|
Obama 1 year later
Today is exactly 1 year after Obama was sworn into office as the 44th President of the United States.
How do you feel he has done? Has he lived up to your expectations? Has he lived up to the fail you expected to see? I give everyone a chance, because actions are louder than any rhetoric and dogma. In the past year, I haven't seen Mr. Obama complete anything that he stated he would. I don't think he's done nothing, but his promises were big and grand. I don't think he delivered a single one. The stimulus package was too short, it didn't provide enough jobs. I know of many people who got laid off, I know of not a single person who got a job based on the stimulus package. Many that got laid off are still laid off. The banking crisis, while he gets only to work with what was left, I don't think that there was enough reform or protections. The dismantling of the Glass–Steagall Act under Clinton and not reinstated after the 2007 collapse, is politics as usual. I'm not sure what to make of the foreign policy but it seems to be more than Mr. Clinton had, though I'm not sure how effective Mrs. Clinton is. |
Obama is an example of style with no substance. He came from a world of "professorial theory" with no experience of putting theory into application. So, what he says sounds good, it seems logical, and he says it well - but there is a disconnect with translating that into governing. The real issue is, can he grow in the job? My guess is that he will not and that part of the problem is with the people he is surrounded by. He needs a few people in his inner circle who actually have a differing point of view. Hopefully he has learned that he can not turn his agenda over to people like Pelosi and Reid,
|
Quote:
You're mistaken. According to PolitiFact, he's kept 91 promises, compromised on 33, and broken 15. I understand there's some key stuff he promised that we haven't seen. But to say he hasn't delivered a single one is inaccurate. Now. Are there things--including, perhaps, foundational/philosophical things--that I wish the Obama administration was doing differently? Absodamnlutely. I think their continued efforts to USAify the middle east is disastrously misguided. I'm sad about the continued use of intelligence of sketchy quality and legality. On "homeland security" in general, I give Obama a D. Thing is, I'm not surprised, because he TOLD us he planned to do that. He's KEEPING promises, in that area. I voted for him knowing full well what his intentions were there. So I don't really feel like I get to be too upset about it. In other areas he's done exactly what I'd like him to do. He's opened our arms to the international community. Quibble about the details of it if you have to (and I know, oh lord do I know, some of you have to), the efforts he's made to stabilize the economy have had a positive impact. He's putting through health reform and while it's nowhere near what I wish it was, that's mostly because of congress, which seems to me an intractable quagmire at the moment. So... mixed. Where I disagree with what's happening, I don't get to claim any outrage, at least not with a straight face like some of those who seem to want to cast 1-year-in-Obama as a failed messiah... |
Quote:
Riddle: I didn't murder 91 people today. I assaulted 33, I murdered 15. What am I? P.S. - This is a rhetorical question, I did not actually assault or murder any real people today, but I am going to play a little Call of Duty 3 tonight. |
Banking Reform.
He's treated the banks with more reverence than any President in history, and instead of actually pushing for reforms he is trying to regulate the pay of the bank CEOs. All that's doing is creating a situation where banks like Citigroup lay off 100k workers and lose 7billion per quarter in order to hurry up and pay back the government so they can give their CEOs whatever the hell they want. Stop pussyfooting around and put the old regulations on investment banking so the credit can start to flow and we don't have to worry about the bubble popping again (or continue to deflate). |
Obama has not completed much in the first year. I disagree with most of what this administration has done and is trying to do. It certainly appears that many others (though not on this forum) agree with that assessment. Looking at the last 3 election (especially Scott Brown's win last night) results there is a lot of uneasiness with the direction we are being taken. Mr. Obama had a lot of ideas for change, but I always felt that during the run up to the election there was a lack of understanding of the underlying problems and more importantly a plan for executing these ideas. He has systematically surrounded himself with theoriticians and the result is nothing gets accomplished. The McCain campaign refused to ask the questions about the execution ( in what I believe was the worst run campaign in my 35 years as a voter) and the mainstream media followed suit. In the end we have what we have. The Democrats were outstanding at being obstructionists during the Bush years and the Republicans are equally adept. Frankly if they are incumbents (with very few exceptions) I will vote against them.
