Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you believe that you should love Obama. His second term has been far from shabby when it comes to job growth. More than 10 million jobs created his second term.
And most of those jobs went to immigrants -- legal and illegal
I have to chuckle at the OP. Trump is already being blamed, both retroactively and proactively, for everything from sun spots to the shrinking polar ice caps -- and he doesn't even take office for two months. Thus does the tolerant, diversity-loving Left plan to unify the country: through bitterness, hatred, and wall-to-wall media complicity.
Recession cycles are about every 5-7 years, we are overdue for recession.
The near 0% interest rates, and abnormally low energy prices have pushed back the start of the next recession, but make no mistake, it doesn't matter who's in the White House, recession is coming.
Um, folks, we are still in a recession. We have never left it. Obama was never interested in improving our economy, as many of our jobs got jettisoned away to other countries.
There has been no recovery.
None.
This is patently untrue. The recession has been over for quite a long time: since 2009.
What is happening is that the investor class is using the term "earnings recession" to describe the fact that corporations have been hoarding cash like crazy since 2008. That means the price:earnings has made them very upset.
And while there is a lot of political division on this board, I am sure we can all shed a tear together for those poor investors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vondutch
Obama, for doubling the National deficit,
He spent his way through his entire presidency to the tune of 10 trillion dollars,
No president in the history of America has ever done such
a foolish thing.
Barack Obama is the current president of the United States.
He is in charge of the Executive branch of our government.
The legislative branch (Congress) is the branch responsible for approving and passing budgets.
And we have had a GOP-dominated (both houses!) Congress for most of Obama's term.
What I am saying is, you cannot blame the president for the single most obstructionist Congress in the history of this nation. They got exactly what they wanted.
Quote:
The horrible fact is most this money went to the globalist, and to radical Islamist to over throw assad who
wont allow the globalist to build an oil pipeline through his country, Yeah the entire war is about Oil for the globalist.
And America got stuck with the 10 trillion dollar bill.
Three things.
What, or who, is "the globalist"? Do you mean American companies that will not repatriate their earnings because they refuse to pay taxes?
Secondly, we didn't take any action whatsoever in Syria with respect to Assad. Putin supported Assad's regime, which is responsible for the current refugee crisis.
Finally, the "pipeline" I suspect you are talking about was a Canadian pipeline. It was never going to be oil for Americans. Canada wanted to use American land to gain access to our ports in the Gulf.
I have to chuckle at the OP. Trump is already being blamed, both retroactively and proactively, for everything from sun spots to the shrinking polar ice caps -- and he doesn't even take office for two months. Thus does the tolerant, diversity-loving Left plan to unify the country: through bitterness, hatred, and wall-to-wall media complicity.
Nobody quite knows President-elect Trump's plan. But the focus on infrastructure is an excellent start.
People discount what quality infrastructure does, because it's expensive and they don't see immediate quantifiable benefits, but a poor infrastructure has a huge amount of unseen negative effects on the economy and a good one has the opposite positive effect.
It's unfortunate we can't get to it without adding even more to the deficit, though. We're almost out of policy options, and that interest on the national debt is beginning to eat us alive.
Recession cycles are about every 5-7 years, we are overdue for recession.
The near 0% interest rates, and abnormally low energy prices have pushed back the start of the next recession, but make no mistake, it doesn't matter who's in the White House, recession is coming.
No, not true.
The 7 year cycle is just a historical trend. It's not a rule. If it was, we would be in a recession now. The last recession was 8 years ago. Actually 9 years ago
A Trump presidency is gonna either stoke fear in the economy, or there will reform legislation that runs the financial market amok.
If the recession is next year, as in, the end of 2017 going into 2018, or perhaps even in 2018 we can be sure that Trumps policies and appointments can have at least some stake in the blame.
But I generally give presidents a pass on their first year in office. I don't blame Obama for 2009, I don't blame bush for 2001, I don't blame Reagan for 1981 (I do put bad year 1982 on Reagans shoulders though).
I think this is a reasonable view. If the economy were to 'crash' in the next year or so, I would certainly look towards the policies Obama had implemented as having perhaps having come home to roost. Of course, the House and Senate are just as likely the culprits (if not more so).
I recall (as I have stated before) that after Mr. Obama was elected in November 2008, that Rush Limbaugh blamed the crashing economy on Mr. Obama (this two months before Obama took the oath of office).
Mr. Limbaugh's reasoning was that the economy 'became' Mr. Obama's upon his winning the Democratic nomination the previous June. Mr Limbaugh said that with Mr. Obama's nomination, the various financial markets began to panic and such.
Of course, one fly in the ointment of his argument, was that he was claiming (which he did not apparently realize) that Mr. Obama was the 'presumptive winner' of the presidency immediately upon his nomination by his party. Of course, Mr. Limbaugh was rather insistent, leading up to the vote, that Senator McCain, helped by having Ms. Palin on the ticket, had a good chance of being president.
So! If we accept Mr. Limbaugh's prior reasoning, we can say that the economy is now firmly Mr. Trumps, at least as of his election on November 8th (it would be silly to relate it back to August, when most polls and pundits viewed Mr. Trump's chances as nil).
As such, I would have no trouble, if the economy continues to improve throughout 2017, that Mr. Trump should well get at least partial credit.
I suppose that Mr. Trump can enact policies that may have an immediate effect on the economy, including slapping tariffs on foreign goods. If he were to do so, and the economy contracted, and inflation began to run rampant, then no doubt even the most hearty Trump supporter would agree that Mr. Trump bore some responsibility.
After all, we are all reasonable here, are we not?
Nobody quite knows President-elect Trump's plan. But the focus on infrastructure is an excellent start.
People discount what quality infrastructure does, because it's expensive and they don't see immediate quantifiable benefits, but a poor infrastructure has a huge amount of unseen negative effects on the economy and a good one has the opposite positive effect.
It's unfortunate we can't get to it without adding even more to the deficit, though. We're almost out of policy options, and that interest on the national debt is beginning to eat us alive.
Hello!!!
Weren't you guys against the stimulus package back in 2009? Infrastructure was a major theme of the Obama campaign.
Weren't you guys against the stimulus package back in 2009? Infrastructure was a major theme of the Obama campaign.
Do we have amnesia?
I'm not sure what you mean by 'you guys', since I'm not affiliated with either party.
A focus on infrastructure was a good idea under Obama, and it's a good idea under Trump. I could not possibly care less which party it gets going under.
So you understand me clearly, I think Obama has been one of the most successful Presidents of the modern age. His diplomacy, clear willingness to choose the harder right over the easier wrong, ability to shepherd the economy from a crisis to a growth situation (albeit with deficit and debt growth) and unflappable demeanor have been really impressive.
However, I also think Trump has a *lot* of potential that people are discounting because of his lack of control on his mouth and Twitter. People mock him for 'only starting with a million', but I suspect although he may not be as wealthy as he's portrayed, he's probably got a pretty solid bankroll and clear experience in business, and his cabinet picks so far have been fairly good.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
