Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

The trends and stats keep going Obama's way.
But the politics and news cycle and polling aren't.

Will people note this, discount it, ignore it?
Is it irrelevant...or will it make a difference...should he get credit?

 

I've got a summary of Obama's Numbers.
This comes from FactCheck.org (likely the original fact check site)
They are much more sober than the other sites...and hit both sides just as often.

Now make sure that you don't just read the summary and graph...but the analysis too. (with links to the sources)

And to give some context, it starts January 2009 and continues to what it the most up to date info,
and of course...this will be changing even further.

I'd say, you really couldn't see any affect of Obama's actions until at least 6+ months after he started.
If not the following year start, when laws and other policy would go into affect.

But it's just food for thought...and interesting to say the least.

 

Manufacturing up...Unemployment down...and now this
Housing starts in September surging up to 4 year high...

Yet, it will likely be ignored...because Americans don't like numbers.
It's all about the fight, the line and the image.
Yep, we're a tabloid nation.

 

You forgot something: Consumer Sentiment in U.S. Rises to Pre-Recession High - Bloomberg

 

I can't quite remember what he said exactly, but if we look at the GDP growth rate, it actually fluctuates between 2010 and 2012. The growth rate in 2010 averaged double what we're seeing in 2012, but gains are so far averaging modestly higher in 2012 over 2011. We'll need to see how the rest of the year goes. So Romney wasn't quite right. But he didn't really look at any details or at the big picture; he just glossed over the issue.

For starters, 2010 was actually quite a nice rebound year for the U.S. after a devastating 2009. This is the case especially if you look at relatively stable developed economies such as Canada, Germany, Sweden, Norway, and Finland. For example, the U.S.'s GDP growth averages about double Canada's over the past three years.

If we take this a step further and look at the growth beast that is China, consider this: China's current GDP growth rate has fallen nearly to its lows experienced during 2009 when the global economy was reeling. What does that tell you? Is America anywhere near its own levels in 2009? No. It's not anywhere near those levels.

Is growth disappointing? Yes. However, economists have been going on for many months now that this recovery was going to be slow. It's been slow.

The silver lining? The U.S. is performing better than most (if not all) other developed economies. The rest of the world needs that from an economy the size of the U.S. The rest of the world needs stable developed economies of all sizes to keep trucking on. What it doesn't need are radical policies to experiment with "shocking" the economy back to life, when the problems aren't merely domestic, they're global.

I don't think Romney is a big-picture guy. He doesn't see the folly of confronting China economically in a time such as this. Look at Canada's prime minister. He's been working to open up economic ties with the rising economic dragon, not shut them down. While I don't agree with the openness (due to national and human rights interests), I do at least agree with the economic sensibility of it.

Romney's position on China is yet another reason he would be a disaster in the White House. And to think he's had bad takes on Russia and Europe as well.

It is folly. Collectively, the economies of the nations he's rubbed the wrong way (and would rub the wrong way and more as president) dwarf America's own. What is he thinking?

 

It would also help to cross-reference the data to such things as the business cycle, GDP growth, the employment rate, spending on social program, etc., because, you know, tax cuts are certainly not the only thing that encouraged revenue increases (if at all). Although I hate how often this term gets tossed around: correlation does not equal causation.

 

This assumes the "long run" includes the opposite end of the business cycle. Stimulus spending during an up economy risks overheating it, which is why stimulus spending is only used during recessions and recoveries.

We're far from being done with the recovery worldwide. Ongoing stimulus spending should have the expected effect for the next couple of years at least.

Are you suggesting the stimulus is causing weak economic growth? That it's dampening growth? I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Demand has improved recently, but it may be a while before healthier growth is posted. Remember, the U.S. unemployment rate has only recently fallen below 8% (the lowest in nearly three years). Give it time. Demand will pick up again, especially if the rate continues to drop.

Again, I'm not sure what you're talking about specifically. One issue that differs between Canada and the U.S. is that Canada didn't have an financial sector meltdown that it needed to fix. Canada didn't have a mortgage crisis that it needed to fix, though policies have changed to further tighten up rules for first-time buyers as a way to cool down the heated market (and it's worked so far).

Comparatively, the U.S. rules in both mortgages specifically and the finance sector generally are loose and fast. Canada's system is more regulated to ensure breakneck risks aren't taken by either institutions or their clients. So, basically, it's not that Canada addressed any issue; it's that it already had a system in place that works and was stable even in tough times. But, yes, the U.S. needs to address a number of issues regarding its financial system.

