Can't have it both ways; if Bush still to blame then obama is just irrelevant

[Procrustes Stretched]

for oldstyle and others of that ilk, it's all about ideology

Upon entering office Obama had Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on the job.

and

Fed Backs Obama's Bailout Request


and the right wing libertarian crowd tries to ignore Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, saying he “made a mistake” in trusting that free markets could regulate themselves.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html

Here’s a fascinating exchange between Alan Greenspan and Representative Henry A. Waxman from today’s hearing on Capitol Hill (as reported by Michael Grynbaum):

Referring to his free-market ideology, Mr. Greenspan added: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”

Mr. Waxman pressed the former Fed chair to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Mr. Waxman said.

“Absolutely, precisely,” Mr. Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”

Over the last 30 years or so years, the world has been deeply influenced by a laissez-faire economic philosophy, which has shifted the world toward an embrace of markets. And markets certainly do many things very well. (Can you name a country that has prospered without relying to a great extent on an open, market-based economy? Or at least moving toward one?)
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/greenspans-mea-culpa/​

I hadn't seen that. Thanks. I believe that blog won a Pulitzer.

really? Well, it appears you cannot think on your own. Your brain is tuck in a revolving loop


Greenspan’s Mea Culpa
By David Leonhardt October 23, 2008 1:15 pm

LOL!

admit you see NYT and Economics and your brain farts out "Krugman!"

 

[Oldstyle]

I didn't ask who was running things at the Fed. What I asked you was who it was that was planning how to stimulate our economy and create jobs with the Obama Administration itself...and what those plans have been for the past four years.

really?

Wow! Your honor, I demand to know why I'm on trial and what the charges are

If you think being asked to back up contentions that you make in a debate is putting you on "trial" then perhaps a political chat site isn't really the place for you to hang out, Dante...just saying...

 

[bendog]

for oldstyle and others of that ilk, it's all about ideology

Upon entering office Obama had Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on the job.

and

Fed Backs Obama's Bailout Request


and the right wing libertarian crowd tries to ignore Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, saying he “made a mistake” in trusting that free markets could regulate themselves.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html

Here’s a fascinating exchange between Alan Greenspan and Representative Henry A. Waxman from today’s hearing on Capitol Hill (as reported by Michael Grynbaum):

Referring to his free-market ideology, Mr. Greenspan added: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”

Mr. Waxman pressed the former Fed chair to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Mr. Waxman said.

“Absolutely, precisely,” Mr. Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”

Over the last 30 years or so years, the world has been deeply influenced by a laissez-faire economic philosophy, which has shifted the world toward an embrace of markets. And markets certainly do many things very well. (Can you name a country that has prospered without relying to a great extent on an open, market-based economy? Or at least moving toward one?)
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/greenspans-mea-culpa/​

I hadn't seen that. Thanks. I believe that blog won a Pulitzer.

really? Well, it appears you cannot think on your own. Your brain is tuck in a revolving loop


Greenspan’s Mea Culpa
By David Leonhardt October 23, 2008 1:15 pm

LOL!

admit you see NYT and Economics and your brain farts out "Krugman!"

No, actually I read Leonhardts column several times a month. I'm too cheap to buy the subscription. My wife is friends with his editorial asst. Since, it's free I more often read econbrowser. I'm not sure what I've ever said to make you think I'm a Krugman fan. His book conscience of a liberal was genius, however. Perhaps not in policy but in showing dems, like Obama, how to make the economic issue work for them.

Not to be offensive, but I think your ego is causing you to project your preconceptions.

Old Style is correct that Obama hasn't achieved much economic legislation in his second term, but I don't think he has any actual point beyond the gop decided in 2012 to stymy anything till after 2016.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I didn't ask who was running things at the Fed. What I asked you was who it was that was planning how to stimulate our economy and create jobs with the Obama Administration itself...and what those plans have been for the past four years.

really?

Wow! Your honor, I demand to know why I'm on trial and what the charges are

If you think being asked to back up contentions that you make in a debate is putting you on "trial" then perhaps a political chat site isn't really the place for you to hang out, Dante...just saying...

You actually think you engage in debate?

And what contentions did Dante make that you challenged? That Bernanke still headed the Fed, that Greenspan's mea culpa was telling?