Reform is needed in many areas, but in my opinion certain fundemantals have to be adressed before we can impart any change. Tort law reform is paramount, you can't fix healthcare or many of our other big ticket problems either without this being taken care of first, and frankly that will NEVER happen when the foxes (lawyers) own the henhouse. Term Limits for Congress, Line Item Veto or Bill singularity (elimination of earmarks and tag ons etc) None of these is even on the radar screen and won't ever be. Before some of you jump in I am a conservative, registered Republican AND I'm MAD AS HELL at my bunch of "turds in human suits" because they don't represent me very well either, but I find them less offensive than the band of thieves Mr Obama surrounds himself with. Check their collective records of paying their taxes (any of US would be in jail with sustantial penalties assessed) All politicians lie (you can tell when their lips move) but Mr. Obama and his "Transparency" line of BS has me totally put out. I didn't trust the last bunch or the bunch before them, but this crew is WAY OUT OF LINE. Previous administrations were liars as well, but they didn't claim to be transparent as this admin did. Change We Can Believe In? I don't think so. I believe the Mandate he felt he got in the last election will be a completely different story come this November. Over and OUT! |
Quote:
tl;dr (because that's what we're dealing with here): What I'm saying is, the assertion "He has kept zero of his promises" is inaccurate. |
Let's see:
Deficit: Growing at a rate even George W. Bush would vomit over. Inflation: Insane. What can't be borrowed is simply being printed. Check out the prices of Gold, Pounds Sterling, and Euros. See how the three relate. Then get to a sink, 'cause you're gonna want to puke. Wars: Still ongoing. Gitmo: Still open. USA PATRIOT Act: Still there. Economy: Gasping for breath. Transparency: What transparency? Just for the illiterate, "transparency" means you don't get to hold "negotiations" on a bill in the middle of the night while only inviting those who agree with you. Bipartisanship: You mean aside from continuing all the worst policies of the Bush Regime? I'll take less bipartisan warmongering and more bipartisan legislative action, if you please. Honesty: Two words, Barry; "Nebraska" and "Louisiana." Openess: Because having SEIU leg-breakers enforce Newthink at "town hall meetings" is a really open way to conduct government business... Banking: Let's see, the banks which nearly bankrupted the country have not only been bailed out, but are now being exempted from fees and charges leveled against those banks which -DIDN'T- provoke the near-collapse of the American economy. Fuck up and get rewarded, play it straight and get the shaft. Taxes: Well, if you don't -call- it a tax...call it a "fee" or a "surcharge" instead, then it isn't a tax!...unless you're the poor schlub who gets stuck picking up the tab. Obama, one year on? If we're lucky he'll be voted out in 2012 and become a quickly-forgotten one-term-wonder like Millard Filmore or Benjamin Harrison, soon lost in the mercifully dim mists of time and memory. If things keep going they way they have, he'll end up like Jimmy Carter; voted out after one term of making fools of his constituents. However, given that Mr. Bush was elected twice, something tells me that the American electorate might just be dumb enough to elect this nonce a second time. They'll apparently vote for anybody. At worst, Mr. Obama's policies will piss some fruitbat off badly enough to take a shot at him. As much as I detest Mr. Obama, an assassination attempt (let alone a successful one) is my worst nightmare. Then the rotten little slime gets to be a martyr, and his collectivist cohorts will control every house of government for the next fifty years. |
I really would like you (by whom I mean YOU, sitting in YOUR chair) to go to that link that I posted above. It breaks down, in a rigorously non-partisan way, the specific promises Obama made during the campaign, and whether they've been kept, broken, compromised on, are in progress, or are stalled.
It's easy to work from talking points, but all that produces is an echo chamber of agreement, potentially more and more divergent from facts. I'm inviting this whole thread into a FACT conversation. |
Other things aside, I think it's still too early to adequately grade Obama on the economy. The country is still in the middle of the worst economic contraction since the Depression, and much of the recovery depends on the global economy, which isn't so hot right now either.
When Obama took power, the economy was diving at a rate of over 6 percent per annum, but by the fourth quarter, the economy recorded a growth rate of over 4 percent. There are other signs of recovery as well (while Obama has been in office, the Dow has recovered significantly), but it's easy to get hung up on unemployment numbers because they hit close to home, whereas the GDP and Dow numbers are abstract. Employment stats are a lagging indicator, which means they are behind indicators such as the GDP (coincident with economic activity) and the Dow (leading, ahead of economic activity). Although the recovery will likely be slow, it's showing signs that it is indeed happening. And what's not to say that Obama's actions (namely, the stimulus plans) didn't prevent the unemployment rate from being far worse? I say we need more time to know how things are going. We're still at the bottom here. |
To be honest I have a hard time properly evaluating Obama's first year in office. It would appear on the surface that Obama has had many successes in his first year yet its hard to judge weather or not his acts as President will in the end be good or bad for the nation. I don't think its proper to judge the bail outs on just the immediate returns as the larger repercussions wont be felt for sometime. However the economic downturn has slowed and we have seen small growth, unemployment is still very high and shows no signs of turning around. The surge in Afghanistan seems to have been effective but with the announcement of a troop pull out next year I'm not sure if the surge was necessary or will have any lasting effects given the time table. Health care is still stuck in congress hell and as of right now remains nothing but a pipe dream leaving us with very little evaluate.
