Obama as the President.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

It's nigh impossible to avoid American political discussion even in Canada. I've heard many takes on how he's helped/ruin America. I tend to consider his position unenviable seeing as he inherited serious problems coming into power. I tend to follow Canadian politics more than American politics and even then I'm much less politically active than some of my friends.

So I would like those of you here to explain your thoughts on Obama's presidency. Keep it civil and be specific.

First post in R&P in ages...

He's done a reasonable job in most areas, a good job in a few, and a TERRIBLE job in one or two areas.

In terms of his economic management, he's done pretty much all he can. Believe it or not, the President, or even congress for that matter, don't really have a magic cure for economic problems, because the economy in the US is so large, so diverse, so complex that even senior economists will admit that they don't know how it works. Obama hasn't fixed the US economy totally - I never expected him to. Hell, in 2008 I said that I would be VERY surprised if he could fix it fully in 8 years. Political parties love to blame each other for economic woes, but the fact of the matter is that businesses and banks crapped themselves up - no government help needed. The people who wrecked the economy weren't Republicans or Democrats - it was too-clever-by-half business people and investors who thought they were smarter than everyone, possessing the midas touch. Overconfidence and arrogance hurt the economy and the fact that Obama managed to avoid a recession is a good enough job in and of itself. He has, however, failed to pass more watchdog and regulation laws that would prevent such a catastrophe occurring in the future. He stopped the dam from breaking, but he's not repairing the cracks because he doesn't want to attract even more ire from Wall Street.

In terms of his social and domestic policies, it's a mixed bag. He's done quite a lot for gay people and women's rights and the rights of minorities and that should be applauded. He has, however, failed to do anything in regards with Civil rights. He did not overturn the USA PATRIOT act, he did not close down Gitmo, he hasn't ended the CIA Black-sites that exist over the world, he gave the go ahead for a predator drone to assassinate a US citizen, and did nothing to stop a law being passed giving FEMA and the President the right to detain pretty much anyone they want for whatever reason for however long. He claims that he didn't want to put that part of the bill in there when they were drafting up the law, and he claims that he won't abuse that power.... well, even if (and that's a big IF) we trust him on this issue of not abusing his power to order FEMA to round up anyone he doesn't like.... what's to stop the next President, huh?

In terms of his foreign policy, he's also a mixed bag. I approve of his intervention in Libya, but his policies in regards to the "war on terror" are almost exactly like George Bush's. He's a lot nicer and humbler in the face of diplomats, but in actual practice he's doing almost exactly the same stuff as Bush did. He's going to get credit for "Ending" the Iraq War - but in fact he didn't end the Iraq War and had no intention of doing so - the Iraqis told the US to get out by refusing to give US troops immunity from Iraqi prosecution. The Iraqi government were the ones who forced the US to leave, not Obama.

He hasn't been the great changer that many Left people thought he would be. In fact, he's been a fairly centrist to slightly right-wing President on many military/foreign matters. He's barely done much different than Bush, except that he's gone about it 100x smarter.

But he has done some good - the Left might scoff at Obama's Patent Reform program, but that's because they have no idea how important Patent reform is to stimulating the economy and innovation (it's really important). He has overseen a reduction in military spending and a sluggish recovery of the economy. He has reduced a lot of the world's hate for the US. He's done about what I expected him to do - slightly steer the US on a slightly better path. He was realistically never going to change the US - no one person can, even if they are president. The President is not a King - he is one part of one branch of the government.

Having said that, I really think he hasn't done all he could have. I really do think that he is more of a politician than he let on during his 08 run. I don't think he's nearly as idealistic as many of the college youth with their tacky portraits of Obama believed he was. The man is essentially a black Bill Clinton without the infidelity or the goofy accent.

Which is why the Republican Caucuses have been so frustrating to watch - Obama needs to be called out on a lot of the stuff he's failed to do, on a lot of the promises he's failed to deliver. But the Republicans are fielding JOKES against him - Santorum's a Moron (even many Republicans admit this), Romney IS essentially a white Obama, Bachmann (who dropped out) was a "vaccines-cause-autism-and-the-UN-wants-to-create-a-one-world-currency" lunatic, Perry was a evangelical nutter whose grand plan to stop the Texas drought was to "pray" it away, and Paul is idealistic but a product of a by-gone age who has no hope in hell of winning. Only Huntsman was a proper candidate, but his acceptance of Evolution and Global Warming and general sanity meant that he had no chance of winning the nomination.

