Nobody could have fixed the economy in 4 years.....

[asaratis]

nobody is going to spend money while Obama is president. He thinks that the economy can grow from the bottom up....

the Obamas are quite wealthy. Why don't libs vilify them?

I am just curious in how they got so wealthy? I didn't think a community organizer would be paid very well.

You should wonder also about Harry Reid. He got filthy rich being a Senator.

 

[zeke]

Why hasn't the econony turned around is the question eh?

Gee I wonder. Could it be that the midlde class is the driving force behind the economy and the middle is not doing very well.

Lets see. The basis of most middle class Americans wealth is the equity in their homes. Now that hundreds of thousands of Americans are living in a home that they owe more than the house is worth,
Would that make anyone feel good about spending money, like on new appliances or furniture or a major home improvement project?

And of course many Americans don't even have their house anymore. How many of you will spend money to improve a rental property for someone else? Any of you. You think the lack of spending by the folks that lost their houses might be slowing the economy?

This is not a mystery. Until the housing market rebounds and people start feeling that the bottom has come and gone, no one is feeling good about their situation. And people that don't feel good about their economic situation are not going to be making a lot of purchases.

And the economy will drag along.


But why isn't the ultra rich pumping up the economy. They got all the damn money. Why are they not spending it hand over fist? Don't they want their money to trickle down to everyone else? Like the jobs they promised if only they could keep more of their billions.

Blame your dear leader for that...who wants to "invest" when they see Obama wants to RAISE THEIR TAXES..

YOU are stupid. You looked at Wall Street lately? Yea those people with money sure are not "investing".

I don't want investment. I want consumerism. Consume enough of anything, and some manufactuer will replace it. Thereby creating a job for someone.

And oh God someone making 10 million a year will hardly get by if their taxes are raised by 3%. Are you really that dumb to believe that? Never mind. You are.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Blame your dear leader for that...who wants to "invest" when they see Obama wants to RAISE THEIR TAXES..

nobody is going to spend money while Obama is president. He thinks that the economy can grow from the bottom up....

the Obamas are quite wealthy. Why don't libs vilify them?

I don't vilify them for their wealth because when faced with the national need for shared sacrifice because of our fiscal problems,

Obama is willing to raise his own taxes, as his share of the sacrifice.

Romney, on the other hand, approaches the same need for sacrifice by cutting his own taxes, thus benefiting instead of sacrificing,

and lets others pay the bill.

That is worthy of vilification.

 

[zeke]

President Clinton in his speech last night stated that although he inherited a bad economy from Bush Sr., the economy that Obama received from Bush Jr. was much worse, and that no president, not him, nor any of his predecessors could have fixed the economy in only 4 years.

Maybe Obama's new slogan should be "saved in 4, fixed by 8".

Considering the FACT that Obama added TRILLIONS to our debt in his first three years, I can understand the admission that Obama can't fix the economy. Obama can't fix it AT ALL.

Ryan's plan take 30years to balance the budget. It requires REDUCTION of deficit spending...something that Obama-boy just does not underfuckinstand!

30 years to balance the budget? You will believe anything won't you? You like being fed a bunch of rethug horseshit? Why?

Everytime a rethug is in the WH, our deficit goes up. How's that happen with all their deficit reduction plans? Reagan, Bush I and Bush 2 come to mind.

But I am sure you have a ready excuse. Don't you think it strange that Obama points to Bush as the reason the economy has been so hard to get moving ( and you all hate that) but you rethugs will point to ANYTHING to explain why your ideas don't work? It is ALWAYS someone elses fault that Rethugs are a failure.

And I assure you that if Mitt is elected, his Presidency will be a disaster for most of us and Mitt will blame Obama. You know he will.

 

[Stephanie]

Why hasn't the econony turned around is the question eh?

Gee I wonder. Could it be that the midlde class is the driving force behind the economy and the middle is not doing very well.

Lets see. The basis of most middle class Americans wealth is the equity in their homes. Now that hundreds of thousands of Americans are living in a home that they owe more than the house is worth,
Would that make anyone feel good about spending money, like on new appliances or furniture or a major home improvement project?

And of course many Americans don't even have their house anymore. How many of you will spend money to improve a rental property for someone else? Any of you. You think the lack of spending by the folks that lost their houses might be slowing the economy?

