First it was a poor recovery, because it has been maldistributed. Now it is "lack of any recovery", as in no recovery? But the term "jobless recovery" was not coined under Obama, anyway.
Remember when, back before we noted that the decades long trend of rising inequality was uninterrupted, and before the TPP, when the tea party was calling Obama a socialist? Lol.
Poor recovery, or lack of any (real) recovery. It depends on who we're talking about. If we're talking about the top 1%, then it's a nice recovery. Bottom 50%, no real recovery (see chart). Are semantics important? Or are solutions?
I remember that. I also remember Jobs "saved and created", and "shovel ready" and "here's what unemployment would be if we spend stimulus" etc. Good times.
I agree. Our problem continues to be distribution. The semantics are less important than solutions, you're right, though the solutions have to come from a valid description of the problems.
All Keynesian type tactics. Thankfully, all were consistently opposed by the (R) and either defeated or diluted. ; )
Let's make it even simpler so maybe we can get to the bottom of this. How was the house torn down when there were a trillion dollars of bailouts to keep it standing? I'm guessing that the only response to this really simple question will be snarky snark.
What part of the description was incorrect? Are there more people in poverty that in 2007? Have real wages remained stagnant or declined for all but the top 10% of the population? I could go on if you like, but these are all factually correct.
How was the stimulus package defeated or diluted? Why wasn't the unemployment rate achieved as advertised? Why wasn't it even close? Republicans did that?
It was diluted, call it "pre diluted", in the sense that the political climate of the time, particularly the shrill volume of the tea party, but also including the no cooperation vow the (R) made, would have killed a proposal for a stimulus big enough to largely counter the fall in GDP. So it (bigger) wasn't tried, and so the jobs target was missed. All this assumes that government spending can create jobs, of course.