Just a reminder: Obamanomics has flopped

posted at 3:21 pm on October 9, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Often, I get asked, “Will you write a one-post explanation about why people should vote against Barack Obama?”  Guy Benson, Mary Katharine Ham, and I did that in 2008, and then Elizabeth Scalia and I teamed up for another aimed at our fellow Catholics.  In truth, the reasons to vote Obama out of office are so many and so interconnected that it’s difficult to conceive that anyone needs that kind of explanation.  However, at least on economics, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity puts together a video that presents a fairly comprehensive argument that Obamanomics has utterly failed:

Dan Mitchell gives it his seal of approval, and links to supporting data:

I’ve narrated a video on why Keynesian economics is bad theory, I’ve also narrated a video specifically debunking Obama’s failed stimulus, and I’ve put together a post with data from the Minneapolis Fed showing how Reaganomics worked far better than Obamanomics.

But this video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation does all that – and more – in only about six minutes.

By the way, for those who like gory details, a previous video in the CF&P Foundation’s Economics 101 series looked at how the so-called stimulus was a rat’s nest of waste and corruption.

This actually is just a birds-eye view of the economic argument.  Each of these topics can and should (and have been, at least here) get more fully fleshed out.  In truth, Obamanomics is nothing more than a series of short-term gimmicks, relatively easy outside stimuli to mask the real problems of government intervention and onerous gaming of markets.  This demonstrates the difficulty in writing just one essay to present a truly comprehensive and final argument against Obama’s re-election.

Incidentally, those essays from 2008 hold up pretty well.  Give them a look and see how well most of those arguments still apply.

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

According to various liberal pundits including Ezra Klein at the Washington Post, the stimulus and related programs worked because things didn’t get worse than they currently are. That’s the standard they apply: President Obama’s economic policies always work, because whatever the outcome is under them wasn’t worse than that actual outcome. And people wonder why he’s unprepared whenever someone actually challenges him on something.

JeremiahJohnson on October 9, 2012 at 3:25 PM

This actually is just a birds-eye view of the economic argument.

Obamanomics has flown the coop.

faraway on October 9, 2012 at 3:26 PM

This actually is just a birds-eye view of the economic argument.

Big Bird says leave Big Bird alone!!

ted c on October 9, 2012 at 3:28 PM

This actually is just a birds-eye view of the economic argument.

Big Bird’s -eye view :D

burrata on October 9, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Gimmicks

Perfect summation

cmsinaz on October 9, 2012 at 3:29 PM

ted c on October 9, 2012 at 3:28 PM

:)

burrata on October 9, 2012 at 3:29 PM

chickens coming home to roost

freedomfirst on October 9, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Obama’s plan for the next 4 years… keep BigBird on welfare

faraway on October 9, 2012 at 3:30 PM

ted c on October 9, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Yes… it’s almost like Team Obama have become Big Bird molesters, huh.

thatsafactjack on October 9, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Booooooosh! Think of how much worse it would be if Obama hadn’t rushed in and saved us all with this maelstrom of brilliant plans!

/rabblerabble

Midas on October 9, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Big Bird has more command of Economics than the glorified community organizer does. Of course, and to his credit, Big Bird has more college credits in Economics than the glorified community organizer does, too.

It’s all logical.

OhEssYouCowboys on October 9, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Just a reminder: Obamanomics has flopped

It has only flopped, if you think that it wasn’t the objective of the 0bama regime to devastate America economically.

A less kind person would ask, what would an avowed enemy of America have done differently to cause as much harm as possible? And the only answer an honest person could give: nothing.

Rebar on October 9, 2012 at 3:33 PM

BTW, FATCA is a disaster that is going to result in job losses when it is fully implemented. It has alienated our allies too.

rockmom on October 9, 2012 at 3:33 PM

According to various liberal pundits including Ezra Klein at the Washington Post, the stimulus and related programs worked because things didn’t get worse than they currently are.

JeremiahJohnson on October 9, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Then the american taxpayer got ripped off royally. I could’ve accomplished the same thing if they would’ve cut me a $500 B check.

We overpaid for the status quo by $216 B dollars.

NapaConservative on October 9, 2012 at 3:33 PM

… and to follow-up on my comment and the earlier Ezra Klein comment…

… would it help if the next time these guys say something stupid like that, someone on the panel laughed and retorted how ridiculous that was – that it would be akin to Bush saying, “well, i know things got rough, but just think how much worse they’d have been if we’d have kept those Clinton policies in place!”

There’s no way they’d stand for that – and they shouldn’t; nor should that be an acceptable response/excuse for Obama’s disastrous policies.

Midas on October 9, 2012 at 3:34 PM

In truth, Obamanomics is nothing more than a series of short-term gimmicks, relatively easy outside stimuli to mask the real problems of government intervention and onerous gaming of markets.