Obama has not been a perfect president. I'd say he hasn't even been a good president. He's been a care-taker, plug-the-gaps, president who has done some minor tweaking, but has largely refrained from overhauling a system that desperately needs overhauling. Which is why it's so funny to see Tea-Party people holding up signs depicting Obama has the anti-christ. If he was white and wore an Elephant badge, most republicans would have no problems with the stuff Obama has done. He's been one of the THE least radical presidents in all of US history.

But he hasn't done a bad job. He's certainly been no worse than his predecessor.

I can mostly agree with @Korolev in terms of Obama's presidency, with a noticeable caveat: a lot of what needed to be reformed simply could not be. There are a shitload of problems with the USA, but a lot of those problems aren't things he could've fixed. Gitmo? Legitimate complaint. DNAA and PATRIOT Act? Not so much - remember, the former passed congress 97-3 and the latter passed like 99-1 and the president doesn't really have the power to repeal the law on his own. The failure of regulatory law also cannot really be pinned on him when you consider how hard Dodd-Frank is struggling for funding, and that the republicans have been trying to block banking regulation for the last three years.

Korolev:
Good summary of Obama

I would add that one of the largest flaws in Obama was that he has been far too lenient with the Republicans. He put too much emphasis on working with them, getting them on board and so on. In the end all they did was turn around and block everything they could.

In recent times he has been sticking it too the Republicans a bit more and ignoring them. He has circumvented their attempts at strangling legislation they do not like with, appointing Cordray was a ballsy move. There are even some Republicans starting to speak out against their parties blocking tactics.

I think that a 2nd term Obama can redeem himself if he continues on the path of ignoring the Republicans and doing what he thinks is right. A 2nd term does allow that a bit more as well with no reelection to worry about.

Saying that, there is a lot he simply cannot do. As long as the Republicans have the numbers to continue to block legislation, funding and appointments they are going to do so.

The problems in the US are mostly due to the inability of Congress to actually do something other than help their corporate donors and from my point of view the problem is as bad as it has ever been. Corporate donation was a problem before the 2010 campaign finance ruling, allowing Corporations to spend unlimited funds in politics, that is only going to make it worst.

In some things Obama has performed, above low expectations. Immigration has been a mixed bag, foreign policy has been poor though with a few notable successes. His economic policy has been poor and it is telling that the economy is starting to recover now that Obama's economic schemes have been blocked at every turn.

If his Presidency ended today I would rank Obama above Jimmy Carter for sure and likely above George HW Bush but probably just below George W Bush. At any rate though he is a below average President.

In comparison to the last president ye had, he's brilliant. Especially from an international perspective. People basically like America again, no small achievement considering how the previous administration urinated all over the UN and the Geneva convention.

He also inherited a complete mess, so id be more forgiving if i was American on the economic aspects. He also had the guts to bring up things like more accessable healthcare for the poor, which seems to be a dirty word in America. He's left the US patriot act alone which isn't good, but pulled out of Iraq which technically isn't good either (for the Iraqi's that is) but it was an election promise that he has kept.

He got Osama bin laden, kept the US out of Libya by and large, but bizarely visted his ancestral home in Ireland but not his ancestral home in Kenya.

He speaks with a grace and dignity that is very impressive and represents America abroad very well.

Seekster:
In some things Obama has performed, above low expectations. Immigration has been a mixed bag, foreign policy has been poor though with a few notable successes.

Let's see here...
-Ended combat operations in Iraq (for real this time)
-Got us into a war that the UN asked us to get into and then got us right back out after getting rid of the bad guy
-Got Osama Bin Laden
-Generally raised the esteem of the USA in the eyes of the world

Seriously, what, exactly, did he fumble on foreign policy? If there's any realm where Obama was ridiculously good, it was foreign policy! The record is overall fantastic, with a few stumbles (the drone incident), and, just to be a dick about it, 100% less terrorist attacks on US soil than the last president.

His economic policy has been poor and it is telling that the economy is starting to recover now that Obama's economic schemes have been blocked at every turn.

Does the term "efficiency lag" mean anything to you? Lemme just quote straight from my 11th-grade economics textbook here...

...The time from when the action is legalized to when it shows its value is known as "Efficiency Lag".