You engage in debate?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No, actually I read Leonhardts column several times a month. I'm too cheap to buy the subscription. My wife is friends with his editorial asst. Since, it's free I more often read econbrowser. I'm not sure what I've ever said to make you think I'm a Krugman fan. His book conscience of a liberal was genius, however. Perhaps not in policy but in showing dems, like Obama, how to make the economic issue work for them.

Not to be offensive, but I think your ego is causing you to project your preconceptions.

Old Style is correct that Obama hasn't achieved much economic legislation in his second term, but I don't think he has any actual point beyond the gop decided in 2012 to stymy anything till after 2016.

Your Nobel Prize ref makes little sense otherwise.

And when did Dante ever say Obama achieved much legislatively in the area of economics? Only a fool would ignore the do nothing Congress that has stymied Obama for most of his tenure. So what is up with "Oldstyle is correct..." If Dante did not counter that with "Yes he did!" what is the point in saying he was correct on anything that wasn't challenged?

maybe you are talking to yourself and ignoring people you appear to reply to? happens. Seen it often around these parts

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm quite confident that I put a gun to either of your heads right now and told you to name Barack Obama's Chief Economic Advisers...that neither of you would have the faintest idea who they were. That's not an indictment of you...it simply points out that on the number one issue that Americans are concerned about...this President has been a no-show for years now! He simply doesn't know what to do to grow an economy or create real jobs.

When did you people on the Right decide that it was up to the big central government in Washington to micromanage the economy?

 

[bendog]

No, actually I read Leonhardts column several times a month. I'm too cheap to buy the subscription. My wife is friends with his editorial asst. Since, it's free I more often read econbrowser. I'm not sure what I've ever said to make you think I'm a Krugman fan. His book conscience of a liberal was genius, however. Perhaps not in policy but in showing dems, like Obama, how to make the economic issue work for them.

Not to be offensive, but I think your ego is causing you to project your preconceptions.

Old Style is correct that Obama hasn't achieved much economic legislation in his second term, but I don't think he has any actual point beyond the gop decided in 2012 to stymy anything till after 2016.

Your Nobel Prize ref makes little sense otherwise.

And when did Dante ever say Obama achieved much legislatively in the area of economics? Only a fool would ignore the do nothing Congress that has stymied Obama for most of his tenure. So what is up with "Oldstyle is correct..." If Dante did not counter that with "Yes he did!" what is the point in saying he was correct on anything that wasn't challenged?

maybe you are talking to yourself and ignoring people you appear to reply to? happens. Seen it often around these parts

Priceless Dante. I said Leonhardt won a PULITZER, and not a Noble as you projected. And Leonhardt did win the Pulitzer for commentary in 2011.

 

[chikenwing]

7 years

In obama year seven if everything going badly is still Bush's fault then obama is simply a non-factor and IRRELEVANT.
The Left keeps insisting on having it both ways, trying to take credit for the good and blaming the bad on others, in a very childish manner.
i guess i cant blame the Left though; if i were them and looking at the world in flames in places far removed from Iraq, like Africa and the Ukraine, and all the things screwed up at home, like the 13 MILLION MORE on food stamps then there were when Bush was President; i wouldnt be open to discussing all that PROGRESSIVE FAILURE either.

I can work with that theory. If Clinton is to blame for 9/11, Bush is just a non-factor and irrelevant.

7 years or 8 months mmmmm

 

[chikenwing]

What a silly presumption. Bush left this country with a calamity, you just haven't come to grips with just how bad it was.

Just to refresh your memory, Barack Obama came into office saying that he had a plan to fix the economy and would hit the ground running.

Then he proceeded to put the economy and jobs on a back burner while he pursued ObamaCare.

As a result...he's led the worst recovery from a recession since FDR and the Great Depression.

Come to grips with that...

I firmly believe you are entitled to your own view of things, it's just unfortunate that historians have already ranked Obama at #18 on presidential rankings and he is presumed to overtake Reagan just as soon as the impacts of gay marriage, immigration, Iranian nuclear deal and climate change are weighe 18 th place,projected,just like that Nobel prize they wish they hadn't given him,that is impressive.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I didn't ask who was running things at the Fed. What I asked you was who it was that was planning how to stimulate our economy and create jobs with the Obama Administration itself...and what those plans have been for the past four years.

really?

Wow! Your honor, I demand to know why I'm on trial and what the charges are

I didn't ask who was running things at the Fed. What I asked you was who it was that was planning how to stimulate our economy and create jobs with the Obama Administration itself...and what those plans have been for the past four years.

really?