Come on Ed, you’re cherry picking facts like Cheney picks off old lawyers on hunting trips.

In comparison to past once-in-a-lifetime type of financial crises, the outcome this time has been mild in comparison:
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-bailout-success-2012-9

And this has occurred under less than ideal circumstances for an economic recovery:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/07/31/government-cutbacks-separate-this-expansion-from-others/?mod=WSJBlog

Of course, it’s also just as fair to point to the Fed’s massive response as preventing a complete meltdown of the US financial system. Unfortunately, no one has a good road map for navigating the type of catastrophe inherent in a deep financial crisis. Perhaps the best course of action was no government intervention and a 1930′s style run on the banks. Pick your poison.

bayam on October 9, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Excellent!

COgirl on October 9, 2012 at 3:36 PM

“In truth, Obamanomics is nothing more than a series of short-term gimmicks, relatively easy outside stimuli to mask the real problems of government intervention and onerous gaming of markets.”

Until we resolve the real problem…

… nothing will get better.

Seven Percent Solution on October 9, 2012 at 3:38 PM

I hope and pray this guy is correct? The best way to see he is right, we GOTTA vote!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/09/romney-will-win-in-landslide-las-vegas-oddsmaker-doubles-down-on-prediction/

BTW, it seems bho/team/irs are going after this man big time.
L

letget on October 9, 2012 at 3:38 PM

According to various liberal pundits including Ezra Klein at the Washington Post, the stimulus and related programs worked because things didn’t get worse than they currently are.

JeremiahJohnson on October 9, 2012 at 3:25 PM

It’s kinda like global warming. If it’s too hot – a ramification of global warming.

If it’s too cold – a ramification of global warming.

For these pissants – it’s impossible for them to be wrong. Either way, they’re always right.

That’s precisely what makes them wrong – and frauds.

OhEssYouCowboys on October 9, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Just a reminder: Obamanomics has flopped

….*pssssst*…(look at his EARS!…what did you expect?)

KOOLAID2 on October 9, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Then the american taxpayer got ripped off royally. I could’ve accomplished the same thing if they would’ve cut me a $500 B check.

We overpaid for the status quo by $216 B dollars.

NapaConservative on October 9, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Do you understand why cutting tax refund checks after an unprecedented loss of household wealth is generally seen as ineffective? Households are more likely to pay off debts than spend it. It’s the reason why Alan Greenspan and others didn’t favor the tax refund route.

bayam on October 9, 2012 at 3:40 PM

bayam on October 9, 2012 at 3:36 PM

…are you thouroughly chewing your hay?

KOOLAID2 on October 9, 2012 at 3:41 PM

This actually is just a birds-eye view of the economic argument.

Big Bird says leave Big Bird alone!!

ted c on October 9, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Ted C is the Fastest snarker. (:

SparkPlug on October 9, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Do you understand why cutting tax refund checks after an unprecedented loss of household wealth is generally seen as ineffective?

Not as much opportunities for cronyism and graft?

lorien1973 on October 9, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Ed this view is superb. Once you distill down what Barry has accomplished you are left with a residue of sludge.

SparkPlug on October 9, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Excellent!

COgirl on October 9, 2012 at 3:36 PM

You want Dear Leader to fail!

Article 58-10: Anti-Obama Agitation!

Article 58-10 Soviet Criminal Code

OhEssYouCowboys on October 9, 2012 at 3:43 PM

you’re cherry picking facts

bayam on October 9, 2012 at 3:36 PM

And you’re not?

-2

Del Dolemonte on October 9, 2012 at 3:49 PM

But but but Andrew Sullivan says that Obama’s record is “stellar!”

And he’s a conservative, so he should know!

Kensington on October 9, 2012 at 3:50 PM

the choomer’s just eye-candy…

RedInMD on October 9, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Ed this view is superb. Once you distill down what Barry has accomplished you are left with a residue of sludge.

SparkPlug on October 9, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Pollution for which the EPA should fine the living daylights out of Obama and the entire Dem Party.

The it-could-have-been-worse line doesn’t work for me. We elect officials to make things better, not worse or to keep the status quo. Anything less than a positive increase is reason enough to vote Obama&Co. out of office.

Liam on October 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Do you understand why cutting tax refund checks after an unprecedented loss of household wealth is generally seen as ineffective? Households are more likely to pay off debts than spend it. It’s the reason why Alan Greenspan and others didn’t favor the tax refund route.

bayam on October 9, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Are you serious???? Are you SERIOUS?????

WryTrvllr on October 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Don’t YOU consider you indebtedness, before you incur more debt???

WryTrvllr on October 9, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Do you understand why cutting tax refund checks after an unprecedented loss of household wealth is generally seen as ineffective?

