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 I give you $100 to spend, you cant claim that you've now boosted the economy by $100 by buying crack because doing so ignores that I'm not spending the $100, but thats exactly what the Obama administration is doing while idiots are celebrating.
THAT makes absolutely NO sense....... How about you provide some scholarly economic articles because you are terrible at explaining whatever you are trying to explain.
Quote:
The private sector has always gotten really good at using less workers and becoming more productive and profitable. Most of us understand this has been taking place for centuries and not anything new since the Obama administration..
Okay then why are you blaming Obama for the economic ills when it is the private sector sitting on hordes of cash......
In another thread Obama supporters have yet to name just one Obama foreign policy achievement. Meanwhile Obama's foreign policy failures: Honduras, Egypt, Russia, Librya, and now Syria.
The reason is they would not be as inept as Obama on the economy. If it weren't for fracking,
which Obama is against and has actively constrained, we would be even worse off. A competent President would not have destroyed the 40 hour work week nor thrown up as much economic strangling regulation as Obama has in the first 4+ years.
Compare the first few years of Bush with Obama. Bush came in at a time when the economy was failing, govt. revenues declining. By 2005 we had record govt. revenues and a declning deficit. After 4+ years of Obama we have the worst adjusted unemployment since 1978 and the worst income gap since 1920.
Obama has been historically awful, and there is plenty of proof of this.
Then DO IT!
You honestly think Obama is fixing the mess?
Sorry, but your boy Obama has been nothing short of a disaster.
I'm not sure what it is you consider foreign policy failures. The events in foreign countries are for the most part beyond the control of our President. And given the economic and political turmoil that dominated the globe before President Obama took office, and has continued during his Presidency, I don't think he's failed, so much as he's been frustrated by the events beyond his control.
President Obama hasn't destroyed the 40-hr work week. While I don't agree with all his policies, I also don't agree with the National Chamber of Commerce's positions, and exhortations to employers to do things which haven't helped the economy, either.
Bush came in with a pretty healthy economy, actually. Unfortunately 9/11 happened shortly after he took office, and that was a deep blow to the economy. We recovered, but the recovery was largely based on an unsustainable realty bubble, which, when it began to fail, cast us into the worst recession in American history. A recession that began a scant few months before Bush left office, and continued into Obama's Presidency.
I personally believe that the recovery, sluggish as it may be, is not due to Obama's policies at all. I think it's due to the resilience of the economy itself. The losses of the recession will continue to negatively affect our economy for decades to come. And we've got tough times ahead, because Obamacare didn't address the real problems with our healthcare system, that we've got too much of our economy devoted to healthcare costs, our insurance system drives healthcare costs up, and baby boomers are poised to retire and demand increasing levels of healthcare. If we don't find a way to control healthcare costs, and a way to bolster and energize other sectors of the economy so that it's more balanced, we're going to have even more economic problems in the upcoming decades.
I don't think any President can fix all of our problems. It's up to the American people to do this. We live in a complex world, and when we consider all the problems that face us, it's easier to try to blame someone, and it's harder to think about the problems, how to fix them, and to make the sacrifices that fixing them will require.
I'm not sure what it is you consider foreign policy failures. The events in foreign countries are for the most part beyond the control of our President.
Take a closer look at those failures:
- siding with the undemocratic coup in Honduras was out of Obama's control?
- misreading and mishandling Putin and Russia is out of control of our President?
- supporting the coup in Egypt was out of Obama's control?
- attacking Libya was out of Obama's control?
- Obama's continual mistakes in the Syria situation are out of his control?
So where does the buck stop?
Quote:
President Obama hasn't destroyed the 40-hr work week.
He killed it when he signed the vile and poorly named ACA (aka ObamaCare).
Quote:
Bush came in with a pretty healthy economy, actually.
False! Things were trending down before he took office. Remember the late 90's stock market bubble? Then 9/11 happened before he passed his first budget!
I've read a few of your posts on here and I'd be careful about throwing out the fool moniker since you rarely prove your point. That statement has nothing to do with political ideology either. I don't care if someone is left, right, up or down, bad posts are bad posts.
Foreign policy doesn't include only the things you mentioned. It also includes Iraq, Afghanistan and also bin Laden. Obama did pretty well on those. He's also done tell in terms of promoting international trade. That's all foreign policy and if you're going to give someone on the left/right their lumps, you come across as a fool if you don't do it objectively.
As for what you are saying are failures, the Arab spring was happening regardless of US input. Being POTUS doesn't mean you control the world. Nobody really handles Putin. He does what he does and in terms of attacking Libya, that was mostly the Europeans and they would have done that regardless. The US would have just lost a lot of credibility without giving any help.
That you don't put any of your claimed failures in context or contrast them with what McCain or Romney would have done makes you look like what you're calling others here.
