One question posed to top advisers David Plouffe and David Axelrod by "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos and "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace respectively, received a politician's song and dance answer.
The Republicans have made this question central in their campaign for the White House: Are you better off after four years of Obama? If there is a key time to answer this, just before the convention is it.
So that is what the news shows asked this morning. Chris Wallace asked David Axelrod, "Can you honestly say the average American is better off today than four years ago?" Axelrod dodged the question several times. A determined Wallace did not give up. Finally an answer was given. "Here's what I can say, Chris," answered Axelrod. "We are in a better position than we were in the economy in the sense that when the President took office, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month, and the quarter before he took office was the worst since the Great Depression. We are now in a different place: 29 straight months of job growth and private sector jobs. Are we where we need to be? No." Axelrod did not answer yes.
With increased unemployment, higher gas prices, more national debt and lower incomes, Wallace asked again. It took years to create the crisis, explained Axelrod, "It's gonna take some time to work through it." Again, not a yes.
George Stephanopoulos wasn't having better luck pinning down a direct answer from David Plouffe. Three times he declined to answer directly. Plouffe's first answer was almost identical to Axelrod's. "It took us a long time to get into that hole, it's going to take us a long time to get out of it," Plouffe said. Plouffe did not answer yes. Stephanopoulos posed the question again. Plouffe dodged giving an answer by saying Romney would make things worse.
"You still can't say yes," Stephanopoulos said. "Well, we clearly improved, George, from the depth of the recession," Plouffe responded. "We were losing 800,000 jobs a month. We're now gaining them." Again, not a yes and again the same answer Axelrod gave.
Top Obama advisers would not answer a simple question: Are Americans better off today after four years of Obama? Has the President's auto bailout, mortgage-renegotiation policies and health care reform improved the average American's position? The Labor Department states there were 316,000 net fewer jobs in July 2012 than January 2009. With high unemployment, high under employment, lower-income and a rising deficit, anyone would have trouble answering yes.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 67
Marketwatch
FACT CHECK: Obama off on thrifty spending claim
Does his brain listen to what his mouth says?
Odd that I don't remember the stimulus package being in Bush's budget. Also seems a little strange to attach the TARP loan as Bush debt and the repayment as Obama revenue. It seems even stranger yet that much of those repayments were in also in 2009.
I think I'll take Forbes word for it
It's not Forbes word. It's an OP/ED! And it's just quoting the Marketwatch article!
As Ron pointed out above, fixing the ship that was sinking well before Obama ever took office is a daunting task that will take much longer than four years. At least the hole in the hull has been patched and we're starting to gain momentum again. I'd rather slowly gain ground with Obama than tear another hole in the ship with Romney and start to sink again.
Like so many poorly thought-out government programs, the unintended consequences are worse than never having enacted the program.
Anyone that thinks that Obamacare will make healthcare more affordable should first be forced to name one single government program that reduced actual costs and was financially viable on its own for longer than the term of the politicians that enacted it.
Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Bush chose to oversee them - an old school buddy - pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.
As early as 2006, top advisers to Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn. In February 2008, for example, Bush was still calling it a "rough patch."
The result was a series of piecemeal policy prescriptions that lagged behind the escalating crisis.
Looking back, Keith Hennessey, Bush's current chief economic adviser, said he and his colleagues had done the best they could with the information they had at the time. But Hennessey did say he regretted that the administration had not paid more heed to the dangers of easy lending practices.
And both Bush's Treasury secretary, Henry Paulson Jr. and his predecessor, John Snow, say the housing push went too far.
So no, Micky... Obama is responsible for none of it. He stopped the bleeding.
Interesting spin which basically means the Dems killed the needed reform of Fannie & Freddie in 2005.
Yes he fueled it by continuing Clinton's push for home ownership. It was the rewriting of the CRA under Clinton which started the massive subprime mess.
Both parties have their part in it, but it was overreaching government regulation which destroyed the housing market.
Interesting spin, which basically means you're jumping to conclusions. Unless you know what the deal entailed and what the roadblock was.
"Yes he fueled it by continuing Clinton's push for home ownership. It was the rewriting of the CRA under Clinton which started the massive subprime mess.
