognosticators and pundits can muster, then they’re too stupid too hold down the position they fill.

ya2daup on January 20, 2010 at 3:30 PM

And why is everything bad that happens economically, always “unexpected”?

Who would have thought, that in this economy, with 3.4 million people (at least) out of work that people wouldn’t buy homes as much?

Anything negative is always unexpected – never a result of bad administration economic policies. Everything good is never unexpected, and always a result of the administrations economic policies.

catmman on January 20, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Good grief! It’s not global warming that’s to blame, it’s Bush! Anybody knows that.

ncborn on January 20, 2010 at 3:31 PM

I am sure state and local governments will cut spending to lower the property tax burden on residents so they can stay in their home.

WashJeff on January 20, 2010 at 3:31 PM

unexpectedly

They keep using that world. I do not think it means what they think it means.

rbj on January 20, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Carbon-emissions cause everything, including AIDS.

Holger on January 20, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Nice to meet you, Mr. Glover!

Daggett on January 20, 2010 at 3:32 PM

The Scott Brown win was also ‘Unexpected’

Juno77 on January 20, 2010 at 3:33 PM

Unprecedented.

Enoxo on January 20, 2010 at 3:33 PM

howard dean said it was no one’s fault. except for george bush.

by the way, did anyone see my former part-time governor, DNC Chairman Timmy Kaine on TV last night? i would love to hear him analyze the MA senate race.

kelley in virginia on January 20, 2010 at 3:34 PM

The answer, of course, is to spend more money and slap mor regulations and taxes on the producing sector of the economy.

Laugh all you want. Worked pretty good in the USSR.

jukin on January 20, 2010 at 3:34 PM

Obama’s economic depression “unexpectedly” worsened despite because of all of his and the dems actions.

Johan Klaus on January 20, 2010 at 3:35 PM

They really would prefer a Depression.

Russia had a permanent depression, which suited the commissars just fine.

notagool on January 20, 2010 at 3:35 PM

First, it was December, second it was a very very cold December and third there is 10% unemployment. Really unexpectedly?

Cindy Munford on January 20, 2010 at 3:37 PM

The government controls all mortgage lending now. Lenders are terrified of getting shut down by HUD or the Justice Department. They’re not lending to anyone except individuals with 750+ credit scores and 20% down. Nobody can get financing for anything right now. The major banks supply most of the mortgage money and Obama wants to tax the crap out of them. Why does anyone expect good news in the housing market?

rockmom on January 20, 2010 at 3:37 PM

I am sure state and local governments will cut spending to lower the property tax burden on residents so they can stay in their home.

WashJeff on January 20, 2010 at 3:31 PM

They will in New Jersey and Virginia, starting this week. :-)

rockmom on January 20, 2010 at 3:38 PM

Until employment improves and people can hold mortgages they can afford, builders are not likely to start another boom or bubble.

This country’s economy is f**** for a long time. You don’t emerge from a meltdown in 2 or 3 years. It may take eight years or more, and that’s if we don’t fall into a deflationary spiral as occurred in Japan in the recent past.

We can only hope that we learn from the past and don’t adopt a Herbert Hoover strategy of balancing the budget to fix the economy. The country needs tea baggers but their time was in the wasteful last 9 years when ‘deficits didnt matter’ more than the present or immediate future.

bayam on January 20, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Hurry up and pivot, Obama. We need you to save us!

SouthernGent on January 20, 2010 at 3:41 PM

I was reading on Drudge earlier today that FHA has tightened it’s lending standards.

That’s not going to make it any easier to sell homes.

MarkTheGreat on January 20, 2010 at 3:41 PM

Gah! It can’t be UNEXPECTED if there’s a PATTERN, not just in housing but throughout the entire economy!

Track-A-'Crat on January 20, 2010 at 3:42 PM

We can only hope that we learn from the past and don’t adopt a Herbert Hoover strategy of balancing the budget to fix the economy.

bayam on January 20, 2010 at 3:40 PM

As opposed to trying to deficit-spend our way to prosperity again?

Dark-Star on January 20, 2010 at 3:42 PM

We can only hope that we learn from the past and don’t adopt a Herbert Hoover strategy of balancing the budget to fix the economy.

bayam on January 20, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Why is it that liberals always regurgitate the same old lies.

Hoover balanced the budget by jacking tax rates way, way up.
The same thing that your boy wants to do.

Govt spending has zero impact on the economy.

MarkTheGreat on January 20, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Govt spending can never have an affect on the economy, for one simple reason. Before govt can spend money, it must first take it from someone. The result is that money is moved from those who actually earned it, to those the govt considers more worthy.

