Obama reversed the job losses, and then created job gains, according to the chart I've seen. The passage of the ARRA immediately slowed losses, and then resulted in gains. It's a similar chart to the chart of the Clinton administration and budget deficits.

The economy, in many ways, is better now than when he took office.

As cait and others point out, it takes time to fix things, especially when they've been so seriously broken.

During those two years, they passed numerous things, including regulation of previously unregulated activities that had led to the meltdown.

Please don't misunderstand me - things could be a lot better, and Obama's not perfect by any means. But he's clearly better than McCain/Palin would have been, and better than Romney would be, and that's the only practical question I need to answer to decide who I want to vote for.

The correct equation is 2001-2007 GOP President + GOP House + GOP Senate = GOP's Fault.

America thanks the Republican Party* for the TSA, Homeland Security, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, PATRIOT, enormous fiscal deficits, a pair of wars that even Republicans were glad to get out of in the end, expansion in government spending from $1.9 trillion in Clinton's last budget to $3.1 trillion in Bush's last, and lots more. Every Republican who wants to complain about Mr. Obama's spending ought to explain Mr. Bush's spending first.

If we are to be fair, that means that 2008-2010 Dem President + Dem House + Dem Senate = Dems' Fault. However, taking responsibility for the results one's own actions comes naturally to neither parties nor partisans, I'm afraid.

• They did so in the 2006 election.

FWIW: Here's the methodological error: "WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The $787 billion fiscal stimulus program approved in February is working pretty much as expected, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday. U.S. employment is about 600,000 to 1.6 million higher, and real gross domestic product is about 1.2% to 3.2% higher than they would have been without the stimulus, CBO said. That estimate is nearly identical to the CBO's assessment in March. The CBO based its estimates on long-standing relationships between additional spending and economic growth, rather than relying on incomplete and inaccurate reports from companies awarded federal contracts." (from a source) http://articles.marketwatch.com/2009-12-01/news/30876901_1_cbo-stimulus-bill-direct-government-spending

Read that paragraph and grok its epic awesomeness, and you'll understand why I am skeptical of all "stimulus" claims, going all the way back to Bush the Elder buying socks in 1992. CBO made an estimate of jobs created in March, 2009. Then they made another estimate in December, 2009. Not only were the estimates identical, they were exactly what was expected when the bill passed. Amazing? Incredible? Nope, merely repetitious.

Here's the secret: "The CBO based its estimates on long-standing relationships between additional spending and economic growth, rather than relying on incomplete and inaccurate reports from companies awarded federal contracts." In other words, when the bill was passed, the CBO estimated how many jobs would be created, based on certain assumptions. In March and December, they estimated how many jobs had been created based on exactly the same assumptions. They then announced that the Stimulus was working "pretty much as expected." How could it not?

Unfortunately, made-up numbers do not become any more authoritative if you put them on a chart.

I'm not sure I'm quite as cynical as you about that report.

It seems to say to me that the act functioned as predicted, that's all.

You can argue, I suppose with the assumptions of the predictions, but not that it met them.

All of this is very hard to do with a complex economy, and I'm also skeptical about simplistic claims in general.

"You can argue, I suppose with the assumptions of the predictions, but not that it met them."

I think you missed the point. They made assumptions that spending $x would create y jobs, then based on the fact that they spent $x, assumed y jobs were created. It's not the assumptions that are at issue, but the fact that the results were based wholly on assumptions, not on actual measurements, that is the problem.

It's like me saying that if I spend $x on my kid, he will have a great birthday, then concluding that he had a great birthday not by asking him, but by looking in my wallet.

I won't quibble about the details of what Biden said - if you're arguing that the ARRA didn't work as well as intended to jump-start the economy, that's ok with me.

But it helped quite a bit anyway.

Your next to last paragraph, though, I would strongly disagree with - we had problems stemming from 8 years of a previous administration, culminating with the worst financial meltdown since the Depression.

Expecting this to get fixed in 2 years of D leadership is unreasonable. And, once the 2 years passed (not sure they had a filibuster proof majority for that whole time either), Congress wasn't working with the President.

So, I can certainly conclude that Obama is still the better candidate for the economy, and I have concluded it.

The issue of government spending, and whether or not it helps is a complex one, and can't be decided by a simple statement from either of us. I believe it can help, especially when the private sector isn't hiring, as was the case. Over the long run, if it doesn't stimulate private sector activity, it's not enough for a healthy economy, in my view.

Whenever money's spent in one way, it's not simultaneously available to be spent in another way, right?