We had a quiz about the various problems with these kinds of regulations, including the multiple delays involved (noticing the problem, passing legislature about the problem, and waiting for the legislature to have its effects). The fact is, even if the government suddenly offered up millions of simple jobs, the economy would not instantly fix itself. Oh, it would help to have that many more people employed and therefore with money they are able to spend, but it would take time for them to fill in the jobs, get used to working, and regain confidence in the economy to the point where they feel comfortable spending more than what is absolutely necessary again. The Stimulus didn't create a ton of government jobs, but instead went the long way around. To claim "Oh, it's just starting to fix the economy about two years later now that everything he tries to do is blocked" is bollocks. And you know what? That claim would still be bollocks even if it was only starting to help now, but here's the thing: that premise is still wrong. Again: the stimulus pulled us out of a nosedive. It helped us go from "bleeding to death" to "stable but comatose". This is an idea supported by all the data and the modern economic theories that pretty much every western country uses.

above George HW Bush but probably just below George W Bush.

I don't know why I bother trying to argue with you sometimes.

I think his handling of Libya was outstanding, especially from an international relations point of view. The world would not have been happy for the US to fuck some other war up.

Conservatives always blast him for the economy but the fact is the stimulus package worked, growth was above expectations, so was the number of jobs saved. At an international level the US stimulus package was ranked as the 2nd most effective, after Germany.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
In some things Obama has performed, above low expectations. Immigration has been a mixed bag, foreign policy has been poor though with a few notable successes.

Let's see here...
-Ended combat operations in Iraq (for real this time)
-Got us into a war that the UN asked us to get into and then got us right back out after getting rid of the bad guy
-Got Osama Bin Laden
-Generally raised the esteem of the USA in the eyes of the world

Seriously, what, exactly, did he fumble on foreign policy?

I know that 2 of his comments pissed quite a lot of people here in the UK, firstly by saying that France is America's greatest ally and secondly by saying that the UK and Argentina should sit down to discuss the Falklands despite the Falklanders wanting to remain British.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
In some things Obama has performed, above low expectations. Immigration has been a mixed bag, foreign policy has been poor though with a few notable successes.

Let's see here...
-Ended combat operations in Iraq (for real this time)
-Got us into a war that the UN asked us to get into and then got us right back out after getting rid of the bad guy
-Got Osama Bin Laden
-Generally raised the esteem of the USA in the eyes of the world

Seriously, what, exactly, did he fumble on foreign policy? If there's any realm where Obama was ridiculously good, it was foreign policy! The record is overall fantastic, with a few stumbles (the drone incident), and, just to be a dick about it, 100% less terrorist attacks on US soil than the last president.

His economic policy has been poor and it is telling that the economy is starting to recover now that Obama's economic schemes have been blocked at every turn.

Does the term "efficiency lag" mean anything to you? Lemme just quote straight from my 11th-grade economics textbook here...

...The time from when the action is legalized to when it shows its value is known as "Efficiency Lag".

We had a quiz about the various problems with these kinds of regulations, including the multiple delays involved (noticing the problem, passing legislature about the problem, and waiting for the legislature to have its effects). The fact is, even if the government suddenly offered up millions of simple jobs, the economy would not instantly fix itself. Oh, it would help to have that many more people employed and therefore with money they are able to spend, but it would take time for them to fill in the jobs, get used to working, and regain confidence in the economy to the point where they feel comfortable spending more than what is absolutely necessary again. The Stimulus didn't create a ton of government jobs, but instead went the long way around. To claim "Oh, it's just starting to fix the economy about two years later now that everything he tries to do is blocked" is bollocks. And you know what? That claim would still be bollocks even if it was only starting to help now, but here's the thing: that premise is still wrong. Again: the stimulus pulled us out of a nosedive. It helped us go from "bleeding to death" to "stable but comatose". This is an idea supported by all the data and the modern economic theories that pretty much every western country uses.

above George HW Bush but probably just below George W Bush.

I don't know why I bother trying to argue with you sometimes.

-Obama simply followed the Bush plan for leaving Iraq, its actually silly seeing some of the Republicans criticize Obama for doing what Bush was going to do anyway.

-He did give the go ahead for a potentially risk mission to kill Bin Laden and he deserves due credit for that.

-He has utterly fumbled the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

-He did get involved in Libya (you misunderstand, the USA does not get its marching orders from the UN) but then pulled out quickly. Arguably the war lasted a month or two longer because America did not commit more of its sophisticated strike aircraft to the mission. The other NATO powers performed well but there was a lot of cases where Gadahfi's artillery managed to shell the rebels for days unmolested.