Most everyone I know works full work weeks. Unless you have some data to share that shows that on the aggregate this is changing, then saying it is so would make someone look like a fool. There are negative implications to part time staff. That's why companies had full time staff in the first place.
Bush's deficit numbers are largely his own fault. What did the CBO say about all of the tax cuts he gave and paid with by borrowing? Obama, like him or not, inherited a mess and that's why his deficits are high. If you actually look at the numbers, it's pretty much 1/3 decrease in tax receipts, 1/3 increase in spending from existing programs and 1/3 deficit that was already there.
Good job on actually referencing the ACA. At least you know what it is. The reason why so many people in this country think that any conservative is a fool though is people making dumb arguments in places like this.
Back up what you're saying with some data if you're going to call people names.
The recession ended four years ago, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.* So Obamanomics has had plenty of time to produce a solid recovery.* In fact, since the American historical record is the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery, Obama should have had an easy time producing a booming recovery by now.
Obama likes to tout that we are doing better now than at the worst of the recession.* But every recovery is better than the recession, by definition.* So that doesn’t mean much
..........
In the 10 previous recessions since the Great Depression, prior to this last recession, the economy recovered all jobs lost during the recession after an average of 25 months after the prior jobs peak (when the recession began), according to the records kept by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.* So the job effects of prior post Depression recessions have lasted an average of about 2 years.* But under President Obama, by April, 2013, 64 months after the prior jobs peak, almost 5½ years, we still have not recovered all of the recession’s job losses.*
Posted with TapaTalk
As Reagan would say "There you go again".
Sure the economic downturn ended years ago. It left us in a big hole; with many in the middle class severely impacted.
Its unrealistic to believe the the jobs lost would be restored to the level of the bubble highs in a short period, unless of course your intent is to recreate another unsustainable bubble.
THAT makes absolutely NO sense....... How about you provide some scholarly economic articles because you are terrible at explaining whatever you are trying to explain.
It's pretty simple. The government taxes money and then spends it. It then considers the money it spent as an addition to the economy. But it's not an addition, because in order to inject that money into the economy, they first had to pull the money out of the economy.
This is how you get absolutely absurd things like Nancy Pelosi claiming that unemployment benefits are a stimulus.
Quote:
Okay then why are you blaming Obama for the economic ills when it is the private sector sitting on hordes of cash......
Again, it's pretty simple. Companies do not profit on money that is just sitting around. They profit by investing it. Companies are in business to make money, not to sit on it. The private sector is sitting on that cash rather then re-investing it because Obama has created a hostile business environment. Blaming the private sector for not investing their money is silly. Companies want to invest their money. Saying that companies are sitting on hoards of cash because they're evil and greedy is idiotic. It betrays a simpleton grasp of economics. If you're greedy you want more money. You don't get more money by sitting on the money you have. You get more money by putting your money to work for you. Saying that companies aren't hiring because they're greedy is just flat out stupid. Companies hire people so that they can profit from the labor of those people. In a functioning economy, businesses don't lose money by hiring people - they make money by hiring people. So when companies are sitting on their money instead of investing it, it's because they think they will lose that money rather than profit from their investments. And they think that because they don't trust Obama's administration to create a prosperous economy where investments will produce results. They don't trust Obama not to issue another executive order or federal regulation that costs them millions in compliance.
This is how you get absolutely absurd things like Nancy Pelosi claiming that unemployment benefits are a stimulus.
Government spending is a stimulus. Go do some reading. You talk about a simpleton grasp of economics, yet you use childlike arguments here. Your argument completely ignores things like government borrowing and the multiplier effect of different types of spending. Go do some research and come back with a real argument.
You go on a long diatribe about a hostile business environment, yet you don't mention how Congress might be responsible for that as well or how other local or global factors might be playing in to things. Yes, businesses don't like uncertainty. That's the only valid point you make there. Should you want to make those arguments, then show how the unemployment rates and deficits are solely caused by this uncertainty, how Obama is the only person responsible and show some proof of how things would be different if Mitt won.
There are still more unemployed today, than 5 years ago..
yes, thats what happens during every economic recovery since the beginning of time. By definition, thats what a recovery is.
The discussion isnt going back to the point we were prior, its about returning to the point we were even when Obama took the oath of office.
But the recession ended in 2009, and the value of the dollar isnt even what it was then, which indicates its not really a recovery.
The U6 unemployment rate is now below where it was when Obama took office.
As for the dollar, you wrote "while devaluing the dollar by printing more". Has the Federal Reserve's tactic changed? They are engaging in the same policy, yet the dollar is gaining value. I agree that there is danger in the dollar declining or inflation taking off, but it has not occurred yet.
The U.S. economy is not going to turn on a dime, particularly from a broad and deep recession. The trend lines are good. Particularly compared to the trend lines when Obama took office. Any expectations for a much faster recovery were just unrealistic.
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.