Do you understand what a refund is?

antipc on October 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM

And you mean, like Obama picks off seal team 6 members

WryTrvllr on October 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Do you understand why cutting tax refund checks after an unprecedented loss of household wealth is generally seen as ineffective? Households are more likely to pay off debts than spend it. It’s the reason why Alan Greenspan and others didn’t favor the tax refund route.

bayam on October 9, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Oh, and all along I thought that paying off your debt is a good thing. Silly me.

Please educate me more on the myriad of ways I can enrich myself by being irresponsible. Seems lucrative.

*turns head slightly so my ear is fully exposed*

NapaConservative on October 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM

How exactly does the “It could have been worse” strategy fly when Obama’s recovery has been worse for everyone but the 1% than Bush’s recession?

Just asking.

Also how did the miracle boy get the recession to end in less than four months after taking the reins of power and before the Porkulus started sh*tting money? I’ll go with Bush’s fault.

jukin3 on October 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Cloward-Piven.

fortcoins on October 9, 2012 at 4:06 PM

cFAP always has great videos.

/inappropriate

Mord on October 9, 2012 at 4:07 PM

The Hopey/Changey Trickle Up Fairy/Unicorn Dust….

…….she,no F’n a works!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on October 9, 2012 at 4:10 PM

I hope Romney brings up the fact that a stimulus is supposed to help an economy immediately, not four years later. This is the longest, slowest and weakest recovery evah.

HellCat on October 9, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Just think about how many construction jobs could have been gained in road and bridge repair, alone !!
Instead, the money goes to cronies through the solar industry failures.
Gaaaah !

pambi on October 9, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Obama always uses the negative that can not be proven.

How much of that tax money to the Obama crony green companies trickled back into his 2012 campaign?

albill on October 9, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Do you understand why cutting tax refund checks after an unprecedented loss of household wealth is generally seen as ineffective? Households are more likely to pay off debts than spend it. It’s the reason why Alan Greenspan and others didn’t favor the tax refund route.

bayam on October 9, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Oh, and all along I thought that paying off your debt is a good thing. Silly me.

Please educate me more on the myriad of ways I can enrich myself by being irresponsible. Seems lucrative.

*turns head slightly so my ear is fully exposed*

NapaConservative on October 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Paying off your credit card doesn’t stimulate the economy- this is economics 101.

bayam on October 9, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Paying off your credit card doesn’t stimulate the economy- this is economics 101.

bayam on October 9, 2012 at 4:59 PM

THIS is a saver.

Filed under – “D’Oh, I should never have said that” liberal archives.

NapaConservative on October 9, 2012 at 5:02 PM

This actually is just a birds-eye view of the economic argument.

If Mitt doesn’t use that, he has missed a huge opportunity…

right2bright on October 9, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Paying off your credit card doesn’t stimulate the economy- this is economics 101.

bayam on October 9, 2012 at 4:59 PM

And this is why liberals should never, ever, be in charge of a budget…oh wait, they aren’t because of two things:

The president has introduced a couple of budgets and has not received on single vote, not one vote from any of his party, not one.

And the Senate, the dems, have not created a budget in, oh about 3 years…

So yeah, they are not in charge of any budget…they can’t come up with one.

BTW, the House and the Republican’s, bi-partisan, have passed a budget…get it? Now do you see why you flunked econ 101??

right2bright on October 9, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Paying off your credit card doesn’t stimulate the economy- this is economics 101.

bayam on October 9, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Wow. Paying off debt = bad. K.

joejm65 on October 9, 2012 at 5:37 PM

obamacare in one sentence

and Mitt, please mention all the exclusions

http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2012/10/video-i-can-describe-obamacare-in-one.html#

audiotom on October 9, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Do you understand why cutting tax refund checks after an unprecedented loss of household wealth is generally seen as ineffective? Households are more likely to pay off debts than spend it. It’s the reason why Alan Greenspan and others didn’t favor the tax refund route.

bayam on October 9, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Isn’t that exactly why the Stimulus failed? States did the exact same thing with the checks Obama sent them – paid off debt.

Chuck Schick on October 9, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Paying off your credit card doesn’t stimulate the economy- this is economics 101.

bayam on October 9, 2012 at 4:59 PM

So then we should just run up debt with spending to stimulate the economy…

Oh, right.

Chuck Schick on October 9, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Paying off your credit card doesn’t stimulate the economy- this is economics 101.

bayam on October 9, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Wow. Paying off debt = bad. K.

joejm65 on October 9, 2012 at 5:37 PM

.
Obviously pay off debt is a good thing. Removing debt and interest costs from disposable income, will allow the consumer to redirect those dollars to potential spending -or savings. So its both.