Wow! Your honor, I demand to know why I'm on trial and what the charges are

If you think being asked to back up contentions that you make in a debate is putting you on "trial" then perhaps a political chat site isn't really the place for you to hang out, Dante...just saying...

No, actually I read Leonhardts column several times a month. I'm too cheap to buy the subscription. My wife is friends with his editorial asst. Since, it's free I more often read econbrowser. I'm not sure what I've ever said to make you think I'm a Krugman fan. His book conscience of a liberal was genius, however. Perhaps not in policy but in showing dems, like Obama, how to make the economic issue work for them.

Not to be offensive, but I think your ego is causing you to project your preconceptions.

Old Style is correct that Obama hasn't achieved much economic legislation in his second term, but I don't think he has any actual point beyond the gop decided in 2012 to stymy anything till after 2016.

Your Nobel Prize ref makes little sense otherwise.

And when did Dante ever say Obama achieved much legislatively in the area of economics? Only a fool would ignore the do nothing Congress that has stymied Obama for most of his tenure. So what is up with "Oldstyle is correct..." If Dante did not counter that with "Yes he did!" what is the point in saying he was correct on anything that wasn't challenged?

maybe you are talking to yourself and ignoring people you appear to reply to? happens. Seen it often around these parts

Priceless Dante. I said Leonhardt won a PULITZER, and not a Noble as you projected. And Leonhardt did win the Pulitzer for commentary in 2011.

pardon....typing away on 4 things.

You deny you think of Krugman when economics and the NYT are in one sentence or statement?

because if you do we need to rethink the latest brain science

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

David Leonhardt of The New York Times won in the commentary category for what the committee said was “his graceful penetration of America’s complicated economic questions.”

yet Bendog *wooo--meow--ahem--oof mocked either Krugman or Leonhardt?

 

[CowboyTed]

In obama year seven if everything going badly is still Bush's fault then obama is simply a non-factor and IRRELEVANT.
The Left keeps insisting on having it both ways, trying to take credit for the good and blaming the bad on others, in a very childish manner.
i guess i cant blame the Left though; if i were them and looking at the world in flames in places far removed from Iraq, like Africa and the Ukraine, and all the things screwed up at home, like the 13 MILLION MORE on food stamps then there were when Bush was President; i wouldnt be open to discussing all that PROGRESSIVE FAILURE either.

Still deluded...

The sick thing is that a fuck like you cringes at every point on this list... You don't treat this as a list of accomplishments but as a list of failures, WHY?

Because your hatred of Obama has distorted you so much you can't see it as a success for US.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

pretty good

 

[nuhuh]

Whatever Obama has done concerning the economy he has done it alone without any advice or consent from either house of congress. That should tell you a lot.

So YOU accept the fault for the rise in food stamp numbers as his fault? And you accept the 18 trillion dollar debt as his fault? Oh AND the last government shut down as his fault?

Good to hear. You may not be as stupid as your posting suggests.

$18 Trillion dollar debt is Obama's fault? Perhaps you're short of memory these days because $10.6 Trillion of that debt belongs to George Bush.

So your beat argument is Obozo only owns 45% of the debt made in just seven years compare to ALL the presidents before him?

AND you evaded his record number of drone kills. And you evaded the record rise in food stamps. And you "forgot" the TWO credit downgrades? Only TWO in the ENTIRE history of the United States.

No again, ALL presidents weren't as foolish as Reagan who brought us most of the debt or Bush who packed on two wars without so much as proposing savings bonds.

again idiot; democrats held the power of the purse strings in the Reagan years with their EIGHT-YEAR HOUSE MAJORITY.

if the record showed THEY EVEN TRIED to hold down debt that would be one thing; but the ACTUAL RECORD SHOWS so many Democrats voted FOR Reaga's policies A WHOLE NEW TERM WAS INVENTED TO REFER TO THEM, the Reagan Democrats

libs are losers who lie TO THEMSELVES

I guess that makes Reagan the biggest pussy who ever lived if he couldn't say no to a democrat. Thanks for that visual.

 

[Oldstyle]

Just to refresh...memory, Barack Obama came into office saying that he had a plan to fix the economy and would hit the ground running.

Then he proceeded to put the economy and jobs on a back burner while he pursued ObamaCare.

