Why aren’t we thanking it for the economic recovery?
Because it doesn’t fit the narrative. But as Jefferson said, it’s a good demonstration that that government that governs least, governs best. If only we could roll back a lot of this crap.
It’s worth noting that things started to go to hell after the Democrats took over Congress in 2006, and didn’t really start to recover until the Republicans took the House back in 2010.
It wont be long before we see Democrats taking credit for fracking, low gas prices, and all of the economic benefits from the two.
2 or 4 years ago I commented here that an improving economy because of fracking might be how the dems capture 2016.
Funny how the media portrays any repub econ as bad and any dem econ as good, regardless of the actuality. They have no shame.
There’s a strong bias, by voters and the media both, to credit/blame the party in the White House for the state of the economy. Other factors, notably the Fed, the business cycle, and Congress, get less credit/blame than they deserve.
“There’s a strong bias, by voters and the media both, to credit/blame the party in the White House for the state of the economy.”
Sure, but have you ever seen an administration that was so overtly hostile and who actively sought to destroy the very industries that they now claim as a success?
I wouldn’t have any problem giving credit to Obama for the fracking boom and the positive effects low fuel prices have had on the rest of the economy if he hadn’t been doing his best since he was elected to destroy the energy industry.
That the frackers have had such an enormous impact on our economy despite Obama and the Democrat’s best efforts to sabotage the industry should be noted.
The sad thing is that President Diplomacy didn’t have the foresight to realize that lower oil prices would help him with countries like Russia. His position has consistently been that more drilling wont lead to lower prices.
But don’t you see, because Obama failed to completely destroy fracking on private land, he gets the credit for all the good economic results!
Actually, a big reason why I was able to buy gas today for $1.93 a gallon this morning is that the Saudis are flooding the US market with oil. They aren’t doing this for other countries, just for us. This does lower the world price for oil. They know that fracking is more expensive than simply drilling. If they drive the price of oil low enough, it’ll make many American oil fields unprofitable. This could drive some companies out of business. The fact that low oil prices hurt other countries like Russia is just a two-fer.
the Saudis are flooding the US market with oil. They aren’t doing this for other countries, just for us.
Yes, Saudi production is one of the factors in the price drop (U.S. production is another factor, as is the unexpected slowdown in Chinese and European demand). But there’s one global oil market, so the Saudi’s can’t lower the price for the U.S. without lowering it for everyone.
Like how the left blamed Bush for the dot com crash and the subsequent loss of a surplus? I remember somebody around here pointing the finger…
Who would you want to credit? The Republicans? At least the Democrats did not put a moratorium on drilling like some other countries have done *cough* France *cough*.
The credit goes wholly to the private oil drilling companies. The government at most can be thanked for not interfering with the process.
If the oil price continues to be down the economy should recover by itself. No need to thank a Republican Congress. Should I thank Congress and the Senate for dumping money into SLS too?
At least the Democrats did not put a moratorium on drilling like some other countries have done *cough* France *cough*.
Only because they couldn’t. They have essentially prevented all drilling on federal lands. The only reason we’ve had the revolution was because of drilling on private lands.
Actually, the Obama administration did attempt a regulatory moratorium on drilling in the Gulf after Deepwater Horizon. It was initially put in for the clean up effort, but then the administration refused to lift it. Actually, what they did is refuse to issue or continue leases. It took the various oil companies going to court for the federal court to point out that the Obama Administration did not have the regulatory authority to do what they were doing.
This isn’t a nit either. Since this started in 2010, and projects normally take 5 years to startup, this means there is fewer new projects coming online in the next 2 years for the Gulf. This may seem fortunate news to US oil companies: no new projects means less production, thus lower supply when demand is saturated. However, there is a reason Saudi is doing this now. By starting this trade war, it is causing US companies to slow down or even stop these new projects from coming online even in the next 2 years. This will have a trickle down effect to various industries that support oil drilling in the Gulf over the next couple of years. It was already going to be lean for a couple of years, but now it may be lean for half a decade or more. This could put a lot of companies out of business permanently.
For those opposed to big oil, I suppose this is wonderful news. For those who realize this is a trade war in which the Saudis are attacking US efforts to become independent from foreign oil, this is seen as a major setback.
“Actually, the Obama administration did attempt a regulatory moratorium on drilling in the Gulf after Deepwater Horizon.”
Didn’t they lie about the findings of a safety study or something?
I have forgotten the specifics but it seems like another great example of the Obama doctrine, lying and abusing the power of the federal government.
Didn’t they lie about the findings of a safety study or something?
Yes, they did. As they do about most things.
“Who would you want to credit? The Republicans?”
