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?
eace
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:
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.
