• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Economy Facts

Rightwingnutjob

Active member
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
420
Reaction score
118
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
First, here's the source:
Obama Economy Facts | KeithHennessey.com

On the campaign trail, President Obama is talking about everything except his own economic record. He attacks his predecessor — a man for whom I worked — as his advisers promise a return to Clinton-era economics.

Rather than hearing about the last two Presidents, voters may instead want the President to explain the economic realities of his own 18-month tenure and what he foresees for the next two years. To further that understanding here are some facts.

At 9.5%, the unemployment rate is 1.8 percentage points higher today than when the President took office. There are 3.3 million fewer U.S. jobs than there were in January 2009. The U.S. economy has lost jobs in 12 of the 18 months he has been office, including the last two months.

I'm not saying it isn't biased, I'm not even claiming it's all correct, what I want is YOUR take on it.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
20,805
Reaction score
9,071
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
First and foremost the economic problems in the US are a direct result of the banking and housing sector collapse of 2008. They were massive in size and in scope. As the problems took years to be created it will take years for the problems to be worked out.

Obama had two choices, one politically possible, the other not so much

1. The various stimulus packages have kept things from getting worse in the short term, keeping the GDP numbers higher then they would be, the unemployement numbers lower, and prevented alot of bankruptcies. The stimulus will of course weaken any future growth in the US as it is funded by debts that need to be repaid

2. No stimulus and let the economy collapse more then it has. Higher umeployement numbers, more bankruptcies and a lower GDP. The deficit would still be very large even without any extra government stimulus. However the amount of public outrage would be quite a bit higher. If the government followed through with actual budget cuts in major programs in order to reduce the deficit, the outrage would be even higher, from those in the military, to those on SS or using medicare. I recall the number of Tea Party protestors whose signs said keep the government hands off thier medicare


Overall the US is at best going to experience an extended period of low growth as the private debts are worked down, then federal deficits reduced. Once both have occured, then reasonable growth might occur. Personally I expect the US standard of living to drop about 15-20% once this entire economic crisis is worked through entirely
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
The more Obama blames Bush and keeps going down the same path Bush started down the less credibility he has. I think people are getting really tired of it. They want to see results. Obamas policies keep failing and it's like he is so arrogant he refuses to admit he is wrong. He just keeps doubling down on what's not working.

Either that or
1) he's an idiot
2) he is intentionally trying to destroy the economy

I don't see how he can be honest about what he foresees in the next 2 yrs. It looks be pretty grim if he doesn't change what he is doing.
 

Rightwingnutjob

Active member
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
420
Reaction score
118
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
First and foremost the economic problems in the US are a direct result of the banking and housing sector collapse of 2008. They were massive in size and in scope. As the problems took years to be created it will take years for the problems to be worked out.

Obama had two choices, one politically possible, the other not so much

1. The various stimulus packages have kept things from getting worse in the short term, keeping the GDP numbers higher then they would be, the unemployement numbers lower, and prevented alot of bankruptcies. The stimulus will of course weaken any future growth in the US as it is funded by debts that need to be repaid
This seems like partisan speculation, here. Rather than actually refuting what was said with any evidence you present and argument frought with baseless conjecture.

How can you PROVE things are better than they would have been if Obama hadn't pushed the stimulus?

When he claims that he successfully has improved the economy when the facts don't agree, how can he be supported there?
 

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
First, here's the source:
Obama Economy Facts*|*KeithHennessey.com



I'm not saying it isn't biased, I'm not even claiming it's all correct, what I want is YOUR take on it.

One things for sure, this guy doesn't know Jack **** about economics.

18 months ???-- is this idiot serious?? Where the hell did he study economics?

Try 8-15 years dumb**** (not the op, the guy who wrote the article)

That's the problem with partisan pundits giving their take on the economy -- they take readings in these tiny little increments -- 6mos, 12mos... and come up these completely retarded ideas... That's like diagnosing brain cancer by looking at someone's toenail.

The decisions made by W. are still causing jobs to be lost. The huge tax breaks to the rich, the unregulated markets... Jesus, stop watching Fox news and tune into some real information. Obama has only slowed the blood loss...

These morons who say they understand how Obama is failing... they're a joke. 10 years from now, they may have some valid points. We'll see how the numbers come in when all is said and done.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
This seems like partisan speculation, here.

Only if you don't have any understanding of the past 100 years of economic history sure. Doing nothing would have made things far worse, especially doing nothing about the collapsing banking sector.

Rather than actually refuting what was said with any evidence you present and argument frought with baseless conjecture.

Okay Genius Boy, tell me, how did Chile and Argentina do following much of the reverse of Obama/Bush 2003? :peace

Furthermore, do you think the Asian countries affected by the financial crisis in the 1990s would have been better off doing nothing?