No, not at the congressional level but they should get some credit at the gubernatorial level. Republican governors have put in a lot of effort repairing their state economies and they are more effective at that level because Obama and congressional Democrats can’t block everything.
“The credit goes wholly to the private oil drilling companies. The government at most can be thanked for not interfering with the process.”
Yup.
Democrats should only get credit for low gas prices from the people who were recently blaming them for high gas prices.
The Democrats’ policies to deliberately keep energy prices high finally failed because they could only prevent energy production on federal lands, not private.
And Obama crowed during the debate against Romney that low gas prices were a result of a poor economy.
Not to mention that Obama was on record saying, “On my plan, energy prices will necessarily skyrocket.” So yes, we can blame Obama for high prices and not give him credit for low gas prices.
Obama crowed during the debate against Romney that low gas prices were a result of a poor economy.
He was right, and today’s low prices are in part due to a poor global economy (fortunately for us the U.S. economy is doing better than Europe’s).
Much of the low prices had to do with liquidity leaving the crude market after it entered during the financial crises. There wasn’t a poor economy yet.
“He was right, and today’s low prices are in part due to a poor global economy”
A very small part.
I’d be very wary about these conclusions (however much I might like to believe them); post hoc ergo prompter hoc, correlation is not causation, and all that.
(hit “post” too soon)
But I’m totally on board with gridlock being favorable; TJ’s my man!
Boy, I seem to have a clarity problem today…
My “be wary” comment referred to this and this only: “…things started to go to hell after the Democrats took over Congress in 2006, and didn’t really start to recover until the Republicans took the House back in 2010.” Sorry for any confusion.
I thought Obama was elected in the first place because the economy was in a slump and banks were failing all over the place while unemployment kept going up. Perhaps I was wrong and the Republicans were doing great with their supply side economics.
I thought you guys said that economic policies only manifested themselves in the next legislature. By that token the Democrat House was responsible for the present economic success.
But no the reality is this is being fueled by the low oil prices. That is all.
I thought Obama was elected in the first place because the economy was in a slump and banks were failing all over the place while unemployment kept going up. Perhaps I was wrong and the Republicans were doing great with their supply side economics.
You were wrong. There was no supply-side economics going on. Only overspending by profligate Republicans.
Perhaps I was wrong and the Republicans were doing great with their supply side economics.
There were no “supply-side economics” occurring during the Bush administration (either of them). I don’t think you even know what that phrase means.
George W. Bush’s tax cuts were certainly pitched as supply-side responses to the state of the economy in 2001 and 2003. Reducing the tax bite on marginal and investment income was supposed to increase investment, unleash job creators and accelerate growth.
It did. The economy was doing fine until the Democrats took over Congress in 2006.
“The economy was doing fine until the Democrats took over Congress in 2006.”
Assertion without evidence; very weak tea. What policies were enacted or not enacted due to the Democratic takeover of Congress? How did those changes cause the economy to tank? Hey, I’m sympathetic, but backing up your assertions with evidence would help…
The Dems, including most notably Schumer, started the bank runs by leaking inside info on some bank’s financials. But I’m mostly pointing out a correlation. All I said was that the economy was doing fine until they took over, which remains true. I didn’t say they caused it. But they were elected because a) People were unhappy with the war and b) Republicans stayed home because they were pissed at Bush and the Republican establishment over immigration. Not because the economy was going downhill. The economy collapsed under a Democrat Congress, not a Republican government.
Rand, take 1:
There was no supply-side economics going on [under Bush]. Only overspending by profligate Republicans.
Rand, take 2:
The economy was doing fine until the Democrats took over Congress in 2006
So the economy did fine up to 2006 thanks to “overspending by profligate Republicans”? Surely the Democrats are at least as good at profligate overspending.
Rand, take 3:
The Dems, including most notably Schumer, started the bank runs by leaking inside info on some bank’s financials.
So the crash was caused by Democrats leaking the fact that banks were in precarious financial straits? That’s the wildest explanation I’ve heard yet. A handful of objections, off the top of my head:
1) Since when do Senators have access to private bank financials?
2) Do only majority party Senators get such access? Otherwise it’d hardly matter that the Dems won in 2006.
3) Why would Schumer, a loyal supporter and campaign contribution recipient of his home state’s financial services industry, leak damaging financial secrets about Wall Street banks?
4) If merely leaking bank financials could bring the entire economy down, doesn’t that suggest that the real problem was poor risk management on part of banks, and ineffective regulation on the part of the Treasury and Federal Reserve?
So the economy did fine up to 2006 thanks to “overspending by profligate Republicans”?
No, despite it.
As for why Schumer did that, you’d have to ask him, not me. All I know is that he did.
We’re having an economic recovery?
So is the claim. The economy was growing is probably the more correct term rather than a recovery.