On a more immediate level it appears his first year on office has been somewhat wishy washy. I think his support on the left has been crumbling to a certain extent because he appears unable to take a hard line stance on left wing issues nor does he seem willing to flex his super majority muscle and force through the health care bill. The right obviously has never supported him but I fear he's somehow managed to alienate them further with reckless spending, meddling in private business and a weak stance on the Middle East and foreign policy in general. The comparisons thus far with Jimmy Carter aren't without some basis. Personally I feel thus far he's been pretty much what I expected him to be. There was simply no way he was going to live up to the hype attributed to him nor make any major advancements towards the utopia of change he spun on the campaign trail. In the end I think he's typical of the type of politician we Americans love to elect. He's charismatic, down to earth and great at selling himself yet when he actually has to govern he's just another let down because we love choosing style over substance. |
Quote:
as far as I'm concerned those are the promises I was concerned about and he hasn't delivered. |
Can't give him more than a C/C+ for his first year. Color me disappointed
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It hasn't been with the banks, because they are still doing what their doing and then some. I don't believe the DOW since it was manipulated before you believe it's not being manipulated again? With no oversight or no reforms, just the bankers being good because they want to? It hasn't been on National Security because some asshole tried to blow up an airliner on Christmas day. I seem to recall: January 22, 2009 - so he's got a 2 more days to hit that target. Quote:
He's done little to nothing but talk about shovel ready jobs... |
I gave my overview in the 41st senator thread. He has to work on policies that individual groups in the left want. He won't win lots of points with everyone, but he needs to do more. And I'm tired of these polls that don't differentiate the negative from doing things they don't like versus not doing enough things he should be doing.
I think he could have handled a few things better. They started the Healthcare thing two months early or two months late. Copenhagen should have happened in the summer, and he should have set us on a new energy direction. He did get a supreme court justice seated that is good. There is a lot of anxiety over America in general that is getting blamed on the White House, but they aren't really responsible. What is the person complaining about the national debt going to do in order to fix it without cutting more jobs? Have they stopped buying imported products? It's the 60 year olds that fear inflation in retirement that are really worried. The stock market is doing better, I think a lot of people who are over 50s & 60s were scared when their 401k lost a lot of money, but they should feel better now if they rode out the dip in the market. It's still early. But we shall see what he says at the State of the Union next week. (More people care about a fictional island on a TV show than the state of our messed up country) The democrats need to come up with a new plan since people feel like they need to work and are addicted to it. (It is probably easier to be an entrepreneur and do it yourself than find a job, but I know no one who has lost a job in my set of friends & family. I don't blame the government* for the unenployment rate, I blame the people who all of a sudden (smartly) started saving and the raising fees from companies who have a product that is mandated or in high demand) *You can probably search my posts for the minimum wage ones. I'm surprised no one has suggested the correlation between when min wage increases started was the same time things started downhill. Although it didn't have the intended purpose of limiting CEO pay and excessive compensation at companies that are just middlemen. |
All I can say about the first year is if his goal was to push the centrist Dems further away and to look elsewhere for candidates, he accomplished his goal. I see 2010 being a huge election year with the GOP pulling off 1994 type victories and the Dems making excuses and not doing a damned thing to listen.
|
Quote:
Some jobs will never come back,. but in the longer term, the goal of the stimulus program is also to retool the economy, with most of the funds not having yet been spent (by intent) with a focus on supporting new technologies in energy and health care, a national broadband network, worker retraining, etc. Quote:
While it doesnt completely restore Glass- Steagall, the Wall Street Financial Reform and Consumer Protection Act proposes signficant regulatory reform of banking and financial services. Other first year achievements: Expanded SCHIP program to provide health insurance to millions of children of working class families. Credit Card Bill of Rights legislation, Women's pay equity legisation. The most sweeping land conservation legislation since Teddy Roosevelt. The start of procurement reform. More openness and transparency with FOIA reforms and, for the first time, barring thousands of lobbyists from serving on Executive Branch advisory committees that help write regulations..... Not a bad first year. I think he over-promised on the domestic side and, on the national security side, he's done what he promised, and maintained much of the status quo. |
Quote:
Obama detractors like very much to put common liberal agendas into his mouth and then claim he's failed as a savior. Reality diverges from this view significantly. Feel free to keep regurgitating nonsense, but I'm going to try my damnedest to keep bringing FACTS to the table. Hopefully at least I'll get you to a place where you're unable to say these things with a straight face. |
Quote:
It is also naive to think that the Executive Branch can accomplish significant reforms or significant new policy initiatives on its own. Even with a Democratic majority in Congress, one would have to be blind to not see the obstructions and delays that have come into play in the legislative process. |
Quote:
---------- Post added at 03:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:27 PM ---------- Quote:
---------- Post added at 03:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:31 PM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It's about priorities. What do you think Obama is most pressed about? Is it not the economy? What is the average American most concerned about right now? Is it gitmo? The environment? What are the immediate and pressing issues for most people right now? Quote:
Or, to be fair, could you please clarify your position? Do you want more government intervention? I know your position on banks, but what about the rest of the economy? What do you think about Obama's plan for a bank tax? I know you wanted more stimulus. Is there anything else? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
My view of his supporters were via media and people's facebook and twitter updates. Other than that, it's based on the actions or inactions he's taken. regarding the other accomplishments, because I didn't see them as promises, the SCHIP, CARD, etc. are expected. A president doesn't just work on 1-5 items on their list. I still don't agree with the reform for credit since it hasn't helped in my opinion, just gave the bankers a deadline and the grace period to fuck with people to make that deadline ineffective. I never thought he'd repeal the Patriot Act, I did think that he wasn't going to extend the same provisions that Bush II was decried about with such vitriol, but Obama continuing them, seems to have been given a pass. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
People are watching the unemployment number with a fascination and concern that casts a shadow over much else. |
Quote:
Gitmo is to national security and "blank" is to the economy. I would fill the blank in with something like taxing wall street bonuses. But if you compare the economy to national security rather than gitmo to the economy, I think national security would rate as high as the economy. I would also add that I think an administration can have a big impact on national security in a short period of time while that would not be true of the economy. |
Quote:
When 1 in 5 people you know are unemployed, it's a huge psychological factor. Even if you're making the same you were 5 years ago, you're sweating bullets. The general psychology of America won't right itself until we get back on track. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Google quickly turned up the Bureau of Labor Statistics, who had this to say: Quote:
Quote:
To be perfectly frank about it, unless you can come up with a compelling reason for me to believe you over what appears to be a US government website I'd have to conclude that you're flat out wrong on this one. |
martian, he's talking about U-6 which is also a BLS statistic, it just isn't the on that gets the press. That number his 17.6% in December of last year.
Table A-12. Alternative measures of labor underutilization Quote:
|
It stands to reason that a broader net yields a higher number.
Folks who want to make the situation look as grim as possible might be interested in getting the highest possible number. Should we include the 'marginally attached' housewife who's open to taking a job if it falls into her lap? Regardless, UI still has little to do with it, which makes Seaver at best confused and misinformed. None of this is to say that the current economic situation is sunshine and roses -- clearly it's not. On the other hand, it's deceitful to compare unemployment rates to this U-6 metric without being totally clear that they're measuring different things. |
Regardless, it's all relative. When things were booming, what was the "other" unemployment at? Ten percent? Higher?
Unemployment is used as one measure of several for understanding a nation's relative position in the current business cycle. It's not used purely for figuring out how to solve unemployment in the quest for full employment. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
as far as it being deceitful, Martian, I'd say it's equally deceitful for politicians to say that unemployment is dwindling since less people on taking UI benefits, when in reality they just no longer qualify for them due to the length of looking was further than the allotted time to land a new job. |
Rise in jobless claims signals bump in recovery - Yahoo! Finance
published today Quote:
|
Quote:
Unemployment in calculated using surveys. Both the "regular" unemployment figure and the U6 unemployment figure. How is the unemployment rate related to unemployment insurance claims? The regular unemployment figure is based on a few questions on that survey. Basically: have you worked for pay in the reference period? If not, have you looked for work? To calculate U6 unemployment, they go beyond that: if the person has not looked for work they'll ask why, and those who say that they stopped looking for work because they couldnt find anything are counted as discouraged workers. If they have a job, they'll be asked about the nature of the job, and if they are still looking for work. That is where the marginally attached figures come from. But, again, unemployment insurance data has nothing to do with how the unemployment rate is calculated. Your wife's ability to collect unemployment insurance is irrelevant in counting her as unemployed or not. If she is still looking for a job and is surveyed, she will be counted as unemployed. If she stopped looking for a job because she couldn't find anything, she'll still be counted as a discouraged worker and included in U6 figures. |
3 words... Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts
OOps that 4 words. |
Regardless... if experienced college-educated professionals spend +6 months without any decent employment opportunities it's a shit economy.
I can't even get a job in retail sales at an Old Navy... they know I wouldn't stick around beyond finding a decent job and no decent jobs are open right now. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
And while no single number might be the whole picture of unemployment, the fact is that the notion that there are massive numbers of unemployed out there that are not counted is not true, especially if the argument is related to some shortcoming of unemployment insurance. |
Well, hopefully this gets completed.