Usually in a uncertain down economy- spending is curtailed and even money that is saved from debt service, is saved and not circulated. This is what “doesn’t Stimulate the economy”

GW Bush tried this twice. Didn’t work for him either. But removing debt and interest payments to free up budget dollars can stimulate – in a growing economy- but not in a shrinking one.

FlaMurph on October 9, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Yet blacks will vote for him because he’s black, Hispanics will vote for him because they think that he’ll grant many of them amnesty and free stuff, many women will vote for him because he’s “eye candy” and the kids will vote for him because they’re stupid. This is the culmination of a total failure in public education. I’d be willing to bet that the private school educated will vote for Romney by 90%.

cajunpatriot on October 9, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Old/busted:

Isn’t that special- the kind of right wing personal hatred that was formerly directed at Bill Clinton.

bayam on October 8, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Next day hotness:

Come on Ed, you’re cherry picking facts like Cheney picks off old lawyers on hunting trips.

bayam on October 9, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Funny.

rogerb on October 9, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Bayam, what percent of your total external/non-corporal energy consumption… is met by solar power?

rogerb on October 6, 2011 at 7:54 PM

I have no idea, but why does that matter? What does the present have to do with the future?

bayam on October 7, 2011 at 12:44 AM

So we’ll mark you down for “0% (zero percent) personal investment in solar.”

rogerb on October 7, 2011 at 6:00 AM

this is economics 101.

bayam on October 9, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Funnier.

rogerb on October 9, 2012 at 6:19 PM

you’re cherry picking facts

bayam on October 9, 2012 at 3:36 PM

You’re almost as funny as Gumby. Pos.

CW on October 9, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Btw, is a Bill Gates mention out of the question? That could easily get us to “funniest”.

I’m guessing this thread is dead though, eh bayam?

rogerb on October 9, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Another negative effect of Cash for Clunkers is the fact that, by taking so many cars out of the used car market, it caused an crease in their prices. Just another example of how Obama’s policies have hurt the poorer among us.

Laurence on October 9, 2012 at 6:55 PM

This demonstrates the difficulty in writing just one essay to present a truly comprehensive and final argument against Obama’s re-election.

My stab at doing it in a sentence… 2 sentences:

He did it all wrong. He’ll do it again.

de rigueur on October 9, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Paying off your credit card doesn’t stimulate the economy- this is economics 101.

bayam on October 9, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Depends on the system — either way though, it would typically be the first upper division econ class. It is also wrong.

Count to 10 on October 9, 2012 at 7:02 PM

this is Liberal economics 101.

bayam on October 9, 2012 at 4:59 PM

now it’s accurate…

hillsoftx on October 9, 2012 at 7:03 PM

It’s like cresting a ridge line on your way back to base looking for targets of opportunity with a lot of unexpended ordnance and seeing an enemy battalion frolicking naked in the river just ahead of you.

opaobie on October 9, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Do you understand why cutting tax refund checks after an unprecedented loss of household wealth is generally seen as ineffective? Households are more likely to pay off debts than spend it. It’s the reason why Alan Greenspan and others didn’t favor the tax refund route.

bayam on October 9, 2012 at 3:40 PM

LOL, oh wow.

Paying off your credit card doesn’t stimulate the economy- this is economics 101.

bayam on October 9, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Really? Please, do explain. I mean, once I pay off my credit card, do tell – what does the bank or credit card company then do with the money? They wouldn’t possibly, oh I don’t know – lend it to *others* who will use it to buy stuff, expand businesses, etc, would they? Of course they do.

Good heavens but you’re unbelievably stupid.

Midas on October 9, 2012 at 7:29 PM

bayam on October 9, 2012

…you’ve been degenerating before my eyes for over two years now.

KOOLAID2 on October 9, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Paying off your credit card doesn’t stimulate the economy- this is economics 101.

bayam on October 9, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Actually getting the hell OUT of debt would…but when the average American has thousands in credit card debt, that’s not gonna happen soon.

MelonCollie on October 9, 2012 at 8:41 PM

To be fair, Barack Obama has been the best thing to happen to firearms sales and awareness of the need for self-defense that the US has ever had, bar none. The industry should be handing him the Salesman Of The Year Award… and all without even trying to sell a gun… actually just the opposite. It is the only sector outside of the crony environmentalists and Democratic Party suck-ups that have done well. And George Soros, can’t leave him out.

Now if you are outside that grouping, then, yeah, the economy sucks like an electrolux under Barack Hoover Obama.

ajacksonian on October 9, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Paying off your credit card doesn’t stimulate the economy- this is economics 101.

bayam on October 9, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Very, very informative. Its like looking at a weird science project under a microscope.

ShadowsPawn on October 10, 2012 at 12:19 AM