This is not a mystery. Until the housing market rebounds and people start feeling that the bottom has come and gone, no one is feeling good about their situation. And people that don't feel good about their economic situation are not going to be making a lot of purchases.

And the economy will drag along.


But why isn't the ultra rich pumping up the economy. They got all the damn money. Why are they not spending it hand over fist? Don't they want their money to trickle down to everyone else? Like the jobs they promised if only they could keep more of their billions.

Blame your dear leader for that...who wants to "invest" when they see Obama wants to RAISE THEIR TAXES..

YOU are stupid. You looked at Wall Street lately? Yea those people with money sure are not "investing".

I don't want investment. I want consumerism. Consume enough of anything, and some manufactuer will replace it. Thereby creating a job for someone.

And oh God someone making 10 million a year will hardly get by if their taxes are raised by 3%. Are you really that dumb to believe that? Never mind. You are.

you are a nasty little whiner lately...You can WANT consumerism all you want, the people have no jobs and aren't going to spend their money in this shaky economy not know what is going TO HAPPEN..
and if you don't think raising taxes on people will hurt, then send in all YOUR MONEY to Obama to help us out...we will thank you, maybe

 

[mudwhistle]

President Clinton in his speech last night stated that although he inherited a bad economy from Bush Sr., the economy that Obama received from Bush Jr. was much worse, and that no president, not him, nor any of his predecessors could have fixed the economy in only 4 years.

Maybe Obama's new slogan should be "saved in 4, fixed by 8".

I was in the military during the Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, and was in the Department of Defense during Bush jr, and Obama administrations.

The Carter years were worse than the Bush years by far. The economy was in much worse shape back then. The Carter years were even worse than what it is today minus the massive debt. It only took Reagan a few years to get the economy really rolling. The way he did it was with decisive action from day one. He did what he had to do and there was wailing everywhere but he got it done and his moves created more jobs than we've created since after WWII.

Today the feeling everyone gets is that nobody is in charge. Everyone is left to figure everything out for themselves. We don't know what our budget is going to be, we don't know what the job situation will be, we don't know anything. We plan for the worse and hope for the best. That's all we can do. It's been like that since Obama took office. No guidance on filling vacant positions, no money, no pay increases to keep pace with inflation. Nothing.

 

[usmcstinger]

Only Repubs pretend to believe it could've been fixed in 4 years but they also pretend to believe that Obama was going to heal the world sooooo...yeah

I don't pretend that it could have been fixed. I know it could have been fixed. Do you think that the economy is some mysterious bubble that will do what it's gonna do? Applied sound economic principles yield results. Ask Taiwan and Hong Kong if that's true. They are tiny islands that went from third world countries to global powerhouses in less than a generation.

When Ronald Reagan took over the leadership of the United States in 1981, he inherited an economy that was in terrible shape—the worst American economy, in fact, since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Americans had enjoyed a prolonged period of widespread prosperityThe economy Ronald Reagan inherited from DNC speaker Jimmy Carter was not significantly better off than the economy Obama inherited from Bush. In November 1980, inflation was increasing at an annualized rate of 12.6%; unemployment was 7.5%. Prime interest rates were at 19%. These statistics were about the same when Reagan took office. Within four years, Reagan had completely turned the economy around – in September 1983 alone, the Reagan economy produced over 1.1 million jobs. In November 1984, the unemployment rate was 7.2%, and inflation rate was 4.1%. There’s a reason Reagan won 49 states.
Fact Check: Top Ten Clinton DNC Falsehoods

 

[mudwhistle]

Only Repubs pretend to believe it could've been fixed in 4 years but they also pretend to believe that Obama was going to heal the world sooooo...yeah

I don't pretend that it could have been fixed. I know it could have been fixed. Do you think that the economy is some mysterious bubble that will do what it's gonna do? Applied sound economic principles yield results. Ask Taiwan and Hong Kong if that's true. They are tiny islands that went from third world countries to global powerhouses in less than a generation.