If credit is a problem in the U.S. right now (for both businesses and consumers), it's likely because of a system that has failed Americans wholesale. In this respect, perhaps Obama has failed or at least been mediocre. Perhaps further reforms are required to stabilize the system and alleviate fears that cause credit to be scarce.

 

Hate to be a grammer nazi...it's Keynesian.
But then again, I'm terrible at grammer...so maybe I just wanted to fulfill Godwin's Law. (nazi)

Quite frankly, I'm tempted to get Paul Krugman in on this...he knows tons more than me.

Credit is a problem in the US, not because of US government...but because the financiers are now being more strict than they were before crisis.
They got their hands burnt and asses handed to them...so liquidity tanked...and now they are stick in the muds.

BTW...anyone that knows what really happened, realizes the Stimulus wasn't supposed to be the big silver bullet in itself, actually doing anything literally.
Anything done was bonus...it was a mental "booting" of the economy, showing the scared Wall Streeters that the Federal government was doing "something".
And that in turn would kick them in the pants, morale-wise and get them to start buying and lending again.
It was a kick-start, a throttle and choke....liquidity had frozen, something had the break the ice.
And it was what the divided government could get through at that time.

Keynesian economists like Krugman...well they wanted MORE, to actually get things going.
It's debatable how much did good...but at least it DID get them going again....slowly.
The Keynesians have been saying that we didn't give enough...to allow more momentum to gain...push money into the system.
And they're saying that's why it's lagged in higher growth rates.
And still the powers that be in companies...they're still kind of lingering, not quite allowing full scaling up or investiment (which has some risk)

So that's a good question, spend more now...yes, it adds to your debt...but potentially you gain it back through investment.
Or keep a tight ship, cut back...prevent spending and adding to the debt...but you potentially will stagnant.
These are the decisions that sagas are written about.

Personally, I agree with the Keynesians...spend it...get money into the system.
But put it into things that feed back into the system. Infrastructure, Oil Refineries, Morgage rewrites and more...
Things that allow the country as a whole to gain benefit, both short and long term.
And allow the public to get a grip so they can start climbing again.

Allowing things to stagnate and drown does nobody any good but the vultures.

The funny thing is this...those people who say that they do NOT want to add to the debt with stimulus, allow people/entities to fail, not invest.
Are the same people who want to give tax breaks, which increases the debt or keeps it up...because they say it allows people/entities to reinvest.
They don't trust government at all.

Me, I trust government...I just think it's terribly wasteful and inefficient.
But I trust Wall Street too...I just think they're corrupt and inconsiderate.
Each has its place.
Each has its advantages and disadvantages.

I just want everyone to stop the friggin' philosophy...start being pragmatic and practical.
Fuckin' act.

 

Keynesian-style stimulus spending is meant to be temporary. The idea is to spend during the dips and pay down debts during the peaks. Clinton's economic record is probably the best example of this method in action. The Clinton administration began posting surpluses about six or seven years following the previous recession. The next time a deficit was posted coincided with the recession in early 2001, which occurred a few months after Clinton left office.

I don't think inefficient spending vs. efficient spending necessarily dictates the amount of economic growth. After all, oil spills and increasing cancer rates stimulate the GDP. As for accumulating deficits, it's a matter of managing them based on the business cycle. Once a recovery has made its gains, that's the time to reduce the deficit and hopefully post surpluses to pay down debt. This can happen regardless of spending efficiency or whether taxes need to be raised.

This kind of news has been the case for a while now. I think expectations are high due to the performance of stocks, but much of that may be due to market capitalization rather than revenue performance, overall in the long run. Perhaps we're simply seeing corrections based on the reality that is soft demand. However, after seeing recent performance in auto and home sales, things are looking better than they have been.

First, the winners would have been the few, and the losers would have been the many. Second, this would have hit the middle class much harder than it was already hit. The U.S. would therefore be in a much worse position now than it is. Third, there is no recession currently. What's happened this year is merely slowing growth. U.S. GDP growth has fluctuated since 2010 but has, on average, been stronger than most developed nations.

Once the middle class stabilizes, GDP growth will resume at higher rates, closer to the historical average. What's happening now is that many consumers are or have shed a lot of debt. They haven't been spending at anywhere near the rate they would normally. Household debt levels haven't been this low in 18 years (and Americans have actually returned to a positive savings rate). That's a good sign. If current indicators keep on track or improve, 2013 could be a good year recovery-wise.