As a result...he's led the worst recovery from a recession since FDR and the Great Depression.

So the blame for the slow recovery has to do with Obamacare? If the recovery was tackled first things would have gone much better? Hmm...events all over the world would appear to call this logic into question

But WHAT exactly was the first thing Obama did when entering office, even before entering office?

Hmm...

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.​

The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion. The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion. By October 11, 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that total disbursements would be $431 billion and estimated the total cost, including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, would be $24 billion.[1] This is significantly less than the government's cost of the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s but does not include the cost of other "bailout" programs (such as the Federal Reserve's Maiden Lane Transactions and the Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). The cost of the former crisis amounted to 3.2 percent of GDP during the Reagan/Bush era, while the GDP percentage of the latter crisis' cost is estimated at less than 1 percent.[2] While it was once feared the government would be holding companies like GM, AIG and Citigroup for several years, it was reported in April 2010 that those companies are preparing to buy back the Treasury's stake and emerge from TARP within a year.[2] On December 19, 2014 the U.S. Treasury sold its remaining holdings of Ally Financial, essentially ending the program. TARP revenue has totaled $441.7 billion on $426.4 billion invested.[3]

Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

You appear to have fallen into the Rush-Alternative-World-View meme, where on Feb/Mar 2009, Rush gave a speech declaring 'we need to take our country back' -- all before President Obama changed a single thing

It's okay, recent brain studies can account for how you came to your faulty conclusions and stick with them

With all due respect, Dante...Barry continued W's TARP program because that was working! If your biggest success story of the Obama Administration on the economy is that they kept doing what Bush started...that's not much of an endorsement...know what I'm saying?

Who were President Obama's economic advisers when he entered office and what did they suggest and why? I bet they were not all that different in thinking and actions then Bush's were at that time. They were all Wall Street people.

trying to split Bush and Obama apart on the early interventions on the economic recovery is an ideological masturbation game

When Obama entered office it was Larry Summers and Kristina Romer that were heading up his team. They both ran back to tenured positions at Harvard and Berkeley as soon as the Obama Stimulus failed to create jobs. Since then there really hasn't been anyone driving plans to stimulate the economy. We had calls for a "redo" of the Obama Stimulus that even Democrats didn't want to vote for...and vague calls for "infrastructure spending". That's it. And as the years went by talk about the economy became less and less of a focus for this Administration.

boring ideological arguments like yours do not even register well

What's your deal, Dante? I ask you to answer a couple simple questions and you start insulting me?

What I posted that you call an "ideological argument" wasn't an argument at all...it was a brief summary of what the Obama Administration has done in regards to trying to stimulate the economy and create jobs. If you disagree with my assessment then by all means point out where it is that I'm wrong. You ask me a question and I answer it. I ask you a question and you call me names.

 

[auditor0007]

I think it very funny the way the dems do this. Rightwinger is very funny with this. The price goes up, it is the evil republicans. The price goes down, it it because the marvelous wonderful 0bama standing up for the little guy®©.

You obviously aren't smart enough to understand the point he is making, as it has been conservatives who constantly told us how bad Obama was because of high gas prices while comparing the price of gas as Bush left office being lower, and not even taking into to account the reason the price was temporarily low under Bush, due to the crashing economy. He's poking fun at you guys, just like I do.

the reason gas was low at the end of the bush years is the same reason it has fallen very recently NOW; the world economy is slowing


idiots and hypocrites

So our economy is now in a tailspin, we are losing 750,000 jobs per month, and the stock market is about to lose half of its value? I didn't think so.

 

[Oldstyle]

I think it very funny the way the dems do this. Rightwinger is very funny with this. The price goes up, it is the evil republicans. The price goes down, it it because the marvelous wonderful 0bama standing up for the little guy®©.

You obviously aren't smart enough to understand the point he is making, as it has been conservatives who constantly told us how bad Obama was because of high gas prices while comparing the price of gas as Bush left office being lower, and not even taking into to account the reason the price was temporarily low under Bush, due to the crashing economy. He's poking fun at you guys, just like I do.

the reason gas was low at the end of the bush years is the same reason it has fallen very recently NOW; the world economy is slowing


idiots and hypocrites

So our economy is now in a tailspin, we are losing 750,000 jobs per month, and the stock market is about to lose half of its value? I didn't think so.