When Ronald Reagan took over the leadership of the United States in 1981, he inherited an economy that was in terrible shape—the worst American economy, in fact, since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Americans had enjoyed a prolonged period of widespread prosperityThe economy Ronald Reagan inherited from DNC speaker Jimmy Carter was not significantly better off than the economy Obama inherited from Bush. In November 1980, inflation was increasing at an annualized rate of 12.6%; unemployment was 7.5%. Prime interest rates were at 19%. These statistics were about the same when Reagan took office. Within four years, Reagan had completely turned the economy around – in September 1983 alone, the Reagan economy produced over 1.1 million jobs. In November 1984, the unemployment rate was 7.2%, and inflation rate was 4.1%. There’s a reason Reagan won 49 states.
Fact Check: Top Ten Clinton DNC Falsehoods

I was surprised to see that unemployment never reached 8% during the Carter years yet the economy was in much worse shape when it came to inflation and interest rates.

I was living in California so the bad economy was magnified because of the high cost of living. People were unemployed everywhere, housing expensive, buying a new car was out of the question. I learned how to fix my car myself during this time because I had to buy used cars instead of new.

The best job I could find paid $7.45/hr. How the heck is a person going to pay rent with that income when a dump cost $800/mo.?

 

[zeke]

Only Repubs pretend to believe it could've been fixed in 4 years but they also pretend to believe that Obama was going to heal the world sooooo...yeah

I don't pretend that it could have been fixed. I know it could have been fixed. Do you think that the economy is some mysterious bubble that will do what it's gonna do? Applied sound economic principles yield results. Ask Taiwan and Hong Kong if that's true. They are tiny islands that went from third world countries to global powerhouses in less than a generation.

When Ronald Reagan took over the leadership of the United States in 1981, he inherited an economy that was in terrible shape—the worst American economy, in fact, since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Americans had enjoyed a prolonged period of widespread prosperityThe economy Ronald Reagan inherited from DNC speaker Jimmy Carter was not significantly better off than the economy Obama inherited from Bush. In November 1980, inflation was increasing at an annualized rate of 12.6%; unemployment was 7.5%. Prime interest rates were at 19%. These statistics were about the same when Reagan took office. Within four years, Reagan had completely turned the economy around – in September 1983 alone, the Reagan economy produced over 1.1 million jobs. In November 1984, the unemployment rate was 7.2%, and inflation rate was 4.1%. There’s a reason Reagan won 49 states.
Fact Check: Top Ten Clinton DNC Falsehoods

Why don't you tell everyone how many good paying manufacturing jobs were left in America when reagan took office.

Was it more or less than today? And what was the average wage then compared to now? Cost of food? Energy? How many Americans had lost their homes. Had no equity in their homes?

You think you are comparing apples to apples? Bull shit.

 

[Katzndogz]

No one blames obama for not completely fixing the economy and that's not the argument against him. He made it worse, and that's the argument against him. Not only did he make it worse, but he deliberately made it worse, by design.

 

[mudwhistle]

I don't pretend that it could have been fixed. I know it could have been fixed. Do you think that the economy is some mysterious bubble that will do what it's gonna do? Applied sound economic principles yield results. Ask Taiwan and Hong Kong if that's true. They are tiny islands that went from third world countries to global powerhouses in less than a generation.

When Ronald Reagan took over the leadership of the United States in 1981, he inherited an economy that was in terrible shape—the worst American economy, in fact, since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Americans had enjoyed a prolonged period of widespread prosperityThe economy Ronald Reagan inherited from DNC speaker Jimmy Carter was not significantly better off than the economy Obama inherited from Bush. In November 1980, inflation was increasing at an annualized rate of 12.6%; unemployment was 7.5%. Prime interest rates were at 19%. These statistics were about the same when Reagan took office. Within four years, Reagan had completely turned the economy around – in September 1983 alone, the Reagan economy produced over 1.1 million jobs. In November 1984, the unemployment rate was 7.2%, and inflation rate was 4.1%. There’s a reason Reagan won 49 states.
Fact Check: Top Ten Clinton DNC Falsehoods

Why don't you tell everyone how many good paying manufacturing jobs were left in America when reagan took office.

Was it more or less than today? And what was the average wage then compared to now? Cost of food? Energy? How many Americans had lost their homes. Had no equity in their homes?

You think you are comparing apples to apples? Bull shit.

????

Let's not compare Reagan and Obama......that's not fair.