-Raised America's esteem? Ha! With who? The Palestinians?

I know what efficiency lag is but the effects of his Stimulus plan wore out about quite a long time ago. The current recovery is not related to the Stimulus plan.

Yes the stimulus was an improvement (an improvement from a double digit unemployment) but much like the Bush tax cut plan it did not perform as advertised and cost a lot of money with little to show for it. Its almost cute to see how stubbornly people will defend the stimulus plan.

He's done quite well at most things, particularly given the situation which he started from. But he can't be forgiven for allowing bad PR from the right to be successful, keeping Guantanamo bay open, and signing SOPA & NDAA.

Seekster:
Its almost cute to see how stubbornly people will defend the stimulus plan.

Don't be so condescending. There's sound economic theory and evidence towards their point of view. That's the reason almost all economists agreed and continue to agree with it.

This above basically, he's definetly not a bad president, but the American people have held up up as some kind of superman, who will somehow instantly fix all Americas problems.

Seekster:
Yes the stimulus was an improvement (an improvement from a double digit unemployment) but much like the Bush tax cut plan it did not perform as advertised and cost a lot of money with little to show for it. Its almost cute to see how stubbornly people will defend the stimulus plan.

As you've stated many times how you don't know anything about economics and don't care to learn because it bores you I hope you don't take us laughing at your condescension and lack of knowledge in a bad way.

I do find it very cute how you keep trying though.

Foreign policy: START treaty and subsequent easing of tensions with Russia.

IMHO, he is of course, much better than Bush, but (predictably) ignored a lot of civil rights issues that people assumed he'd do something about due to not being Bush.

People have complained that the Democrat election campaign seems to be based on not being as scary as the Republicans, instead of offering much in the way of improvements to their situation.

Well, I liked his message of trying to unify democrats and republicans, but in retrospect, it was probably a mistake, seeing as how the republicans sabotaged everything good he was trying to do.

I'm also a little disappointed in him signing that act that abolished both fair and unfair trials in case of suspected terrorism. That's a law that's beyond matters of agree or disagree, it's such a direct attack on civil rights and generally decent government that any politician should resist it, even if it's clear in advance he'd be overruled. Yes, it was a 93% majority, but he could still have vetoed it, even if it had gotten bypassen in the end.

Although his attempt at making healthcare accessible to everyone is something that musn't be underestimated. Even the weak compromise they hammered out in the end is a huge change in the context of the paralysed politics of the US.

Danny Ocean:

Seekster:
Its almost cute to see how stubbornly people will defend the stimulus plan.

Don't be so condescending. There's sound economic theory and evidence towards their point of view. That's the reason almost all economists agreed and continue to agree with it.

Now hold on, a few months ago when I was talking about how the Stimulus hadnt worked the Obama lackies were talking about how all these economists were saying it had worked and pointed some modest gains and some "not as bad as it could have been" losses as evidence of what the Stimulus had done. Now you are going to try and credit the current slow recovery to the same stimulus from years ago? Uh uh I don't think so.

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:
Yes the stimulus was an improvement (an improvement from a double digit unemployment) but much like the Bush tax cut plan it did not perform as advertised and cost a lot of money with little to show for it. Its almost cute to see how stubbornly people will defend the stimulus plan.

As you've stated many times how you don't know anything about economics and don't care to learn because it bores you I hope you don't take us laughing at your condescension and lack of knowledge in a bad way.

I do find it very cute how you keep trying though.

Foreign policy: START treaty and subsequent easing of tensions with Russia.

What tensions with Russia? They are now as they have always been leery over our plans for missiles in Eastern Europe, there have not been any major developments there. The START treat is supposed to be almost routine now but if I recall he even had a few stumbles getting that done and some people say it favors Russia.

No I don't know much about economics but I know enough about politics to know that the Stimulus wore out before this current uptick and as everyone correctly points out, the Republicans havent really approved any similar plans so since no major economic recovery plan has been passed recently we have nothing to attribute this modest growth to except the economy trying to fix itself.

I remember months ago people telling me what the stimulus had done when I said he had been a complete failure. You can't attribute what is happening now to a short-term shot in the arm over a year ago.

Seekster:

I remember months ago people telling me what the stimulus had done when I said he had been a complete failure. You can't attribute what is happening now to a short-term shot in the arm over a year ago.