Tax rates on the other hand impact the incentives that people have to invest and work. Higher taxes, people work less. Lower taxes, they work more.

Simple, basic, and proven over and over again.
However since this doesn’t transfer power over people to govt, liberals always reject it.

MarkTheGreat on January 20, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Govt spending has zero impact on the economy.

MarkTheGreat on January 20, 2010 at 3:42 PM

…what?

So then all the government spending on ‘education’, military, and social programs doesn’t have any impact on the economy?

Dark-Star on January 20, 2010 at 3:46 PM

They will in New Jersey and Virginia, starting this week. :-)

rockmom on January 20, 2010 at 3:38 PM

I hope those two new govs can succeed with that. It will make GOP victories in those state easier in the future.

WashJeff on January 20, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Barack Unexpected Obama….mmmmmm……mmmmmm….mmmmm…..

BigWyo on January 20, 2010 at 3:48 PM

And you aint seen nuthin yet. If fuel prices go back to $4 plus it is goin to rain hellfire on US economic activity. We are close to $3 in the dead of winter in the mids of stagnant eco activity. Further recession is just sitting there at the next turn, and if fuel prices continue to rise, fuel cost inflation will again start to emerge, those borderline forclosures will cross the border into full blown foreclosures, and it can get ugly fast this next time around. The dems have done absolutely nothing to stem the inevitable rise in fuel prices, as far as domestic energy policy and production go, and quite frankly we are sitting ducks right now. ALl it will take is Iran, Chavez, etc to intentionally initiate/manufacture a global crisis to manipulate higher prices and the US eco is so fragile and sensitive to that right now that we could truly experience the very worst of the “depressive” consequences of consumers having only enough to barely get by, buying food, gasoline, and trying thier damndest to stay in homes they cant afford and keep the job they have, if they have one at all. Im telling you, if gaso goes to $4.00 it is game over. The economy will further recede, unemployement will rise, and they wont be able to blame Bush for that. We need to produce our own energy to tell the speculators and the OPECrs you arent going to strangle us. But our liberal, green, paranoid environmental domestic freaks are to blind to see it and to beholden to “green” energy and phony global warming to allow it. The shadow of economic death is lurking and the dems just worry about healthcare. I am convinced they are either brain dead, or intentionally trying to break the capitalist system.

CriticalUpdate on January 20, 2010 at 3:49 PM

What would be truly unexpected would be if people quit demanding McMansions and cookie-cutter suburbs, and school systems weren’t based on one’s zip code. But who am I kidding?

Dark-Star on January 20, 2010 at 3:30 PM

People will stop moving to the suburbs for better schools when they break the stranglehold of the teachers union on urban schools or provide vouchers to everyone. But who am I kidding?

cool breeze on January 20, 2010 at 3:49 PM

…what?

So then all the government spending on ‘education’, military, and social programs doesn’t have any impact on the economy?

Dark-Star on January 20, 2010 at 3:46 PM

You got it right. It has no impact on the economy, because as I stated above, before the govt can spend money it has to first take it from someone else.
One person’s increased ability to spend is offset by someone else’s loss in spending power.

At best govt has zero net impact. In reality, since govt never spends money as well as the person who earned it would have, govt spending always results in less economic activity than would have happened had govt done nothing.

MarkTheGreat on January 20, 2010 at 3:50 PM

criticalupdate: yeah, i think fuel is a big issue. and one of the blogs (DRUDGE?) noted that germany is getting ready to buy some fuel from Iran.

not that I think we should belly up to Iran, but it shows that other countries can see the handwriting on the wall.

kelley in virginia on January 20, 2010 at 3:52 PM

Two examples, one correct:

Housing industry decline = unexpected

Victory in MA for a Republican = unexpected

Do you see, MSM?

Track-A-'Crat on January 20, 2010 at 3:52 PM

but there is absolutely no handwriting on the wall that the B+rack administration can see. housing, fuel, American anger

kelley in virginia on January 20, 2010 at 3:54 PM

Bush ran up the biggest deficits in history and the economy still tanked. Obama has run them up even more and the economy is still in the tank. If you believe Keynesian theory we should have -5% unemployment right now with all this g-d deficit spending we have been doing for 9 years.

When will liberals get off of that shtick.

rockmom on January 20, 2010 at 3:55 PM

BOOOSH!!!!!

search4truth on January 20, 2010 at 3:59 PM

the wasteful last 9 years.

bayam on January 20, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Translated: “Still Bush’s fault”

bayrum, you were a lot funnier at Captains’ Quarters.