Some of us understand economic history and the principles it teaches. Some of us listen to Glenn Beck too much.

How can you PROVE things are better than they would have been if Obama hadn't pushed the stimulus?

Simple. More demand and less taxes equates to less economic damage. The stimulus was demand and reduction in taxes. The alternative was less demand and more taxes. Do you think less demand and more taxes equates to more economic activity then more demand and less taxes?

When he claims that he successfully has improved the economy when the facts don't agree, how can he be supported there?

Depends if you subscribe to facts or ideology.

Simple ugly fact is that the stimulus didn't fix the economy. Kenysian economics cannot do that to a financial recession. However, neither can supply side economics (which makes even less sense, especially cutting taxes for businesses who aren't making money). If anyone saved our proverbial butts, it was the Fed.

Go look up the Ted rate and tell me what it means.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
It looks be pretty grim if he doesn't change what he is doing.

Correction. It is going to be grim independent of what anyone in power does short of socialist lending. Such is the nature of financial recessions. More then a few total morons here think that financial recessions are identical to other recessions. I haven't seen such levels of pure idiocy in a while compared to that.
 

Cyberhwk

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
52
Reaction score
36
Location
Kennewick, WA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
My take is that this guy, whoever he is, wasted an entire blog article stating what we already know. He could have done so in four words and had 100% bipartisan agreement. YES, the economy sucks.

This seems like partisan speculation, here. Rather than actually refuting what was said with any evidence you present and argument frought with baseless conjecture.
There's nothing to refute. He just stated a bunch of stats (some reasonable, some slanted) about the crappy economy that should really be no surprise. Lord Tammerlain's analysis of the situation was, in fact, spot on and probably one of the most reasonable and nonpartisan analyzes that I've read so far. He includes, both the political realities and consequences going forward of the moves taken.

Had it met the approval of a guy who's name is "RightWingNutJob" that would probably bode pretty poorly for it's objectivity don't you think?

RWNJ said:
How can you PROVE things are better than they would have been if Obama hadn't pushed the stimulus?
He can't. But neither can you (or he) PROVE that the stimulus didn't prevent economic catastrophe. Yeah, people bellyache about TARP, but I don't think we can really properly understand how much of a catastrophe bank runs would have been (nor do I think I'd like to find out).

RWNJ said:
When he claims that he successfully has improved the economy when the facts don't agree, how can he be supported there?
Here is the rate of job creation/loss from 12/2008-1/2010:
chart-020510-update.gif

As you can see, the serious bleeding was stopped quite quickly after Obama took office.

Unemployment increased 3.7% from April 2009 to inauguration day. A 77% increase in just FOUR MONTHS! (4.8% to 8.5%). It has grown just 1.1% in the 20 months since.

Now sure, you could argue his policies have done nothing, but then you participating in the same "baseless conjecture" you're accusing Lord of. I'd like to say the stimulus wasn't worth it's cost, but I DO personally know no less than 5 people that are now employed that would not have been. So I really can't tell you how bad things would have been without it.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
As you can see, the serious bleeding was stopped quite quickly after Obama took office.

That pretty much means that Obama didn't stop the recession. Much of the big bank saving had been done before he got into office. And much of the Fed monetary expansionist policies had already been in effect. Obama taking office in 2009 had really nothing to do with the job losses declining.

Anyways, students of history know as long as Obama is not willing to push massive Socialist direct lending, his hands are tied. He can either do nothing and watch the economy go down the tubes, or spend like a crazy sailor and watch it swirl the toliet a bit slower. And we all know that the GOP would be hounding Obama on doing nothing.
 

Rightwingnutjob

Active member
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
420
Reaction score
118
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The decisions made by W. are still causing jobs to be lost. The huge tax breaks to the rich, the unregulated markets... Jesus, stop watching Fox news and tune into some real information. Obama has only slowed the blood loss...
I actually don't watch much fox news. I watch fox as much as I watch HLN and CNN. I read news online and in newspapers more often. So, keep your baseless assumptions to yourself. I try to be reasonable and look at issues from all sides before make a decision. Notice how I mentioned that this article was obviously biased and that I wasn't saying it was completely true?

You are also absolutely correct about Bush, his bailouts and Iraq war definitely contributed to this. Neither of which do I support.

These morons who say they understand how Obama is failing... they're a joke. 10 years from now, they may have some valid points. We'll see how the numbers come in when all is said and done.
I don't agree with the way Obama went about fixing the economy, but I do agree something had to be done. My problem is when Obama claims to have fixed the economy and that it has already made a turn around. As you said, you can't tell if this is true after barely a year. He may have helped, he may have hurt. My guess is he didn't help, but it would be silly to claim this as fact as you can't compare to what might have been when 'what might have been' never occurred (at least not in this case).

