Obama had a choice - either concentrate on the economy or concentrate on social and demographic change. He chose demographic change.
He may have succeeded in burying the middle class vote.
And the Republicans in 2009 and 2010 made it clear that because they wanted Obama to be a 1 term president they were NOT going to lift a finger to help fix the economy.
So the GOP 'choice' was to obstruct.
And the Republicans in 2009 and 2010 made it clear that because they wanted Obama to be a 1 term president they were NOT going to lift a finger to help fix the economy.
So the GOP 'choice' was to obstruct.
And the Republicans in 2009 and 2010 made it clear that because they wanted Obama to be a 1 term president they were NOT going to lift a finger to help fix the economy.
So the GOP 'choice' was to obstruct.
Obama poisoned the well and never missed a chance to put a poison pill requirement in all legislation he sent back for review. He refused to compromise, invited house and Senate leaders then crapped all over them
Obama was a true POS.
Ah, more small-government conservative voices wanting the President, not just the government but the President, to adjust the economy.
Oooh, the irony...
Bottom line is as we currently have the worst recession recovery since ww2 and the worst growth ever in an administration. So you have a choice of continue the bad or roll the dice with a wild card.
Sorry that was long but I wanted to have a point to it all and not just throw up a knock Obama thread.
Deficits have been far to small.
And the Republicans in 2009 and 2010 made it clear that because they wanted Obama to be a 1 term president they were NOT going to lift a finger to help fix the economy.
So the GOP 'choice' was to obstruct.
Deficits have been far to small.
RECENT HISTORY LESSON
Well, you've certainly "knocked Obama" by failing to tell the entire story. And you are doing No Real Good for the present alternative to what could be the Worst President in American History.
The title of this comment is tendentious, yes, I know. For the Nth time, I will explain (my apologies to those who've already read the text) nonetheless what happened in 2010, and its consequences on the rest of Obama's tenure. (We Yanks have short memories. History was five minutes ago, and Ancient History was yesterday.)
NEVER FORGET: It is We, the Sheeple, who voted to oust the Democrats from a majority in the HofR in 2010. So, it was We, the Sheeple who voted into control the T-Party with their asinine "Austerity Budgeting" in a full-blown Great Recession.
Since the 1930s, it has been conventional economic wisdom, in a full-fledged downturn to employ Stimulus Spending to significantly affect economic outcomes. For instance, when Obama was handed the Great Recession caused by Dubya, his reflex action (with a then Democrat HofR) was to stimulate the economy with the ARRA-bill ("American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009") that spent $831B to kick-start the economy.
It was a result of this measure that Obama stopped dead a skyrocketing unemployment rate already, in 2009, at 10%. (See Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) chart here.) However, in 2010, with consummate stoopidity, the American voter - that is, only 37.8% of the electorate* - decided that this significant achievement "wasn't good enough".
So, control of the HofR went to the Replicants. Who did what in terms of correcting a 10% unemployment rate? (Nada, niente, zip, nichts, rien, tipota.)
They promoted asinine "Austerity Budgeting". (See how that happened here: It's the Austerity, Stupid: How We Were Sold an Economy-Killing Lie (Oct., 2013). The direct consequence of No Additional Stimulus Spending being the fact that it took two-long years to recover from 10% to 5% unemployment, as shown in this historical infographic also from the BLS:
.
After which the economy stagnated in terms of Job Creation for four longgggg-years until 2014 when our economy finally started creating jobs. Because no Stimulus Spending was since allowed to pass by a Replicant HofR. And why?
This dastardly reason: Without the slightest concern for the plight of the American unemployed, the Replicants seeking to unseat Obama in the 2012 elections wanted expressly high-unemployment. So they refused any stimulus spending that would have lowered unemployment rates.
That electoral tactic didn't work, did it? But, We, the Sheeple, paid the price of Replicant political arrogance with continued higher-than-necessary unemployment. And the Replicants in the HofR have kept to this very same perverse policy ever since!
Tell me how it isn't so that the American voter was largely responsible for the political/economic mess that we are in by refusing to vote ...
*Voter turnout, 2010, here.
_____________________
Oh jeeeeeeeeeeeez. If Obama was willing to forgo his leftist liberal economic policies, Republicans would have signed on. Instead, his insisting on "middle class economics" (AKA liberal economics) is what has led to this slow growth.
Nope. As I said before the Republicans made it clear they weren't going to lift a finger to help Obama fix the economy even before Obama said a word or made any decisions about his 'policies'.
The day of Obama's inauguration the GOP made it plain they were NOT going to sign onto anything that would help fix the economy and make Obama look good. It's documented. Look it up!!
They made it clear they were not going to allow any liberal policies. All Obama had to do was propose non liberal policies. He didn't do it. Besides, Obama's first two years he had the White House, the Senate, and the House.
They made it clear they weren't going to allow anything that would help the economy and make Obama look good. Their #1 goal was making Obama a 1 term prez. Not the economy. That's a fact.
They made it clear that a liberal president with liberal policies was going to be a one term president.
Are you trying to convince me that conservatives actually thought that liberal policies were good for the economy and therefore wanted to block Obama's liberal policies to purposely hurt the economy?
That is a total misrepresentation and the twisting of the facts. They made it clear that a liberal president with liberal policies was going to be a one term president. Are you trying to convince me that conservatives actually thought that liberal policies were good for the economy and therefore wanted to block Obama's liberal policies to purposely hurt the economy? What planet do you live on? How can you say that with the White House, Senate, and HOR Obama's first two years in office the right was unable to stop Obamacare from happening but were able to stop Obama's liberal economic policies? What have you been smoking?
Why don't you just start a French revolution and leave us alone?
That didn't work out now did it? :lol:
These liberal policies were the same things used by conservative presidents during earlier economic downturns. We are all Keynesians! The playbook to combat every economic downturn has been to increase spending/lower taxes enough to push a deficit; a deficit is an injection of money not being utilized for production. Without a deficit, economic growth would have been lower. There is no denying this.
And you are trying to tell me that we didn't add to the national debt exponentially during Obama's term?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?