Actually you can, especially since the money appropriated was doled out in parcels up to June 2011.

It's the exact same reasoning as to attributing some of the post.com recession growth (04-07) to the actions taken by the Bush administration in early 2002, large increases in temporary spending to provide stability needed for any future growth to take place, along with the federal reserve acting to preserve the integrity of the markets. The full stimulative effects of these policies had a multiplier effect on future growth accelerating it and ensuring a higher base to work from.

Those are the basic facts of the matter Seekster. The stimulus bill was grossly undersized but then again nobody expected the damage to the economy to be as bad as it was and it was basically at the upper limit of what was feasible to push through congress anyway. Even so it stemmed the bleeding, has provided a higher base for future growth than where it would otherwise have been and is having a multiplying effect on current growth.

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Those are the basic facts of the matter Seekster. The stimulus bill was grossly undersized but then again nobody expected the damage to the economy to be as bad as it was and it was basically at the upper limit of what was feasible to push through congress anyway. Even so it stemmed the bleeding, has provided a higher base for future growth than where it would otherwise have been and is having a multiplying effect on current growth.

I've done this so many times in the past. There's no point. He's not going to listen because he doesn't want to learn. He doesn't want to learn because his ignorance is bliss. I even offered a while ago to teach him some of the basics for free because it would've been good practise for my exam. Nope. Not gonna happen, Guy.

Danny Ocean:

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Those are the basic facts of the matter Seekster. The stimulus bill was grossly undersized but then again nobody expected the damage to the economy to be as bad as it was and it was basically at the upper limit of what was feasible to push through congress anyway. Even so it stemmed the bleeding, has provided a higher base for future growth than where it would otherwise have been and is having a multiplying effect on current growth.

I've done this so many times in the past. There's no point. He's not going to listen because he doesn't want to learn. He doesn't want to learn because his ignorance is bliss. I even offered a while ago to teach him some of the basics for free because it would've been good practise for my exam. Nope. Not gonna happen, Guy.

I know. I keep trying because he has shown he's sometimes willing to change and unlike paulites Seekster talking about the economy doesn't make me want to put my face through a wall just shake my head and chuckle as I would at a small child.

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:

I remember months ago people telling me what the stimulus had done when I said he had been a complete failure. You can't attribute what is happening now to a short-term shot in the arm over a year ago.

Actually you can, especially since the money appropriated was doled out in parcels up to June 2011.

It's the exact same reasoning as to attributing some of the post.com recession growth (04-07) to the actions taken by the Bush administration in early 2002, large increases in temporary spending to provide stability needed for any future growth to take place, along with the federal reserve acting to preserve the integrity of the markets. The full stimulative effects of these policies had a multiplier effect on future growth accelerating it and ensuring a higher base to work from.

Those are the basic facts of the matter Seekster. The stimulus bill was grossly undersized but then again nobody expected the damage to the economy to be as bad as it was and it was basically at the upper limit of what was feasible to push through congress anyway. Even so it stemmed the bleeding, has provided a higher base for future growth than where it would otherwise have been and is having a multiplying effect on current growth.

Based off what you just said it sounds more like you are saying that the modest growth now isnt so much the direct result of the stimulus as much as a result of the economy that was saved from a total collapse (supposedly at least) by the stimulus. If you want to argue that then thats fair I suppose.

Even if I take the economists' word for it the direct effects of the stimulus ended several months ago at the latest.

Danny Ocean:

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Those are the basic facts of the matter Seekster. The stimulus bill was grossly undersized but then again nobody expected the damage to the economy to be as bad as it was and it was basically at the upper limit of what was feasible to push through congress anyway. Even so it stemmed the bleeding, has provided a higher base for future growth than where it would otherwise have been and is having a multiplying effect on current growth.

I've done this so many times in the past. There's no point. He's not going to listen because he doesn't want to learn. He doesn't want to learn because his ignorance is bliss. I even offered a while ago to teach him some of the basics for free because it would've been good practise for my exam. Nope. Not gonna happen, Guy.

Hey Danny, word to the wise, when you post for the sole purpose of insulting someone and have nothing of value to say, it doesnt reflect well on you.

Seekster:
No I don't know much about economics but I know enough about politics to know

No. No, you don't. You don't get it. Most people who oppose the stimulus don't understand the principles behind it or just how good it was to our economy. You have stated quite clearly that you don't understand economics. Now please, PLEASE stop spouting off on the topic as though you have a masters and sit on the board of the fed.