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The credit default obligations (CDO's, CMOS's, or CDS's) market often cited for the "crisis" is a zero sum game. On every trade someone was "long" (betting on increase) and someone was "short" (betting on decrease), and you have the "house's cut" (fees). When the government bailouts the "long" positions, like they did with AIG, there is a direct benefit to the "short" positions, like Goldman. So you end up with a company like Goldman being made whole, profiting on the risks they took and collecting fees. To go after these firms after the fact, does not leave me with a feeling that they know what they are doing. Now he announces a plan that with hurt some financial firms and benefit others. And at the end of the day the guy with the mortgage, which was the basis for all this, still got his home foreclosed upon. Thanks a lot Mr. President. |
Quote:
I still believe you take those numbers into effect you are looking at 30+% of our population. And that is the tax base you are burdening with the bank bailouts that still allowed banks to give HUGE assed bonuses, cut lower management and raise all their rates. The tax base that you expect to pay for the health care, the cap and trade, the deficit spending and so on. Meanwhile, people can't pay back their studenbt loans because the wages are too low. Did Obama cause this? No. Rome had its "Barrack Room emperors" and we have had ours.Obama just inherited the mess and instead of finding ways to improve the landscape and help the PEOPLE... he has done nothing but deficit spend, allowed the tax base to shrivel up even more and bailout industries that have been causing the problems. We are at a point where there are but 2 classes and we are taxing the class that supports all of us out of this country and to invest even deeper into others. If we lose the truly wealthy in this country and those poor schlubs that have a little are taxed to make up for the loss of that tax base, we're done. We may as well just give it all to China, the UN or whomever and watch our kids become illegals trying to get into Mexico. |
Quote:
The Lost Decade Quote:
IMO, the stimulus plan designed on two tracks makes sense, with some short-term "shovel ready" jobs funding, short term assistance to those unemployed, stabilization funds for state/local government AND long-term retooling or redirecting the economy with investments in alternative energy technology and health technology, building a national broadband network, repairing the infrastructure, etc. It takes time and it was envisioned as a 18-24 month plan. Will it work. Who knows, but IMO, it is too soon to declare it failed. |
Quote:
It is a failure because the focus is not on the parts of the economy that actually creates net new jobs. It is a failure because of contradictory policy and statements coming from Washington. Obama's administration is hindering job growth. |
Quote:
---------- Post added at 08:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 AM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
The basis of my post is pretty basic. Government stimulus needs to generate its impact before the costs off-sets the impact. If you find an economist who disagrees with that, let me know and we can take it from there. Government can "prime the pump" or get the party started and for that you need something immediate. {added} Just for kicks I went to AEI's website, and read this: Quote:
seems like they may actually agree with me. |
Quote:
find someone interested in buying GM instead of all that money to banks.... give it to the states to improve the roads, schools, bridges and so on... creat instant jobs the way FDR did by rebuilding the infrastructure that is crumbling before our eyes. raise tariffs enforce labor laws in US owned corporations overseas. go after, prosecute if possible those bankers that took high salaries and buyouts knowing they destroyed the company and ripped off investors and consumers... start re regulating the banks, make the interest rates for savings and checking somewhat valuable and in some proportion to the interest rates we pay on credit cards, for loans etc. You do that and the economy rebounds in less than 6 months. ---------- Post added at 09:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 AM ---------- Quote:
And what is the current U6 number given by the government and the number BEFORE Obama took office? I'd like to know because I lost my job the past year and had to take a $3+ an hour paycut and was unable to file for unemployment. My wife lost her job because Charter One (an RBS bank owned subsidiary) because they closed her branch and didn't take management with them. So our household now pays lower income taxes (MUCH LOWER) and cannot afford to stimulate much in the economy world. Much like many of my friends and thousands in North East Ohio as a whole. |
Quote:
Quote:
And, w/o the bank bailouts, credit dries up and more small businesses fail. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
sub-prime lending - The bill outlaws many of the egregious and predatory industry practices that fueled the subprime lending boom and establishes a simple standard for all home loans: institutions must ensure that borrowers can repay the loans they are soldIt has been stalled in the Senate by the Republicans. On the issue of credit card protections, Obama signed the Credit Card Holders Bill of Rights last year. Quote:
And, the best features of your plan are already included in the recovery act or the banking/financial services reform act that Obama and the Democrats have enacted or proposed. There is a consensus among many economists across the spectrum, while disagreeing on details, that the recovery plan has helped. New Consensus Sees Stimulus Package as Worthy Step And your plan certainly doesnt address the long term need to retool the economy. Here is an example: The US has fallen behind nearly every industrialized country on developing a national broadband network....and fallen behind on fundamental research in numerous areas including nano-technology, quantum physics, bio-med, alternative energy technology, general health technology, etc....all critical to long-term economic development and are components of what should be part of a long-term economic restructuring plan....and the recovery act includes funding for all of these....probably not enough funding. IMO, your approach is a band-aid and not a very good one. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
"It is a failure because it should not take 18-24 for a government stimulus plan to create jobs. It is a failure because the focus is not on the parts of the economy that actually creates net new jobs." And the link you provided clearly states that Quote:
|
This all you need to know about how well Barack Obama has done in his first year...