So if I "create a job" by hiring somebody, does that have to be balanced against the other person I didn't hire with the money? Or the money that isn't available to the government to spend?

It's the same with government/private sector job creation, seems to me - if the private sector is using the money to create jobs, great. But, if they're not, and the government is, that's about the same.

I agree that a healthy thriving private sector economy is the goal, but sometimes it's not happening, and I don't see any reason why government spending can't help a bit to get things started. As the folks with jobs spend money, and circulate it in the private sector, that helps bring money into circulation, and would eventually result in more private sector jobs.

"if the private sector is using the money to create jobs, great. But, if they're not, and the government is, that's about the same."

Except that it's not the same - what the person does is pretty important to our general welfare, and that is generally based on whom they work for. For example, Let's say that I hire a guy to cut down trees and another guy to plant them. At the end of the day I have a ton of lumber. Let's say that I hire a guy to dig holes and another guy to fill them in. At the end of the day, I have merely depreciated my shovels. I have moved money around, but I have gained nothing of value - in fact, I have burned capital.

When private industry hires people, the work those people do, in general, adds value to the economy. Because companies want to make a profit, the work that private workers do generally* adds wood to the woodpile. It would make no sense to hire them for any other reason. Government agencies do not think that way. One could trash the whole Commerce Department and it is quite likely that and the end of the year, no more or less commerce would have taken place. One could toss the entire federal Department of Education, and our kids would likely be no better off or worse (though our teachers would be better off, or at least would have more time off). The government hiring people simply to give them "jobs" generally just burns up our national wealth. It pays people to metaphorically dig holes and fill them in. And we are most likely, even if the government workers are cutting wood and not digging holes, getting less for our money than in the private sector and paying more for it.

If we're just moving money around - the theory behind stimulus and your "spend money, and circulate it" (which is fully in line with the assumptions of mainstream economists and both parties, I'll admit**) - then we are using up our capital. Because the government is already in debt, we are also consuming future capital through future debt payment. Hiring people for government work that does not produce anything of value makes us busier (which is what GDP measures) and it makes us poorer. We could do without both, IMO.

• I'm using this weasel word because there are plenty of cases where people do not add value, like those who fill out mandated reports or income tax forms, or the CEO's kid who never shows up but gets paid anyway.

** So then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? That's the whole point. No, seriously. That's the point." -- President Obama

I agree that it matters what jobs are created.

But, as you yourself say, unproductive jobs can be created in the private sector, and productive ones can be created by the government.

And, even given your worst case scenario, the guy who's hired to dig holes, and another to fill them in, both of those people will then spend that money and circulate it to productive businesses.

If you had spent it yourself on those, circulating it, then it's about an equal trade, isn't it? If you hadn't, then it's better for the money to circulate, if we want to stimulate the economy.

Best case - the private sector spends money to hire people for productive tasks. Next best, the government does. Next best, the government (or private sector) hires folks for less productive jobs. Worst case, neither the private sector nor the government creates any jobs.

That's where we were headed, I think, before the ARRA.

The debt issue is a bit of a distraction - I'm not arguing that we should go into debt to do this, I'm arguing for using tax revenue to do it. I agree that a large government debt is a bad thing, and I'd like to see us reduce it, rather than increase it.

What's your suggestion?

The economy certainly seemed healthy enough with Clinton on many levels - we had low unemployment, budget surpluses (for the only time in the last 40 years or so), etc.

That credit problem from the '70's didn't seem to be a big problem then.

If you take money out of the economy, that's guaranteed to reduce/eliminate jobs and hurt people, isn't it?

Sorry to hear that - I've enjoyed our conversations.

Good luck with the new job!

Of course they are - that is not the point. To stimulate you need to add money to the economy. Raising teacher pay will do that in part but more than likley since teachers are middle class the add went into recovering lost equity in the market and in the home.

The product - smarter kids will not produce a return for about twenty years. The issue is stimulus not contribution.

True. I think, though, that the immediacy of the situation in which the nation finds itself should not allow us to lose sight of longer term solutions.

I think that perhaps the best question should be one of which industries would we like to encourage the development of and what the companies in those industries need in order to grow in this country. I'm just throwing our random musings here, but perhaps it would have been beneficial to poll the leaders of those companies, then invest in areas in proportion to the answers of the poll.

IMHO stimulus should be directed where it will return immediate ROI. That has been my problem with some of our stimulus investments. IMHO they have gone to loyal political constituencies with long term value but with minimal immediate economic impact.

I would have invested in small businesses through regulatory moratoriums, tax credits for hiring and job creation and direct investment support for immediate implementation of new technologies.