Only if you don't have any understanding of the past 100 years of economic history sure. Doing nothing would have made things far worse, especially doing nothing about the collapsing banking sector.
True, however, this does not mean he did the right thing. It doesn't mean that he didn't spend too much. It doesn't mean he was right. And you still can't prove that he's improved the economy yet. Here in Maine it still seems to be getting worse. I can't even count all of the small businesses going out of business.


Okay Genius Boy, tell me, how did Chile and Argentina do following much of the reverse of Obama/Bush 2003? :peace

Furthermore, do you think the Asian countries affected by the financial crisis in the 1990s would have been better off doing nothing?
I'm only 20 so much of this I don't remember, and honestly it's not something I've looked into, so I'll refrain from speculation.

Some of us understand economic history and the principles it teaches. Some of us listen to Glenn Beck too much.
Assuming you're referring to me, I have only tuned into Glen Beck on a few occasions. I would file much of what he says under conspiracy theories.

Simple. More demand and less taxes equates to less economic damage. The stimulus was demand and reduction in taxes. The alternative was less demand and more taxes. Do you think less demand and more taxes equates to more economic activity then more demand and less taxes?
The stimulus did NOT increase demand or reduce taxes. It increased government spending which put us further in debt while only creating temporary jobs funded with money coming out of our own pockets. Taxes are NOT being cut. He's actually allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. He wants to raise taxes on energy. I don't know if there still is but wasn't there talk of a federal sales tax? Now, people are going to receive excise taxes if they don't have health care as well.



Depends if you subscribe to facts or ideology.

Simple ugly fact is that the stimulus didn't fix the economy. Kenysian economics cannot do that to a financial recession. However, neither can supply side economics (which makes even less sense, especially cutting taxes for businesses who aren't making money). If anyone saved our proverbial butts, it was the Fed.

Go look up the Ted rate and tell me what it means.
Many business would make more money with cut taxes. This frees up private sector money to hire others. I'm a true believer in trickle down economics.

My take is that this guy, whoever he is, wasted an entire blog article stating what we already know. He could have done so in four words and had 100% bipartisan agreement. YES, the economy sucks.
That wasn't what the blog was about, let me let you reread it and perhaps figure out that there was some blame being cast as well.

There's nothing to refute. He just stated a bunch of stats (some reasonable, some slanted) about the crappy economy that should really be no surprise. Lord Tammerlain's analysis of the situation was, in fact, spot on and probably one of the most reasonable and nonpartisan analyzes that I've read so far. He includes, both the political realities and consequences going forward of the moves taken.

Had it met the approval of a guy who's name is "RightWingNutJob" that would probably bode pretty poorly for it's objectivity don't you think?
Perhaps you missed the humor in my name. I named myself as such because many, unintelligently label the right as whacko with complete disregard for the individuals. It

He can't. But neither can you (or he) PROVE that the stimulus didn't prevent economic catastrophe.
100% correct. If there is anything I would agree with in this article 100%, then it would be that he should stop claiming he saved the economy.
Yeah, people bellyache about TARP, but I don't think we can really properly understand how much of a catastrophe bank runs would have been (nor do I think I'd like to find out).


Here is the rate of job creation/loss from 12/2008-1/2010:
chart-020510-update.gif

As you can see, the serious bleeding was stopped quite quickly after Obama took office.

Unemployment increased 3.7% from April 2009 to inauguration day. A 77% increase in just FOUR MONTHS! (4.8% to 8.5%). It has grown just 1.1% in the 20 months since.

Now sure, you could argue his policies have done nothing, but then you participating in the same "baseless conjecture" you're accusing Lord of. I'd like to say the stimulus wasn't worth it's cost, but I DO personally know no less than 5 people that are now employed that would not have been. So I really can't tell you how bad things would have been without it.
I haven't argued this. I think it's probably true, but I can't offer any proof.

That pretty much means that Obama didn't stop the recession. Much of the big bank saving had been done before he got into office. And much of the Fed monetary expansionist policies had already been in effect. Obama taking office in 2009 had really nothing to do with the job losses declining.
I would say some of the decisions he has made have definitely contributed to the economy. Whether positive or negative, that's hard to say. Again, my gut disagrees with him again (and my gut has grown substantially since college!).

Anyways, students of history know as long as Obama is not willing to push massive Socialist direct lending, his hands are tied. He can either do nothing and watch the economy go down the tubes, or spend like a crazy sailor and watch it swirl the toliet a bit slower. And we all know that the GOP would be hounding Obama on doing nothing.
I don't want him to do nothing, but I don't want him carelessly spending tax dollars as he appears to be. I have a hard time understanding how temporary jobs at huge costs will turn the economy around. Programs like cash for clunkers and the hugely expensive health care overhaul also can't be helping.
 
Top Bottom