On the day he was inaugurated, he had a 68% approval rating. He had a 12% disapproval rating. That's difference of +56... One year later, his approval rating is less than half (47%...it dropped 21 percentage points), and his disapproval rating is the same as his approval rating, meaning it's increased 35 percentage points...thus, giving him a difference of ZERO... Losing a 56 point lead in the approval/disapproval ratings explains everything... Add the second "t" (for http) in the address below to see the graph... htp://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z23/cnredd/Gallup_1yr.jpg |
Quote:
Table A-12. Alternative measures of labor underutilization And I asked you what the numbers were before and after... you didn't give them let me. Dec. '08 13.5 Dec. '09 17.1 Hmmmmm a gain when supposedly the stiumulus was putting people back to work. This is how they get that U6 number Quote:
So, yeah the U6 number is a good government number that means dick and is easily manipulated. ---------- Post added at 08:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 AM ---------- Quote:
Yeah, that pretty much says it all there. |
In fact, given that he started with higher approval ratings than any recent president, one would expect a significant drop, particularly with taking on significant issues like health care reform and the worst economy in half a century.
If you look at job approval ratings from all polls, the majority still have it above 50% Obama: Job Ratings He has disappointed alot of people with lofty expectations, including me, in some policy areas. I want a president willing to take bold moves to address major problems, rather than just coast along. IMO, he has been too accommodating in attempting to build consensus and has not been bold enough. But his favorability ratings are still high: Obama: Favorability Poll cherry picking is a FOX trick. pan.....you want to try that recovery plan again...given that the good pieces of your first plan are already in Obama's recovery plan or the Democrats banking/financial services regulatory bill? |
Quote:
It is called "sampling," and I find it ridiculously funny that you talk about the manipulation of the BLS survey, which has a sample size of 60000, and then proceed to make a point using a gallup poll, with it's sample size of ~1000. As far as his job approval goes, sure, he has let down a number of people. But his decline in popularity is not unprecedented, nor is it notable, given the size of the recession: Obama's job approval vs Reagan's: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...d47a970c-800wi In fact, let's look at other recent presidents: Presidential Approval Ratings from 1945-2008 So Obama is doing better than Truman, Ford, Carter and Clinton, and just as well as Reagan. And he is doing worse than Bush I and II, Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy and Eisenhower. |
Quote:
What I am saying is that government can create stimulus in the short term and then the actions taken by government will have an equal but opposite effect, assuming no government waste. The costs have to be incurred and paid for, one way or the other. What I am saying is a truism. Politicians and economist with political agendas can tap dance around the truism I pointed out all day long, but it doesn't change what is true. If what I write is not clear, it is because of my inability to communicate with you, like I wrote earlier, if you find an economist who disagrees with what I have presented - I would love to read his stuff or interact with him or her. Obama is saying that he has been focused on jobs all along and now he is saying that he is going to focus on jobs. That seems to be a contradiction and an admission that his plan initially was ineffective. If his plan was on course, why not say that? Why not simply say to America to be patient, that the plan is going to work? He can't say that because he knows it is not true. Are you saying you don't see what is so obvious? Why does Obama assume "we" don't get it? Obama reminds me of a 4 year-old boy who is in trouble and tried to explain it away with a little lie, that gets bigger and bigger and bigger, a some point it ain't cute any more. |
Quote:
Your assertion that the stimulus did not create any jobs, or that it has taken 18-24 months to create jobs, is false. Even a higly partisan, highly republican AEI admits it to be so. Regarding your "truism:" I bet you didn't know there was a name for it. It's called Ricardian Equivalence. It is far from being accepted as a "truism," never mind as truth. There is a vast literature on the matter, just a few clicks away. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
And if I was condescending in any way, it was in response to your claim of "truism" and your challenge to "find an economist who disagrees with what I have presented." The point remains, the issue you think is so true it has become a truism, that no one can possibly disagree with you, is actually far from being that, and if anything is a relatively minor position within economics. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My interests are tied to the American economy, when America does well I do well. I have a low tolerance for empty words. I don't have a government job, no big corporate job, no union job, not tenured, no trust fund, no vast holdings of real assets, no sugar momma and I have never won a state lottery. I need the economy to improve, and I need it to happen sooner rather than later. What we need is for Washington to simply nurture an environment for economic success. They need to get out of the way. Quote:
|
I hope most of you don't miss the point on unemployment from a government standpoint. The government isn't concerned so much about the total and actual number of people who are unemployed or underemployed or whatever. They are more concerned about the relative level of unemployment of their measure as compared to the level (of their measure) from previous business cycles. The goal of governments in general is not to strive for 0% unemployment (i.e. full employment)--which is impossible, by the way---the goal is to achieve a balance based on the economic capacity of the nation.
