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

[B. Kidd]

The Woodward book gives us all a look at how inept this White House and it's President REALLY is. The reason why you don't elect political "amateurs" like Barack Obama is that they can't get political deals DONE.

All this hot air by Obama supporters about how the Republicans decided right out of the box that they wouldn't work with the President? It turns out the the people who decided they didn't need the other side right from the start was Obama. Rahm Emanuel's "F**k 'em! We've got the votes." declaration five days into the new Administration is NOT bipartisan cooperation. Neither is Obama insisting on adding another 400 billion in tax increases to the deal that he and Boehner had worked out. That's someone who always has to get HIS way.

You want a telling fact that Woodward reveals? That when the Republicans won control of the House in 2010...nobody in the Obama Administration had John Boehner's phone number so they could make the obligatory call to congratulate him! They had to get it from someone else. If you REALLY were working in a bi-partisan manner how could that be?

So Obie couldn't even say, "I'll have my people call your people...."; no phone #!

 

[Toro]

I agree that this economy wasn't going to be fixed in four years. I think that people who believe otherwise don't understand the nature of the problem.

Having said that, I think Obama's and the Democrat's policies are slowing the recovery by creating uncertainty, more regulation and higher costs.

 

[JoeB131]

All of Bush's term the unemployment rate averaged 5 percent. It was 4.6 in 2007 and 5.6 in 2008. All of Obama's term it hasn't dropped below 8 percent although we were promised if we placed debt upon our children it wouldn't go over 8. Obama didn't know what he was doing so whatever he said really didn't matter. But what he did was prolong the recovery and make it the weakest in history. Now he takes credit for that which he said if it happened he would be a one term president. That is history that is what we saw.

What is truly laughable is that the left has now invented the Tea Party as the scape goat and they have no power at all.

Guy, you are using bullshit statistics. First, an average is misleading. He had big recessions on either end, the last one which wiped out the middle class, effectively.

To say, "Well, there was a year or two in there where it was tolerable" was silly.

I'd take Clinton's economy over Bush's any day of the week, and so would most people.

Except the 1%.

 

[JoeB131]

I agree that this economy wasn't going to be fixed in four years. I think that people who believe otherwise don't understand the nature of the problem.

Having said that, I think Obama's and the Democrat's policies are slowing the recovery by creating uncertainty, more regulation and higher costs.

Ah, the "Ma, he's looking at me funny" defense of Wall Street. Krugman blew that one away in his column today.

We aren't recovering because you assholes destroyed the middle class in a get rich quick scheme.

 

[Warrior102]

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".

If he could't fix it in four years, then why did he say he would/accept the position, polesmoker?

 

[HUGGY]

It could not have been fixed in four years. What success Obama had was with ZERO help from cons.

That's his fault too. Clinton figured out how to work with Republicans, obama ignored them.

That's another lie circulating around in the GOPer echo chamber. Not true Pillow. Most of the republicans voted against everything Clinton wanted.

 

[Amazed]

I agree that this economy wasn't going to be fixed in four years. I think that people who believe otherwise don't understand the nature of the problem.

Having said that, I think Obama's and the Democrat's policies are slowing the recovery by creating uncertainty, more regulation and higher costs.

Ah, the "Ma, he's looking at me funny" defense of Wall Street. Krugman blew that one away in his column today.

We aren't recovering because you assholes destroyed the middle class in a get rich quick scheme.

Joe, you and Dickless are the two I will most like watching melt down in November...you two ***** are stupid.

Wanna make a bet?

 

[Wiseacre]

I agree that this economy wasn't going to be fixed in four years. I think that people who believe otherwise don't understand the nature of the problem.

Having said that, I think Obama's and the Democrat's policies are slowing the recovery by creating uncertainty, more regulation and higher costs.

Which is to me the main point. Not that the economy is fixed but that it isn't better than it is now. Which I think is mainly due to the policies put in place by Obama and the Dems. And underscored by their inability to to work with the repubs; part of that is politics by the GOP, it's a fair point that neither side cooperates much with the other. And part of it is an unwillingness by Obama and the dems to budge from their position either. So both sides are at fault here, but my issue with Obama is that it's his job to try to get both sides to cooperate, but he has not done so. At all.

 

[Toro]

I agree that this economy wasn't going to be fixed in four years. I think that people who believe otherwise don't understand the nature of the problem.

Having said that, I think Obama's and the Democrat's policies are slowing the recovery by creating uncertainty, more regulation and higher costs.

Ah, the "Ma, he's looking at me funny" defense of Wall Street. Krugman blew that one away in his column today.

We aren't recovering because you assholes destroyed the middle class in a get rich quick scheme.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This post is 100% irrelevant.

 

[Toro]

I agree that this economy wasn't going to be fixed in four years. I think that people who believe otherwise don't understand the nature of the problem.

Having said that, I think Obama's and the Democrat's policies are slowing the recovery by creating uncertainty, more regulation and higher costs.

Which is to me the main point. Not that the economy is fixed but that it isn't better than it is now. Which I think is mainly due to the policies put in place by Obama and the Dems. And underscored by their inability to to work with the repubs; part of that is politics by the GOP, it's a fair point that neither side cooperates much with the other. And part of it is an unwillingness by Obama and the dems to budge from their position either. So both sides are at fault here, but my issue with Obama is that it's his job to try to get both sides to cooperate, but he has not done so. At all.