Seekster:

Even if I take the economists' word for it the direct effects of the stimulus ended several months ago at the latest.

Doesn't work like that though. For example some the money given in June 2011 provides for paying the salaries of builders in a public project such as bridge/road maintenance for another year when otherwise they would be let go for budgetary reasons. The direct effect of that is felt for 1 year with a multiplicative effect as the disposable part of the builders income is spent on both perishable goods and commodities (food, energy, clothes) and consumerist goods (electronics, services etc) that would otherwise not be purchased.

You also have the economic benefit of either greater fuel efficiency in motor vehicles in that area due to roads being in better repair causing an increase in disposable income again allowing people to purchase more increasing economic activity in that area or bridges being in good condition which can allow for trucking routes to go through the area, where once they would have avoided it due to the bridges not being deemed safe enough, giving another indirect economic boost as additional services will be required to accommodate this. These additional increase can be attributed directly to the stimulative efforts but the impact would be felt over the course of a few years before you can just say "no more money coming in, it is not having any impact."

This is of course the much pared down and simple version on the direct stimulative effects of government spending and timelines associated with growth attributable to said spending as I don't feel like typing up pages on the subject when you can just read it in pretty much any economic textbook.

This is why we don't listen to you on economic things at all Seekster. You don't know anything about it and so view it in a very simplistic way much the same as a child would.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
No I don't know much about economics but I know enough about politics to know

No. No, you don't. You don't get it. Most people who oppose the stimulus don't understand the principles behind it or just how good it was to our economy. You have stated quite clearly that you don't understand economics. Now please, PLEASE stop spouting off on the topic as though you have a masters and sit on the board of the fed.

You see I might be inclined to believe you if I didnt hear people like Rush Limbaugh spout something similar about the Bush tax cuts.

Sure I don't fully understand economics but I'm not stupid and I know bullshit when I hear it...er read it.

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:

Even if I take the economists' word for it the direct effects of the stimulus ended several months ago at the latest.

Doesn't work like that though. For example some the money given in June 2011 provides for paying the salaries of builders in a public project such as bridge/road maintenance for another year when otherwise they would be let go for budgetary reasons. The direct effect of that is felt for 1 year with a multiplicative effect as the disposable part of the builders income is spent on both perishable goods and commodities (food, energy, clothes) and consumerist goods (electronics, services etc) that would otherwise not be purchased.

You also have the economic benefit of either greater fuel efficiency in motor vehicles in that area due to roads being in better repair causing an increase in disposable income again allowing people to purchase more increasing economic activity in that area or bridges being in good condition which can allow for trucking routes to go through the area, where once they would have avoided it due to the bridges not being deemed safe enough, giving another indirect economic boost as additional services will be required to accommodate this. These additional increase can be attributed directly to the stimulative efforts but the impact would be felt over the course of a few years before you can just say "no more money coming in, it is not having any impact."

This is of course the much pared down and simple version on the direct stimulative effects of government spending and timelines associated with growth attributable to said spending as I don't feel like typing up pages on the subject when you can just read it in pretty much any economic textbook.

This is why we don't listen to you on economic things at all Seekster. You don't know anything about it and so view it in a very simplistic way much the same as a child would.

Its not that I don't understand what you are saying, its just that what we are seeing and what we have seen from the economy just doesnt seem to match up.

I have no doubt that every last person here is going to credit Obama for everything good that happens economically the same way they would blame Bush for everything bad that happened with the economy.

Here is an NPR article from June 2011 talking about how the Stimulus is about to end and how there may be a need for a new one.

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/19/137278456/key-fed-stimulus-expiring-too-soon

On top of that even news sources like the AP or CNN credit a robust hiring surge over the Holidays and an increase in demand for the recent uptick. The stimulus is not even mentioned.

Seekster:

Its not that I don't understand what you are saying, its just that what we are seeing and what we have seen from the economy just doesnt seem to match up.

I have no doubt that every last person here is going to credit Obama for everything good that happens economically the same way they would blame Bush for everything bad that happened with the economy.

Here is an NPR article from June 2011 talking about how the Stimulus is about to end and how there may be a need for a new one.

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/19/137278456/key-fed-stimulus-expiring-too-soon

On top of that even news sources like the AP or CNN credit a robust hiring surge over the Holidays and an increase in demand for the recent uptick. The stimulus is not even mentioned.