The problem with high unemployment we know: income drops, spending drops, economy slows, etc. The problem with low unemployment relative to economic capacity is less known: wages spike, prices spike, inflation spikes, etc.... The role of government in this case is to achieve a balance. They aren't concerned about the U6 vs. the regular number. They are concerned about the current state of employment based on their own metrics and how it compares to previous business cycles. I'll also repeat that unemployment numbers are a lagging indicator (i.e. they tell us about what the economy has already done, not what it's doing now or what it is expected to do). When you consider the stimulus, what's going to be most apparent first will be leading and coincident indicators such as stock markets (up), housing starts (down, but permits are way up), retail figures (fell 6.2% in 2009, but 1.2% increase expected in 1st quarter 2010), industrial production (?), GDP (growth has been slow but steady, and is expected to continue in 2010), etc. Why isn't anyone talking about these things? They'd be the most indicative of Obama's economic performance than unemployment at the moment. I'd look to his Year 2 Performance Report to see a hindsight of how unemployment was handled. At least as a start. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Are you suggesting that a president has little or no effect on economies such as the U.S., or just Obama? Are you suggesting his decisions will have little or no effect on unemployment? How much intervention do you expect from him? From what I've gathered from past speeches, I'd think Obama would give the American people credit before he'd take it for himself. EDIT: I think governments only have so much of an impact on the economy. Dealing with interest rates, stimulus spending, and long-term economic policies (the latter of which I'd say is the biggest factor) only does so much. We are, after all, supposedly dealing with a relatively free market. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I want him to listen to the sectors of the economy that actually create jobs. His plans for targeted tax credits, ain't going to help. I don't need a child care tax credit, I need access to lines of credit at reasonable costs. I don't need a retirement savings, I need to be able to sell my home to a guy who can get a mortgage. I am just letting off some steam. This is very frustrating and I am oh, so, tired of the meaningless jibber jabber coming from Washington. Doing nothing is o.k., saying no is o.k., gee. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Even the AEI admits that, without the stimulus, the GDP would have dropped 1% instead of increasing their estimation of 3%. When even the people who oppose the stimulus claim that is has boosted GDP by 4%, you know the stimulus has had an effect. Because here's the thing, the idea that a modest to small sized stimulus bill would reverse the slump in the court of less than a year all by itself is simply politicking by people trying to score a few political points, because no one ever claimed that it would. Oh, and Im surprised that you think that a stimulus bill that was almost 1/3 tax cuts was completely ineffectual. |
Quote:
Quote:
I wish we could keep the talking points consistent. Did the small sized stimulus bill save us, reversing the "slump" or did it not? Quote:
|
^^^are you claiming that the Bush tax cuts were a positive force to our economy?
|
Quote:
Here is my bottom line- Whatever you folks want to believe is o.k., I just need business to improve and for that I need the economy to improve. Otherwise, I need one of you to hire me. Perhaps, when one of you get reduced payments on your student loan, or a bigger child care tax credit you can hire me. I am pretty good at being a general all around SOB, if you need one I am your man. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
cimmaron: so that means you can't answer the question.
because the fact is that obama is not a leftist except in the bizarre-o frames that conservatives and folk to the right of them want to lay over him. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Who created the real estate bubble and the financial meltdown, then? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
You guys are correct and I am wrong. Have a nice day.
|
Quote:
awwwwwwwwwww |
Quote:
|
Quote:
That said, when was the last time I convinced YOU to change your mind? |
Quote:
The U.S. is essentially a two-party system. One party is essentially centrist (often Third Way), while the other is essentially centre-right. There is no left-wing political power in the U.S. There's left politics, but they operate on the fringes and in the grassroots. Much of the "socialist" aspects in America that people are concerned with, and even those things that people don't even talk much about anymore, are so mainstream in contemporary politics that even conservative politicians have accepted them as the norm and deal with them as political realities. |
Quote:
From my perpective you're a high-pressure firehose of bullshit. But that's just my perspective. As is the case with TFP Politics in general, you're not going to change my view and I'm not going to change yours. I wrestled with that and came to terms with it a few months back. Nature of the beast. And if you can gain some peace with that, this place gets interesting again. |
Debates with liberals on economics is sorta fun. Let's have some more fun. Let's look at the failed cash for clunkers program or the CARS (The U.S. government’s Car Allowance Rebate System). On the surface many people got a benefit and we could argue there was a benefit by getting some gas guzzling high polluting cars off the road. I am not disputing the benefit of getting some gas guzzlers off of the road, but for everyone that got a benefit many more ended up paying higher prices for used cars.
Quote:
I point this out to illustrate that there are no free rides, in order for the government to give there has to be an off-setting cost. Think about it - the single mom in poverty needing a used car but did not have a "cluncker" or did not participate in the program, who now goes out to buy a car, let's say a $2,000 car needed for a new job, will pay about $700 more for the car. Thanks Mr. President. |
You're making the assumption that the prices for used cars would have remained static or would have not climbed by that $700 value in your example over the same period. Would this be realistic in this environment where, you know, people would be more reluctant to sell their cars into the used market and opt instead to hang onto their vehicles indefinitely? That puts a chokehold on the supply in the used car market.