The point he made was the economy was turned around in Reagan's first term. Buy the time he left office we were in the middle of the longest period of growth in U.S. history.

 

[JoeB131]

No one blames obama for not completely fixing the economy and that's not the argument against him. He made it worse, and that's the argument against him. Not only did he make it worse, but he deliberately made it worse, by design.

1) The economy is not worse than it was in September 2008. By most measures- inflation, stock market, housing starts, manufacturing output - it's better. The only stat that is marginally worse is the unemployment rate.

2) Given Obama has gone along with a lot of the silly suggestions by the right wing, such as keeping the Bush tax cuts, I'm not sure what your complaint is....

 

[Katzndogz]

Nothing is really doing better except for the stock market and the only reason why it's doing better is because we have investment tied up in other countries. America isn't doing better which is why China dumped all investment in American companies.

 

[zeke]

When Ronald Reagan took over the leadership of the United States in 1981, he inherited an economy that was in terrible shape—the worst American economy, in fact, since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Americans had enjoyed a prolonged period of widespread prosperityThe economy Ronald Reagan inherited from DNC speaker Jimmy Carter was not significantly better off than the economy Obama inherited from Bush. In November 1980, inflation was increasing at an annualized rate of 12.6%; unemployment was 7.5%. Prime interest rates were at 19%. These statistics were about the same when Reagan took office. Within four years, Reagan had completely turned the economy around – in September 1983 alone, the Reagan economy produced over 1.1 million jobs. In November 1984, the unemployment rate was 7.2%, and inflation rate was 4.1%. There’s a reason Reagan won 49 states.
Fact Check: Top Ten Clinton DNC Falsehoods

Why don't you tell everyone how many good paying manufacturing jobs were left in America when reagan took office.

Was it more or less than today? And what was the average wage then compared to now? Cost of food? Energy? How many Americans had lost their homes. Had no equity in their homes?

You think you are comparing apples to apples? Bull shit.

????

Let's not compare Reagan and Obama......that's not fair.

The point he made was the economy was turned around in Reagan's first term. Buy the time he left office we were in the middle of the longest period of growth in U.S. history.

Hey Muddy. All those Sec 8 housing voucher checks in your bank account yet?

Maybe you would like to answer my simple question; how many good paying manufacturing jobs were in the country during Reagan years vs. how many now? How many upside down mortgages? Easy stuff.

And did you really say how "hard" it was for you during the time when you were collecting a US Army pay check, had all your medical needs taken care of and plenty of food to eat and a nice housing allowance (if you were not living on base).

Sounds real hard there Muddy. Living off the guvmint teat like you do now. Tuff.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nothing is really doing better except for the stock market and the only reason why it's doing better is because we have investment tied up in other countries. America isn't doing better which is why China dumped all investment in American companies.

Are you insane?

We were in a RECESSION 4 years ago. We had negative GDP growth 4 years ago. We had net job losses month after month 4 years ago.

According to your claim that we're not doing better, if we were currently back in recession, if we were losing jobs every month instead of gaining them,

then we'd be better off than we are now.

Why do you people post such childishly stupid things? What do you gain from that? Or are you really just that stupid and not able to realize how wrong you are?

 

[JoeB131]

Nothing is really doing better except for the stock market and the only reason why it's doing better is because we have investment tied up in other countries. America isn't doing better which is why China dumped all investment in American companies.

Um, no, not really. But you keep telling yourself whatever your masters on Hate Radio tell you to think....

 

[zeke]

Oh and steff., we were not talking about raising taxes on everyone. You were talkin about how awful it would be to raise taxes on the ultra rich. Why couldn't you answer my question about what harm someone making 10 million a year would suffer if they paid 3% more in income taxes. And steph you brought it up that it would be harmful.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When Ronald Reagan took over the leadership of the United States in 1981, he inherited an economy that was in terrible shape—the worst American economy, in fact, since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Americans had enjoyed a prolonged period of widespread prosperityThe economy Ronald Reagan inherited from DNC speaker Jimmy Carter was not significantly better off than the economy Obama inherited from Bush. In November 1980, inflation was increasing at an annualized rate of 12.6%; unemployment was 7.5%. Prime interest rates were at 19%. These statistics were about the same when Reagan took office. Within four years, Reagan had completely turned the economy around – in September 1983 alone, the Reagan economy produced over 1.1 million jobs. In November 1984, the unemployment rate was 7.2%, and inflation rate was 4.1%. There’s a reason Reagan won 49 states.
Fact Check: Top Ten Clinton DNC Falsehoods

Why don't you tell everyone how many good paying manufacturing jobs were left in America when reagan took office.