I don't think anyone is making a case that the economy is in the same state as it was back in 2008, Auditor but it's seven YEARS later at this point and the economy is still basically treading water at 1% a year growth and millions still underemployed. The fact is...the economy sucks and you have to go no further than the Fed's decision to not raise interest rates from essentially zero because they're so concerned about what effect that would have...to know that's the case.

And part of the reason that the price of gas is low is that the US developed new oil sources which prompted the other oil producers to price their oil lower to counter that production. That new US production isn't something that Barack Obama can lay claim to as "his" however since his Administration opposed the development of fossil fuels and production of oil DROPPED on lands that the Federal Government had control of.

 

[bendog]

I think it very funny the way the dems do this. Rightwinger is very funny with this. The price goes up, it is the evil republicans. The price goes down, it it because the marvelous wonderful 0bama standing up for the little guy®©.

You obviously aren't smart enough to understand the point he is making, as it has been conservatives who constantly told us how bad Obama was because of high gas prices while comparing the price of gas as Bush left office being lower, and not even taking into to account the reason the price was temporarily low under Bush, due to the crashing economy. He's poking fun at you guys, just like I do.

the reason gas was low at the end of the bush years is the same reason it has fallen very recently NOW; the world economy is slowing


idiots and hypocrites

So our economy is now in a tailspin, we are losing 750,000 jobs per month, and the stock market is about to lose half of its value? I didn't think so.

I don't think anyone is making a case that the economy is in the same state as it was back in 2008, Auditor but it's seven YEARS later at this point and the economy is still basically treading water at 1% a year growth and millions still underemployed. The fact is...the economy sucks and you have to go no further than the Fed's decision to not raise interest rates from essentially zero because they're so concerned about what effect that would have...to know that's the case.

And part of the reason that the price of gas is low is that the US developed new oil sources which prompted the other oil producers to price their oil lower to counter that production. That new US production isn't something that Barack Obama can lay claim to as "his" however since his Administration opposed the development of fossil fuels and production of oil DROPPED on lands that the Federal Government had control of.

I think the lack of growth goes directly to the fact that middle class wages are not back to 08 levels, and in fact they've only recently seen any growth. And, while Dante overplayed his hand, I do think we overvalue any potus's ability to directly affect the economy. But, in general we should have a bipartisan effort to remove taxes that make markets turn on tax decisions rather than efficient and best investment decisions. We should also remove as many tax benefits from offshoring as possible

 

[Oldstyle]

I think it very funny the way the dems do this. Rightwinger is very funny with this. The price goes up, it is the evil republicans. The price goes down, it it because the marvelous wonderful 0bama standing up for the little guy®©.

You obviously aren't smart enough to understand the point he is making, as it has been conservatives who constantly told us how bad Obama was because of high gas prices while comparing the price of gas as Bush left office being lower, and not even taking into to account the reason the price was temporarily low under Bush, due to the crashing economy. He's poking fun at you guys, just like I do.

the reason gas was low at the end of the bush years is the same reason it has fallen very recently NOW; the world economy is slowing


idiots and hypocrites

So our economy is now in a tailspin, we are losing 750,000 jobs per month, and the stock market is about to lose half of its value? I didn't think so.

I don't think anyone is making a case that the economy is in the same state as it was back in 2008, Auditor but it's seven YEARS later at this point and the economy is still basically treading water at 1% a year growth and millions still underemployed. The fact is...the economy sucks and you have to go no further than the Fed's decision to not raise interest rates from essentially zero because they're so concerned about what effect that would have...to know that's the case.

And part of the reason that the price of gas is low is that the US developed new oil sources which prompted the other oil producers to price their oil lower to counter that production. That new US production isn't something that Barack Obama can lay claim to as "his" however since his Administration opposed the development of fossil fuels and production of oil DROPPED on lands that the Federal Government had control of.

I think the lack of growth goes directly to the fact that middle class wages are not back to 08 levels, and in fact they've only recently seen any growth. And, while Dante overplayed his hand, I do think we overvalue any potus's ability to directly affect the economy. But, in general we should have a bipartisan effort to remove taxes that make markets turn on tax decisions rather than efficient and best investment decisions. We should also remove as many tax benefits from offshoring as possible

I'm going to have to disagree with you, Bendog...I think that the President can directly affect the economy simply by what he proposes as his agenda. If what you are proposing are things that hurt job creation...like the ACA and like Cap & Trade legislation...if you keep sending the message that you'd like to see $6 a gallon gasoline to curb our use of fossil fuels and encourage alternative energy sources...people in the Private Sector who are deciding whether or not to risk investment capital are going to take that agenda into account when they make the call to invest or not to invest. It's a lesson that Barry never seemed to grasp...how his "plans"...what he kept saying he'd like to see happen...affected the economy.

