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.
That'll depend largely on the White House vs congress composition going forward. If the Pubs remain in control of congress while the WH is in Dem hands, the GOP has shown that it is completely willing to sink the country. And they're doing their best to achieve it.
The current civil war among them is largely over their failure to drag down the country during Obama's term. The loudmouth religious right is furious that the GOP hasn't brought on another great depression and now they're going to tear the party asunder as a result.
Those who can see no wrong in one party or the other and go out of their way to defend that party is what is wrong with our country.
Saudi Arabia is not producing more oil now at $40 than they were at $140. Fracking is mostly at a standstill right now.
Supply and demand is a gradual thing. It does not explain $30-$145-$38-$100-$40.
$30 - Low oil need, high supply.
$145 - Oil embargo, low supply.
$38 - Embargo ends, high supply.
$100 - Oil monopolized, prices set high because local production is halted by regulations.
$40 - Oil regulations relax, domestic production up, higher supply.
Supply and demand does not have to be gradual. Look at things like "Tickle Me Elmo". $40 in the store, now no one can find it so it goes to $100, after Christmas demand is down and you can get it on sale all day for $30.
$30 - Low oil need, high supply.
$145 - Oil embargo, low supply.
$38 - Embargo ends, high supply.
$100 - Oil monopolized, prices set high because local production is halted by regulations.
$40 - Oil regulations relax, domestic production up, higher supply.
Supply and demand does not have to be gradual. Look at things like "Tickle Me Elmo". $40 in the store, now no one can find it so it goes to $100, after Christmas demand is down and you can get it on sale all day for $30.
What he was handed was the disgrace. He'll leave the country in much better shape than he received it. The inverse of his predecessor's legacy. And he had to fight a congress that was hellbent on making him fail, unlike his predecessor, who had a rubber stamp for 6 of his 8 years and yet managed to tally that into a disaster.
The public controls the power via the ballot box like you'd control a grizzly bear with kite string.
what has Obama done to make anything better??
the fact is economies go in cycles they have their up's and their down's
the recession was over by June09..and its ending had zero to do with obama..and the recession had zero to do with bush
the fact is economies go in cycles they have their up's and their down's
the recession was over by June09..and its ending had zero to do with obama..and the recession had zero to do with bush
That's not true.......they both could have installed a fed chairman that would see to making things as smooth as possible. Greenspan has even admitted that he erred in not deflating the housing bubble.
Once president they could have worked to make changes in how the Fed works also.
the fact is economies go in cycles they have their up's and their down's
the recession was over by June09..and its ending had zero to do with obama..and the recession had zero to do with bush
In normal times the economy's macroeconomic performance mainly depends on monetary policy, which isn't controlled by the president. However, the whole Obama administration has been in a condition where even rates at the zero lower bound haven't been stimulative, which means fiscal policy a much more central role. The initial stimulus did help quite a lot. Since 2010, however, fiscal policy has been paralyzed by GOP obstruction, so we're back to a situation where the WH has little influence on economic policy.
The point is that the right has insisted non-stop that Obama policies were doing terrible things to the economy. According to them, the ACA was a job-killer and the tax hike on the top 1% in 2013 was also supposed to destroy the economy. The right also said financial reform was similarly supposed to be hugely destructive.
Given all that, the fact that the private sector has added more than twice as many jobs under that "job-killing Obama" as it did under Bush before the crash is significant, not because Obama did it, but because it shows that Obama's ACA, Financial Reform and tax-hikes on top earners had none of the negative effect predicted by his detractors. You can, it turns out, tax the rich, regulate the banks, and expand health insurance coverage without punishment by the free market.
So, what are the new arguments on the other side? 'Economies run in cycles' -- essentially backpedaling on all the things that conservatives said would hurt the economy and haven't occurred.
In normal times the economy's macroeconomic performance mainly depends on monetary policy, which isn't controlled by the president. However, the whole Obama administration has been in a condition where even rates at the zero lower bound haven't been stimulative, which means fiscal policy a much more central role. The initial stimulus did help quite a lot. Since 2010, however, fiscal policy has been paralyzed by GOP obstruction, so we're back to a situation where the WH has little influence on economic policy.
Why wasn't it stimulative? It all went to the investment banks that then sunk it in commodities OR left it sit to draw interest from the Fed's. It doesn't make sense to loan it out (even though few were looking for loans) when you can just sit on it and draw interest from the Fed.
The entire thing was done for one thing, to help Wall Street.
Quote:
The point is that the right has insisted non-stop that Obama policies were doing terrible things to the economy. According to them, the ACA was a job-killer and the tax hike on the top 1% in 2013 was also supposed to destroy the economy. The right also said financial reform was similarly supposed to be hugely destructive.
Right/left/right/left/right/left, christ it's like 9 year olds arguing on the playground.
Quote:
Given all that, the fact that the private sector has added more than twice as many jobs under that "job-killing Obama" as it did under Bush before the crash is significant, not because Obama did it, but because it shows that Obama's ACA, Financial Reform and tax-hikes on top earners had none of the negative effect predicted by his detractors. You can, it turns out, tax the rich, regulate the banks, and expand health insurance coverage without punishment by the free market.
We never regulated the banks (much of the rest is another topic) The big banks are still taking down the small banks and getting bigger all the time. Some of the small things that were done were just done away with in a very bipartisan manner with the latest spending bill.
Quote:
So, what are the new arguments on the other side? 'Economies run in cycles' -- essentially backpedaling on all the things that conservatives said would hurt the economy and haven't occurred.
You don't understand the sides. The sides are politicians/wall street vs main street.
In normal times the economy's macroeconomic performance mainly depends on monetary policy, which isn't controlled by the president. However, the whole Obama administration has been in a condition where even rates at the zero lower bound haven't been stimulative, which means fiscal policy a much more central role. The initial stimulus did help quite a lot. Since 2010, however, fiscal policy has been paralyzed by GOP obstruction, so we're back to a situation where the WH has little influence on economic policy.
The point is that the right has insisted non-stop that Obama policies were doing terrible things to the economy. According to them, the ACA was a job-killer and the tax hike on the top 1% in 2013 was also supposed to destroy the economy. The right also said financial reform was similarly supposed to be hugely destructive.
Given all that, the fact that the private sector has added more than twice as many jobs under that "job-killing Obama" as it did under Bush before the crash is significant, not because Obama did it, but because it shows that Obama's ACA, Financial Reform and tax-hikes on top earners had none of the negative effect predicted by his detractors. You can, it turns out, tax the rich, regulate the banks, and expand health insurance coverage without punishment by the free market.
So, what are the new arguments on the other side? 'Economies run in cycles' -- essentially backpedaling on all the things that conservatives said would hurt the economy and haven't occurred.
Really? Talk about cherry picking stats.
They is no denying that there hasn't been a real recovery for the average American.
Median wages are down
Median net worth is down
Private debt is up
Public debt has doubled
The middle class is shrinking, and there are record numbers of people receiving government benefits. Large numbers of people are either unemployed, or underemployed.
If that isn't bad enough, there are many signs that we are headed for another recession. Obama will be lucky if the recession holds off until he is out of office. I don't think he will be that lucky, but we'll see.
So, tell us again how great the economy is under Obama's leadership. If the economy was even half as good as Democrats are claiming, Bernie Sanders would have the support that he has from the people struggling under Obama's economy.
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.