The nature of the problems is that we had an asset bubble, which created too many houses financed by too much debt. The only way we get out of this is through time and attrition as the excess housing supply gets worked out and the bad debt is expunged in the system. That should happen by ~2014 if you do the math, give or take a year or so. Then, the economy should start to accelerate, and the President and party in charge will take credit even though they will have had little to do with the fundamental nature of the problem.

This has happened around the world before. That's the playbook. This recession is playing out no differently than most other balance sheet recessions. But because it hasn't happened in America for 70 years, and because modern-day economists are too hung up on general equilibrium theory, we don't recognize it.

 

[buckeye45_73]

It could not have been fixed in four years. What success Obama had was with ZERO help from cons.

Yeah republicans never work with democrats, oh except with bill clinton. Obama is the one who doesnt compromise even after the 2010 beatdown, full steam liberalism and this is what we get, debt and no jobs.

So how does a jobs bill create jobs?

 

[Amelia]

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".

If there had not been the year of suppression and doubt and confusion and mystery regulations to be announced later known as Obamacare, the economy could have been in a robust recovery now.

Obama could have deserved accolades and reelection.

Too bad, so sad, we all suffer for his ego.

 

[Wiseacre]

I agree that this economy wasn't going to be fixed in four years. I think that people who believe otherwise don't understand the nature of the problem.

Having said that, I think Obama's and the Democrat's policies are slowing the recovery by creating uncertainty, more regulation and higher costs.

Which is to me the main point. Not that the economy is fixed but that it isn't better than it is now. Which I think is mainly due to the policies put in place by Obama and the Dems. And underscored by their inability to to work with the repubs; part of that is politics by the GOP, it's a fair point that neither side cooperates much with the other. And part of it is an unwillingness by Obama and the dems to budge from their position either. So both sides are at fault here, but my issue with Obama is that it's his job to try to get both sides to cooperate, but he has not done so. At all.

The nature of the problems is that we had an asset bubble, which created too many houses financed by too much debt. The only way we get out of this is through time and attrition as the excess housing supply gets worked out and the bad debt is expunged in the system. That should happen by ~2014 if you do the math, give or take a year or so. Then, the economy should start to accelerate, and the President and party in charge will take credit even though they will have had little to do with the fundamental nature of the problem.

This has happened around the world before. That's the playbook. This recession is playing out no differently than most other balance sheet recessions. But because it hasn't happened in America for 70 years, and because modern-day economists are too hung up on general equilibrium theory, we don't recognize it.

All true. Nonetheless, there are policies that could have speeded up the recovery faster than we've seen thus far. Seems to me the policies that were tried were ineffective and in some cases counter productive.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Gee, maybe "Community Organizer" is not the best way to prepare for POTUS?

 

[Trajan]

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".

same tired shit. if Obama cannot fix it the game is rigged or it cannot be fixed.....tissue?

 

[Trajan]

Which is to me the main point. Not that the economy is fixed but that it isn't better than it is now. Which I think is mainly due to the policies put in place by Obama and the Dems. And underscored by their inability to to work with the repubs; part of that is politics by the GOP, it's a fair point that neither side cooperates much with the other. And part of it is an unwillingness by Obama and the dems to budge from their position either. So both sides are at fault here, but my issue with Obama is that it's his job to try to get both sides to cooperate, but he has not done so. At all.

The nature of the problems is that we had an asset bubble, which created too many houses financed by too much debt. The only way we get out of this is through time and attrition as the excess housing supply gets worked out and the bad debt is expunged in the system. That should happen by ~2014 if you do the math, give or take a year or so. Then, the economy should start to accelerate, and the President and party in charge will take credit even though they will have had little to do with the fundamental nature of the problem.

This has happened around the world before. That's the playbook. This recession is playing out no differently than most other balance sheet recessions. But because it hasn't happened in America for 70 years, and because modern-day economists are too hung up on general equilibrium theory, we don't recognize it.

All true. Nonetheless, there are policies that could have speeded up the recovery faster than we've seen thus far. Seems to me the policies that were tried were ineffective and in some cases counter productive.

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.

 

[Charles_Main]

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".

Then maybe Obama should not have made so many Promises the first time around.

Your Entire Premise is BS, we could be in much better shape, Obama has hindered the Recovery more than helped it.

 

[freedombecki]

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".

Then maybe Obama should not have made so many Promises the first time around.

Your Entire Premise is BS, we could be in much better shape, Obama has hindered the Recovery more than helped it.

President Obama spending the Nation to under the bus didn't help us pull out of the future slump we're headed for either.

 

[Maple]

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".

Reagan turned around a recession in under 4 years and one that he inherited from Jimmy Carter, and it was a very bad recession as well. The comparison is between Jimmy Carter and Barach Obama, they both have ideologies that run counter to the American experience, in that we believe and are founded on liberty, free markets and capitalism. We are not socialists.

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, the gospel of envy, it's only virtue is the shared equality of misery." Winston Churchil

 

[Toro]

The nature of the problems is that we had an asset bubble, which created too many houses financed by too much debt. The only way we get out of this is through time and attrition as the excess housing supply gets worked out and the bad debt is expunged in the system. That should happen by ~2014 if you do the math, give or take a year or so. Then, the economy should start to accelerate, and the President and party in charge will take credit even though they will have had little to do with the fundamental nature of the problem.

This has happened around the world before. That's the playbook. This recession is playing out no differently than most other balance sheet recessions. But because it hasn't happened in America for 70 years, and because modern-day economists are too hung up on general equilibrium theory, we don't recognize it.

All true. Nonetheless, there are policies that could have speeded up the recovery faster than we've seen thus far. Seems to me the policies that were tried were ineffective and in some cases counter productive.

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.