I wouldn't call the CARS program a rousing success, but I wouldn't call it a failure either. |
I don't know what your business does, Ace, but would you have vehemently opposed an Obama initiative that gave incentives for consumers to utilize YOUR business?
|
that would in all likelihood be understood as a self-defeating effort on the part of a state that is as it can only be which is misguided, fucked up, a mobile principle of irrationality, that would introduce distortions into the otherwise grandly functioning bidness empire that is ace's.
he's a supply-sider you know. |
I like it when Ace pretends to sympathize with the economic needs of poor folks to make a point.
Ace, none of the single mothers I know are in a position to buy a used car. But you're probably more concerned with single mothers as a useful crutch for your economic positions than you are in supporting economic positions that help single mothers (maybe I'm wrong about this). |
Quote:
---------- Post added at 06:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 PM ---------- Quote:
I have no interest in being beholden to the government. If you talk to the car dealers who had to jump through the government hoops to get paid, many have said it was not worth the aggravation. I just want to pay my fair share of taxes, follow the law and be done with it. ---------- Post added at 06:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:04 PM ---------- Quote:
Let's play a game, let's call it who wins, corporate America or real middle class people. Scenario #1 We have a closed economy called America, everything else is equal. The economy supports 100 car transactions per year at a price of $10,000. Corporate America handles the transactions and gets a 10% cut - that, $10,000 x 100 x 10%, which is $100,000. Now let's say the government causes prices to increase 35%. a few things could happen, including... let's say transaction volume stays the same, but the costs go up to $13,500. Corporate America gets 10%, now they earn $135,000, with no increase in costs, who wins? let's say transaction volume goes down 35% at the higher cost. Corporate American makes $877,500 at a volume of 65 transaction, they fire 35% of their work force, who wins? And so it goes, Corporate America is chalking up record profits during an economic recession with no jobs growth, and people call it corporate greed, I call it short-sighted economic policy. I am a supply sider, don't you know. ---------- Post added at 06:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:18 PM ---------- Quote:
---------- Post added at 06:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:21 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 06:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:24 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
|
You have to differentiate between the candidate and the office holder. Bottom line, Obama the candidate did not have all the facts and I don't care what you think you would do differently from your predecessor, you can't be sure until you have 100% of the facts involved in making the decision.
I fully expected to see much of what we have today in the foreign policy department, especially as it pertains to Iraq and Afghanistan. The facts being reported by the experts on the ground don't change because a Democrat moved into 1600 Penn Ave. No one, not Bush, not Obama, not the Joint Chiefs, not Congress and not the commanders in theater want to see a single American life taken needlessly or frivolously. If Obama is following many of the same policies as Bush and people view him as having broken with campaign promises then maybe they should consider that he now knows something he did not know then and that they still don't. Just a thought. As for the domestic economy...well, we did not get into this mess overnight and no one can get us out of it overnight either. I will say the healthcare thing is a mess and I hold not only Obama responsible but also Pelosi and Reid. They mistook the outcome of the elections 14 months ago as some sort of sweeping mandate to usher in a new populist era. It really wasn't that at all, I don't think. Rather it was a vote to change business as usual in Washington and that just simply has not happened. This was reflected in the opinion polls when you separated Obama from his policies. Obama had a personally high rating but the work on healthcare did not. Someone (Obama, Reid or Pelosi) should have noticed that sooner. *shrug* Can't give him a grade yet but if forced to it would be an "I" for Incomplete. Were Obama as smart as he is touted to be, he would have said the same when asked the question by Oprah. |
Quote:
|
Heck we have been deregulating since the mid 90's. Deregulation didn't just happen during Bush's term. Part if the deregulation bargain between the Dems and the Republicans back in the 90's was the cause of the housing meltdown and the subsequent world wide economic meltdown.
|
Quote:
As we go through this, the seeds of the next bubble is forming. Perhaps it will be in "green" industries or perhaps carbon off-sets, who would you hold responsible for the next bubble bursting? Wouldn't it be cool if we just happened to have a Republican in charge?:thumbsup: |
Quote:
the way i figure it, ace, understanding capitalism is best undertaken by using models in conjunction with actual historical investigation. if you did any of that, you'd probably have figured out that markets don't tend toward anything in principle but historically if they've tended toward anything it's toward concentration. there's really no models under which concentration in production and "average people" making out go together. i'm not interested in econ 101 games. and i see no reason to take "free market capitalism" seriously in 2010. but i don't often debate religious questions with religious people. so i'll leave it at that. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:05 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project