 

[bendog]

You obviously aren't smart enough to understand the point he is making, as it has been conservatives who constantly told us how bad Obama was because of high gas prices while comparing the price of gas as Bush left office being lower, and not even taking into to account the reason the price was temporarily low under Bush, due to the crashing economy. He's poking fun at you guys, just like I do.

the reason gas was low at the end of the bush years is the same reason it has fallen very recently NOW; the world economy is slowing


idiots and hypocrites

So our economy is now in a tailspin, we are losing 750,000 jobs per month, and the stock market is about to lose half of its value? I didn't think so.

I don't think anyone is making a case that the economy is in the same state as it was back in 2008, Auditor but it's seven YEARS later at this point and the economy is still basically treading water at 1% a year growth and millions still underemployed. The fact is...the economy sucks and you have to go no further than the Fed's decision to not raise interest rates from essentially zero because they're so concerned about what effect that would have...to know that's the case.

And part of the reason that the price of gas is low is that the US developed new oil sources which prompted the other oil producers to price their oil lower to counter that production. That new US production isn't something that Barack Obama can lay claim to as "his" however since his Administration opposed the development of fossil fuels and production of oil DROPPED on lands that the Federal Government had control of.

I think the lack of growth goes directly to the fact that middle class wages are not back to 08 levels, and in fact they've only recently seen any growth. And, while Dante overplayed his hand, I do think we overvalue any potus's ability to directly affect the economy. But, in general we should have a bipartisan effort to remove taxes that make markets turn on tax decisions rather than efficient and best investment decisions. We should also remove as many tax benefits from offshoring as possible

I'm going to have to disagree with you, Bendog...I think that the President can directly affect the economy simply by what he proposes as his agenda. If what you are proposing are things that hurt job creation...like the ACA and like Cap & Trade legislation...if you keep sending the message that you'd like to see $6 a gallon gasoline to curb our use of fossil fuels and encourage alternative energy sources...people in the Private Sector who are deciding whether or not to risk investment capital are going to take that agenda into account when they make the call to invest or not to invest. It's a lesson that Barry never seemed to grasp...how his "plans"...what he kept saying he'd like to see happen...affected the economy.

I agree with you, sort of. The CBO projects the ACA will reduce aggregate hours worked by 1.5-2% per year from 2017-24, but it makes no projections over a longer term. I'm not sure that I've seen any more or less non-partisan estimate for cap and trade, but it doesn't really matter because it's not happening. But, the CBO also found that the ACA effects would really only become apparent in 2016, as the entire law kicked in. So, the major effect of Obama's policies fall on his successor.

If the ACA improves the overall health of workers, and helps contain how much we spend on healthcare, the econ impact will be positive over the longterm. The clean air act made us put in catalytic converters, and dampened consumption initially, but the overall econ impact is hugely successful. And the same is true for the clean water act.

The US economy suffers from a lack of demand. And, there's abundant cheap capital to be had for business expansion. Or consumer consumption for that matter. The ACA and Cap and Trade (which isn't happening) have no effect on this situation. In fact, one really can blame W, who said himself, "the economy got drunk, so now it's got a hangover." We over leveraged credit, and now we're deleveraging And it's not just an American situation. There's a global slowdown in growth (with a few exceptions).

There is simply no rational way to blame a drop in middle class incomes NOW, and before these laws you point became effective.

Income Stagnation in 2014 Shows the Economy Is Not Working for Most Families

A guy didn't decide to not buy another subway franchise because he'd have to pay more for full time workers. He could have hired part time workers. He decided not to expand because he didn't think he could sell the sandwiches.

The forces at work on wages are structural and possibly irreversible.

Middle class decline looms over final years of Obama presidency

But, and I know you're going to hate this, is that Krugman (Hi dante, you poof) is not totally wrong that the middle class has a tool in the vote, and it can demand the progressive taxes be used to reduce how much the middle class pays for stuff like education. Obama's proposal to just give kids two years to goof off in Jr. College is, however, and example of liberal-elite failure to understand behavior.