Del Dolemonte on January 20, 2010 at 4:02 PM

People will stop moving to the suburbs for better schools when they break the stranglehold of the teachers union on urban schools or provide vouchers to everyone. But who am I kidding?

cool breeze on January 20, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Unfortunately, too true.

Vouchers have support from people running the gamut of the political spectrum, but success has been limited to a few small-scale implementations. It’s like trying to break up the Ma Bell monopoly by grassroots action.

Dark-Star on January 20, 2010 at 4:02 PM

At best govt has zero net impact. In reality, since govt never spends money as well as the person who earned it would have, govt spending always results in less economic activity than would have happened had govt done nothing.

MarkTheGreat on January 20, 2010 at 3:50 PM

In other words, it’s the exact opposite of your first statement – government spending not only doesn’t have zero impact on the economy, it has a negative impact.

Left in the hands of the people who generate/earn the wealth, the market will guide how it is used, that it be spent efficiently (generally), etc.

In the hands of government, the same dollars may be spent, but a piece of it is consumed by the bureaucracy, the remainder likely being spent on projects and in ways that do not have the same impact on the economy because they are not spent with the economy in mind foremost – they are spent with politics and agenda in mind.

Midas on January 20, 2010 at 4:08 PM

Will they “unexpectedly” stop using the word “unexpectedly” someday?

GarandFan on January 20, 2010 at 4:10 PM

Carbon-emissions Bush/Cheney/Halliburton/conservatives/republicans/Olby’s worst persons list cause everything, including AIDS.

Holger on January 20, 2010 at 3:27 PM

fify

Midas on January 20, 2010 at 4:10 PM

ACORN has spoken.

George Soros (convicted felon) has spoken today.

Thier silence speaks.

seven on January 20, 2010 at 4:10 PM

I am sure state and local governments will cut spending to lower the property tax burden on residents so they can stay in their home.

WashJeff on January 20, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Our local casino (Indian) worth roughly $42 million pays approximately 30% more in property taxes than my house (worth significantly less than $42 million -cough-).

They gotta make up those shortfalls somewhere. Grrr.

WitchDoctor on January 20, 2010 at 4:11 PM

If Reuters and the AP would just call the Heritage Foundation instead of Democrat hacks for information they wouldn’t look like idiots every month when they have to report this crap.

You’d think they’d get tired of being taken for morons eventually.

uknowmorethanme on January 20, 2010 at 4:12 PM

government spending not only doesn’t have zero impact on the economy, it has a negative impact.

Midas on January 20, 2010 at 4:08 PM

Yep, state spending crowds out private sector consumption and investment.

So it’s a good job that the government is so effective at creating jobs, then…

Track-A-'Crat on January 20, 2010 at 4:12 PM

Will they “unexpectedly” stop using the word “unexpectedly” someday?

GarandFan on January 20, 2010 at 4:10 PM

They unexpectedly posted unexpected critical stories earlier this month. Rahm must have unexpectedly dropped by to unexpectedly break their kneecaps. Unexpectedly.

uknowmorethanme on January 20, 2010 at 4:14 PM

People will stop moving to the suburbs for better schools when they break the stranglehold of the teachers union on urban schools or provide vouchers to everyone. But who am I kidding?

cool breeze on January 20, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Unfortunately, too true.

Vouchers have support from people running the gamut of the political spectrum, but success has been limited to a few small-scale implementations. It’s like trying to break up the Ma Bell monopoly by grassroots action.

Dark-Star on January 20, 2010 at 4:02 PM

We could go really radical and get rid of property taxes altogether and have all schools be pay schools. If the schools stop getting “free money”, I’m sure they would compete and do their best to keep costs down as much as possible while still providing the best education possible.

The way it is now, the schools kind of dictate how good they are. If there is a levy coming up, they always threaten the people and say “If it doesn’t pass we’ll have to cut this, this, and this.” If all schools are pay schools, then it’s the people that dictate what happens. The parents can say “I’m not giving you my money unless this, this, and this (happens, is included, etc.).”

But again, that’s kind of radical.

MobileVideoEngineer on January 20, 2010 at 4:17 PM

And as long as this sort of news is “unexpected,” so will be the results of elections.

notropis on January 20, 2010 at 4:18 PM

Isn’t journalism wonderful?

SKYFOX on January 20, 2010 at 3:25 PM

This isn’t journalism it’s lib-shilling. The Lib Press Corps got out of the journalism business a long time ago. They now almost exclusively shill for the left.