Was it more or less than today? And what was the average wage then compared to now? Cost of food? Energy? How many Americans had lost their homes. Had no equity in their homes?

You think you are comparing apples to apples? Bull shit.

????

Let's not compare Reagan and Obama......that's not fair.

The point he made was the economy was turned around in Reagan's first term. Buy the time he left office we were in the middle of the longest period of growth in U.S. history.

The economy turned around in Obama's first term, unless of course you're too stupid to know that going from -6% GDP to +2% GDP represents an economic turnaround.

 

[Toro]

toro and I have had this out before, and, while I agree asset bubbles take longer to unwind, considering Obama, a) had congress and had power that no president since fdr did legislatively, b) had congress and and regulatory stricture/structure, exec. orders and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ were his for the asking which he got, and his to manipulate, c) unlike say Reagan, his recession ended months after he took office, Reagan had to allow Volcker to continue his prgm. and enact another one, which = he fucked it up.

would housing be back where it was? hell no, no argument there,would we be at 5% unemployment? hell no, 6 and half? 7? yes, absolutely, but, the the rest of his platform that came with his ideological take on what America is and about, free market capitalism etc. hamstrung us all...and here we are.

This was all actually preordained and foretold, but no one wanted to acknowledge what he was and IS. period.

My guess is that unemployment might be 0.5% better without Obama's policies. (Though, it might be higher if the Tea Party were in power.)

But history tells us that recoveries from balance sheet recessions are long and slow. I see no reason why America would be any different. In fact, it might be slower because unlike other countries with balance sheet recessions, America has a much more difficult time devaluing its currency which helps alleviate the contraction.

*shrugs* thx for the response.

I don't disagree that we would not be 'recovered', I disagree on your employment number and, whats more, on the issues we have had before us comprehensive scale, to wit-

his own policies or allowances have basically made it attractive for the banks et al to park money and earn in safety, instead of loan, after we have created the conditions that/to recapitalize/save them from their own misadventures to boot, I know you know this.

He has floated the housing market way past time, on a cornucopia of prgms that did nothing to help 'floor' it, which just keeps the wheels dug in, so any hang over adds to the drag we are experiencing now as well.

he has not been serious about jobs in a sense that, he just doesn't understand or doesn't want to, what fosters growth.

how many examples do we need? he told who was it charlie gibson(?) that raising taxes in a harsh economic environment wasn't wise, BUT, it was FAIR, he purposely and with forethought has hamstrung the energy sector from his federal perch, one of the few bright spots in the economy is the explosion in Private sector energy development, not that the EPA has not tried to unhinge that too, so add up this and the rest of it, he has not met with his cabinet or job council since jan., yes January, a hard edged vehement axe wielding rhetoric vis a vis biz, his total concentration on obamacare, if you think all of that is only worth a half a percent in unemployment, well, you are entitled to your opinion but I disagree, strongly.

and now here, to my point- he was not the man we needed.

some may think it unfair to ask someone who hasn't the tools to do a job that requires that which they do not have, well, not me.


he fully volunteered for and actively campaigned for the job, he is not performing, he refuses to learn and is hide bound to his viewpoint despite the results, which even in the asset bubble and balance sheet recession may be harder than most really is not germane in that in 4 years, we are in almost every context worse or just marginally better off than were we started, we elect and pay for performance, its not personal, it just .....is.

On the loans, one would not expect bank loans to rise when they are repairing their balance sheets. That's what happens in a credit contraction. Instead, banks focus first on repairing their balance sheets and disposing of bad loans. Once that happens, bank credit generally starts to expand again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No one blames obama for not completely fixing the economy and that's not the argument against him. He made it worse, and that's the argument against him. Not only did he make it worse, but he deliberately made it worse, by design.

Jeezus, the last part of that is even more ignorant than the first part.