Both parties have their part in it, but it was overreaching government regulation which destroyed the housing market."
"And the regulator Bush chose to oversee them - an old school buddy - pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency."
One party had their hand in it way more than the other. It was a chain of events, and not just one solitary action.
OK, Folks, here is the start of the housing bubble, and the start to the fall of the two FMs. It should be mentioned that previous to that day, the exposure of either of them was miniscule, as well. CRA, the Community Reinvestment Act, was not a force in the housing crisis, according to about any economist you can talk to today, except the die hard culture warriors. It addresses red lining, the practice of doing business in, profiting from, people in depressed areas, and refusing to loan to anyone, no matter how qualified, in the depressed area. There is language right in that act that says no institution covered by it is required to loan to anyone that they consider a credit risk. The downside, for banks, and why they lie about it so much, is that they have to be able to prove, if asked to, that the reason a loan was not granted is because of bad credit, not the location of the property, and they didn't like their redlining ways changed by anyone. The effect of redlining was that those areas would forever be depressed, with no mortgage funding possible, can't sell it to anyone, it's abandoned, etc. That is the problem the CRA addresses, not deadbeat buyers. These loans were sub prime, only because of the area the property was located, not because the people that got the loan had bad credit. Over 80% of the loans that tanked the housing market were made by entities like countrywide, that were never under the influence of any government housing policy, least of all the CRA. These loans were subprime due to the credit rating of the buyer. Over 95% of all high cost loans that failed were made by them, not CRA, as well. CRA does not cover the commercial real estate market, and it failed too. How can you blame that one on CRA? You can't. The housing bubble, and it's failure, was world wide, and none of the other countries that had the same problem are subject to our government requirements. The housing bubble was obviously tied to the demand for mortgage backed securities on Wall Street, and other markets, worldwide, that followed suite. The Countrywides added their greed to it, and were making loans to people they knew could never repay the loans, because they weren't holding them, they were passing them off on others to be bundled, and sold to even someone else. As long as you could afford the fees they were making millions on, you could get a mortgage for about anything. Those videos you see on Utube of Democrats testifying that there was no problem, they had no idea what Bush was doing behind the scenes, so hey, that was a great cover. Bush made two cover your ass attempts to regulate the FMs, the first time, it died in the respective Republican controlled financial committees in the House and the Senate, in a congress that was giving Bush anything he really wanted like it was lunch. The second time, they actually went through the motions, likely just to get those Democrats on camera. The fly in that ointment, as far as a cover, is that the bill was actually voted on in the house, and passed, over the heads of all those Dems on camera, so they contributed to it's demise, not a whit. It was killed in the Republican controlled financial committee in the Senate, imagine that. . . At the same time, Bush had his SEC sitting on their hands, when they weren't doing something really insane, like giving several wall street financial houses an exception on required capitalization to debt requirements so that they could borrow up to thirty five times their capitalization to gamble in the derivatives markets. And all the while, Bush's HUD was jacking up the two FMs affordable housing goals to the point that they actually could not manage to meet them, there was too much competition. The truth is, the FMs don't make loans, either, they buy them. There was a time when things weren't clear enough that this BA lie could actually fly, but that was long ago, and as the data has been studied, it has become more than clear that CRA, or any government housing legislation, did not significantly contribute to the housing bubble, greed did.
Back patting is so much fun.
Subprime loans took off in 1997 upon implementation of the CRA revised under Clinton.
Expanding the Community Reinvestment Act.
It didn't have the DEMOCRAT votes need to pass the Senate.
Your article references the original 1977 law and completely ignores the revised CRA from the 90's.
Well son, we'll never know, since it was killed in a Republican controlled committee. I suspect it was never meant to pass, myself, and they definitely killed it themselves the first time, which reinforces that belief.
IF that is true, which I don't know where you get that, go to some of the links on it, then, they are also instructive.
Then again, it could all be just a bunch of wackadoo nonsense because Obama never led protests against banks.
But then, I would expect no less from anyone that says childish things like "Barry Jr.", in an attempt to demean someone because they're losing a debate.