Axeman on January 20, 2010 at 4:19 PM

This is a true story about the real danger to our society. Global Cooling is the real threat to humanity. Global warming is a plus when it happens because man easily adjusts to having more food and needing less shelter indoors.

jimw on January 20, 2010 at 4:22 PM

Increased multifamily starts do not necessarily derive from increases in rental demand. The financing climate is actually improving and as those costs decrease . . . Also, municipalities are also slightly more forgiving (less asshole-ish) because their fees are way down. This can also speed things up. Just saying.

I’m sure all the declines in the newspaper industry are unexpected as well. They could shut the NYT down and reporters would find their restricted access to their offices unexpected.

Pablo Snooze on January 20, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Colonel Klink ran a better camp and his henchmen
“knew nothink” either.

Lily on January 20, 2010 at 4:40 PM

bayam on January 20, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Go play pick-up-sticks on the freeway.

And stay off the white lines.

platypus on January 20, 2010 at 4:52 PM

If you believe Keynesian theory we should have -5% unemployment right now with all this g-d deficit spending we have been doing for 9 years.

When will liberals get off of that shtick.

rockmom on January 20, 2010 at 3:55 PM

That’s a strawman of Keynesian economics. Keynes never said that the government has unlimited potential. He observed a long term cycle of powerlessness in the Great Depression and said that the government spending can replace private spending to put more money into more people’s hands, and restart the economy. For that reason Keynes backed tax cuts in times of recession as well as government spending. The idea was that the government was supposed to get itself back in budget during times of prosperity.

Fiscal Policy, and especially Perpetual Fiscal Policy was discredited during the 70s. Keynes is at fault for hyping fiscal policy as an ongoing solution. But Keynes’ recession recovery principles have been used even by Reagan (which is why Bush Sr., with an economics degree, was even more incongruous with his comment about “Voodoo Economics” running against Reagan–but of course high inflation with considerable unemployment stymied many economists, I would guess.)

The only president that has not put proper Keynesian principles into action is: Obama. In fact, it is my suspicion that by targeting “shovel-ready projects” these students of the Frankfort school knew that there was no way that the contents of whatever was in the queue could ever affect unemployment the way a solid public works bill would. The projects that were in the queue, were the standard-size projects, about what one would expect on any given day. Thus, in the midst of the wave of unemployment his idea was to spend on a slight precipitation of government projects. Also those funds mostly went to government projects which have no hope of stimulating private contractors much more than slightly above their normal stream of business.

But remember when conservatives complain about the absurdity of raising taxes in a recession, they are invoking Keynesian economic principles. If they say it’s never been done, that’s because government was following Keynesian Fiscal Policy, which prefers tax cuts in times of recession.

I wish that conservatives could point to one “repudiation” of Keynes that knew the difference between Keynesian principles and Keynes’ proposed Fiscal Policy.

Axeman on January 20, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Keynes mistake was his assumption that there was money sitting around not doing anything, and that the govt was sufficiently dextrous to extract this money from the economy and put it to work.

In reality, money never just sits there.
And even if it did, govt would never be able to target just those idle dollars.

MarkTheGreat on January 20, 2010 at 5:10 PM

There is that word “unexpected” again…

sonofdy on January 20, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Keynes favored raising taxes when the economy recovers. That has been disproven. Keeping taxes low helps the economy to grow. There is no such thing as an over heating economy which is also part of the Keynsian mythology.

Finally, Keynes assumed that it was possible for govt to turn on and off the money tap at precisely the right time to keep the economy on an even keel. As experience has taught us, this is just another conceit of the “educated class”. In reality govt is incapable of doing this, during the 60′s and 70′s govt attempts to “stimulate the economy” never managed to take effect prior to the economy turning around on it’s own.

The best thing, indeed the only thing govt can do for the economy, is to get taxes and regulations as low as possible, and leave them there.

As others have pointed out, constantly tinkering with taxes and regulations makes business people nervous. It’s hard to invest if you don’t know what the future tax and regulatory climates are going to be.

MarkTheGreat on January 20, 2010 at 5:14 PM

I think the housing industry is in much worse shape than they are even letting on. I went to a house auction in MD last month. Since I was one of two people there plus the auctioneer and the bank (by phone to the auctioneer), I got to ask the auctioneer several questions:
Q1. Who is buying these foreclosed properties? He said that his auction company auctioned 200 properties that day and “Fannie and Freddie” (his words) bought 95% of them — most by setting the opening bid higher than anyone wants to pay (considering the risks related to buying at auction). And that was pretty typical.
2. Why don’t the banks sell these properties that they take by foreclosure?
He said, they are holding most of them until the market turns up.
3. What’s the outlook for additional foreclosures in the area? It’s going to get worse before it gets better, he said.
We’ve wondered why housing prices in MD have only come down about 10-15% from the bubble in the face of so many foreclosures. The answer is that the banks, subsidized by Fannie and Freddie (ie., you the taxpayer) are keeping foreclosed homes off the market by buying them up and holding them. When that dam bursts and they start trying to sell them, there is likely going to be a significant further reduction in the housing market in MD (and I suspect the same thing is going on across the country).