That article talks about Federal Reserve stimulative acts (i.e. Quantitative easing, interest rate setting) not legislative stimulus (direct spending, tax breaks etc.) which is what I've been talking about so far, I can go into how central banks work as once again you have shown you don't actually understand what i'm saying if you want.

As to the economy. How would you like to measure? In terms of GDP growth the US has had robust growth since 2009Q3 with only 2011Q1 being less than 1% much of which can be attributed to outside things happening with the US/World economy with Europe beginning to blow up and the earthquake in Japan dampening world demand.
In terms of unemployment the stimulus stemmed the losses of jobs at an ever increasing rate before hitting positive non-farm payrolls in early 2010 and after which it has been lower growth than those 2010 numbers but relatively steady at 100-200k jobs per month. Each one of those jobs increases disposable income and has a positive effect greater than just the initial wage they earn.

You see the US economy has been improving at a relatively steady pace the past 2 years now, you just dropped to a place so low that it doesn't feel like things have improved because you are comparing things to how they were before the crash and will take another 4-5 years of growth at the current rate before you hit that level again.

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:

Its not that I don't understand what you are saying, its just that what we are seeing and what we have seen from the economy just doesnt seem to match up.

I have no doubt that every last person here is going to credit Obama for everything good that happens economically the same way they would blame Bush for everything bad that happened with the economy.

Here is an NPR article from June 2011 talking about how the Stimulus is about to end and how there may be a need for a new one.

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/19/137278456/key-fed-stimulus-expiring-too-soon

On top of that even news sources like the AP or CNN credit a robust hiring surge over the Holidays and an increase in demand for the recent uptick. The stimulus is not even mentioned.

That article talks about Federal Reserve stimulative acts (i.e. Quantitative easing, interest rate setting) not legislative stimulus (direct spending, tax breaks etc.) which is what I've been talking about so far, I can go into how central banks work as once again you have shown you don't actually understand what i'm saying if you want.

As to the economy. How would you like to measure? In terms of GDP growth the US has had robust growth since 2009Q3 with only 2011Q1 being less than 1% much of which can be attributed to outside things happening with the US/World economy with Europe beginning to blow up and the earthquake in Japan dampening world demand.
In terms of unemployment the stimulus stemmed the losses of jobs at an ever increasing rate before hitting positive non-farm payrolls in early 2010 and after which it has been lower growth than those 2010 numbers but relatively steady at 100-200k jobs per month. Each one of those jobs increases disposable income and has a positive effect greater than just the initial wage they earn.

You see the US economy has been improving at a relatively steady pace the past 2 years now, you just dropped to a place so low that it doesn't feel like things have improved because you are comparing things to how they were before the crash and will take another 4-5 years of growth at the current rate before you hit that level again.

Its the same premise, whether its the fed or legislative the idea is to spend a lot of money to give the economy a shot in the arm right? Anyway you look at it that is a short term solution not a long term one. That short term ended months ago, maybe Ill actually make a calendar to show you sometime.

Oh of course the US economy is going to grow, thats not the issue. The issue is that growth has gone from stagnant to sluggish and while unemployment has improved its still unacceptably high. Still if we can keep up a brisk pace like this we could bring it back down to acceptable levels.

At any rate the economy doing better is a good thing and I hope it keeps it up. I give credit where it is due but based on what I have read there is no directly link between what we are seeing now and Obama's stimulus policies. At best there is an indirect link ie. the stimulus helped give the economy some breathing room so it could fix itself.

No I don't like Obama but I will give credit where its due and I just dont see how Obama can claim his policies are responsible for the economic uptick, after all the Republican Congress has blocked most of his economic plans remember.

He's not listening, really. I would advise what Danny advised.

Magical029:
He's not listening, really. I would advise what Danny advised.

If I wasnt listening then we wouldnt be having a discussion.

Obama had some promise, but he didn't live up to his billing (although what media star does, eh?)

I had a real had time telling Bush Jr military policy apart from Obama military policy. I don't, for example, see the Guantanamo Bay camp shut down, in fact he just signed a bill preventing it.

I thought Obama might FINALLY bring the US to sanity and put in place true Universal Health Care. The mess he came up with may be worse in some cases than what existed before. He didn't have the guts, or the leadership ability, to do what was really needed so he just passed SOMETHING to declare victory over.