Christian Conservative on January 20, 2010 at 5:29 PM

They really would prefer a Depression.

Russia had a permanent depression, which suited the commissars just fine.

notagool on January 20, 2010 at 3:35 PM

I know what you mean, but they were thrown out!

yubley on January 20, 2010 at 5:44 PM

MarkTheGreat on January 20, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Well, a couple of things that you have said are against \”Fiscal Policy\”, and I think we both know that stagflation and the 70s disproved that Fiscal Policy would work in an ongoing fashion. But, it was for the defects in Fiscal Policy that economists like our own Milton Friedman advocated Monetarist policy. But it functions, albeit more fluidly, like Keynesian principles. In recessions, the government turns on the money tap to increase the supply of money, the impact of this is still borne by the government. So with tax cuts and increase in money supply the government only partially increases its debt in definite numbers on paper, but you are still borrowing from the future with some portion of the effect as the devaluing of the currency. And again, our guy Allen Greenspan often tightened the reigns on the money supply to avoid the chimera that you find the \”overheating economy\” to be. The Clinton administration repeatedly accused Greenspan of trying to throttle the economy for political reasons, while Greenspan only suggested that he\’s trying to keep inflation under control for a sustainable boom. Also, note that by increasing the money reserve the government is actually regulating money to be \”idle\”. So monetarism was created to deal with the problems of carrying out Keynesian fiscal policy.

Axeman on January 20, 2010 at 7:05 PM

Multifamily starts rose the last two months, meaning that rental demand has increased — likely a byproduct of foreclosures and unemployment. Permits for buildings rose in December, which hints at better times ahead, but it’s unclear whether those are permits for single-family homes or multi-family dwellings.

-
I just spent 3 days doing a smallish roof on my house (tore off 5 old roofs, 3 asphalt and 2 cedar shingle… Unbelievable!). There is still a larger roof to do that will need the same treatment and looks like it has the same 5 layers (darned old houses).
-
Anyway, it’s a triplex and I hope to list it for sale in the next few weeks. There are 2 other jobs that I want to bang out before the real-estate market gets to see the place, but this little news bite gives me a chuckle.
-
I’ll sell if I can get my price, or rent the whole place out if not. My new digs are calling and I want to be there, but I’m not desperate to sell. The market sucks and sweet nothings like this one in reality mean… well… nothing.

RalphyBoy on January 20, 2010 at 7:31 PM

Surprise! Community Organizers don’t care about trivial things like making a profit or a healthy economy. It’s been a year since Obama took office, let me be clear: I told ya so!

TN Mom on January 20, 2010 at 7:47 PM

Not just once but twice in as many days, news media have used the word “unexpectedly” to describe serious economic bad news in the housing industry.

I was just thinking back to the Bush presidency… Does anyone recall that “unexpectedly” was regularly used to describe POSITIVE economic news? I do… Used to really piss me off as much as when they would hype any slight slowdown. I’d be willing to bet hardly anyone knows that Bush oversaw a record 52 consecutive months of job creation.

RightWinged on January 20, 2010 at 7:53 PM

Used to really piss me off as much as when they would hype any slight slowdown. I’d be willing to bet hardly anyone knows that Bush oversaw a record 52 consecutive months of job creation.

Yes, hard to imagine job growth at time when the government pumped 4 trillion of debt spending into the economy, further fueling massive bubbles in the stock and housing markets.

Don’t we understand yet that the fiscal policies of that era were disastrous and ended in a near calamity? Those weren’t the good old days.

bayam on January 20, 2010 at 8:25 PM

Yes, hard to imagine job growth at time when the government pumped 4 trillion of debt spending into the economy, further fueling massive bubbles in the stock and housing markets.

Don’t we understand yet that the fiscal policies of that era were disastrous and ended in a near calamity? Those weren’t the good old days.

bayam on January 20, 2010 at 8:25 PM

There you go again.

If pumping debt into the economy guarenteed job growth, why do we have 17% unemployment now, despite the fact that your boy is pumping out 4 times as much debt?

The fact is that deficit spending does not, never has, created economic growth.

MarkTheGreat on January 21, 2010 at 7:57 AM