He isn't a particularily bad president, but he isn't a particularily good one. He's just kind of there. If he hadn't had the "jesus level" buildup he probably wouldn't have come off looking as mediocre as he does, but he certainly didn't live up to, for example, his Nobel prize for future stuff he might do but never did.

Seekster:
Oh of course the US economy is going to grow, thats not the issue. The issue is that growth has gone from stagnant to sluggish and while unemployment has improved its still unacceptably high. Still if we can keep up a brisk pace like this we could bring it back down to acceptable levels.

It's doubtfull such a thing would be possible without extreme reform of economy, society and taxation, and the political will to do that is absent.
And even if there was, it is too late. Most European countries made such reforms around the 70's and the Oil Crisis, and most weren't done untill halfway the 80's. If the US wants results now, they should've started somewhere mid 90's at least.

Economic stagnation is going to be a fact of life for the US for the coming decades, no matter what course is taken. Conservatism and desperately clinging to the old ways will make it a lot worse and make the transition harder, but one way or the other, the systematic decline is here. Stuff like old industries such as basic manafacturing are going to suffer, no matter what.

Blablahb:

Seekster:
Oh of course the US economy is going to grow, thats not the issue. The issue is that growth has gone from stagnant to sluggish and while unemployment has improved its still unacceptably high. Still if we can keep up a brisk pace like this we could bring it back down to acceptable levels.

It's doubtfull such a thing would be possible without extreme reform of economy, society and taxation, and the political will to do that is absent.
And even if there was, it is too late. Most European countries made such reforms around the 70's and the Oil Crisis, and most weren't done untill halfway the 80's. If the US wants results now, they should've started somewhere mid 90's at least.

Economic stagnation is going to be a fact of life for the US for the coming decades, no matter what course is taken. Conservatism and desperately clinging to the old ways will make it a lot worse and make the transition harder, but one way or the other, the systematic decline is here. Stuff like old industries such as basic manafacturing are going to suffer, no matter what.

Well then if you can't do it, get out of the way.

Do you know how if you put your hand on a very hot surface, say a stove, and quickly take it off you get burnt, but for some reason you don't feel the burn until half a second after you take your hand of the stove.

Well saying current growth has nothing to do with the stimulus is like saying that it couldn't possibly have been the stove that burnt your hand. I mean think about it, you didn't feel the burn until after you took it off the stove, so it couldn't possibly be responsible for the burn.

Seekster:

Blablahb:

Seekster:
Oh of course the US economy is going to grow, thats not the issue. The issue is that growth has gone from stagnant to sluggish and while unemployment has improved its still unacceptably high. Still if we can keep up a brisk pace like this we could bring it back down to acceptable levels.

It's doubtfull such a thing would be possible without extreme reform of economy, society and taxation, and the political will to do that is absent.
And even if there was, it is too late. Most European countries made such reforms around the 70's and the Oil Crisis, and most weren't done untill halfway the 80's. If the US wants results now, they should've started somewhere mid 90's at least.

Economic stagnation is going to be a fact of life for the US for the coming decades, no matter what course is taken. Conservatism and desperately clinging to the old ways will make it a lot worse and make the transition harder, but one way or the other, the systematic decline is here. Stuff like old industries such as basic manafacturing are going to suffer, no matter what.

Well then if you can't do it, get out of the way.

Tell that to the republican party.

Seekster:

Magical029:
He's not listening, really. I would advise what Danny advised.

If I wasnt listening then we wouldnt be having a discussion.

But he's not listening, he's reading :D

OT: Hit and miss, with a quite a bit of miss, and he's definitely one of my least favorites because of what he tried to do to NASA.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:

Blablahb:
It's doubtfull such a thing would be possible without extreme reform of economy, society and taxation, and the political will to do that is absent.
And even if there was, it is too late. Most European countries made such reforms around the 70's and the Oil Crisis, and most weren't done untill halfway the 80's. If the US wants results now, they should've started somewhere mid 90's at least.

Economic stagnation is going to be a fact of life for the US for the coming decades, no matter what course is taken. Conservatism and desperately clinging to the old ways will make it a lot worse and make the transition harder, but one way or the other, the systematic decline is here. Stuff like old industries such as basic manafacturing are going to suffer, no matter what.

Well then if you can't do it, get out of the way.

Tell that to the republican party.

But you see the Republican party thinks it can do it. Can it? We shall see.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked