Two Failures: Keynes, and Obama.

[PoliticalChic]

Who among us can claim that Obama's full-throated endorsing of Keynesian economics has proven successful?
What to make of the voters who re-elected Obama, with clear evidence of his incompetence?



1. If Keynesian economic theory is correct, the American economy should have performed well compared with countries that followed others policies. Realize, the concept of the 'Obama Stimulus' is directly out of Keynes...i.e., Liberal economic theory.

Canada provides an interesting contrast, as our economies are closely interconnected.

a. Canada is our largest trading partner. Any cutback by American consumers directly affects Canadian-made goods, and, therefore, their employment picture.

2. Defenders of this administration will likely point to unemployment rates in the two nations, noting the Canadian is higher. Not so. The definition of unemployment is different...but the US Bureau of Labor Statistics has recalculated the Canadian rates so as to make them comparable.

a. Canadian data counts as "unemployed" if they have engaged in 'any' job search during the previous month, no matter how superficial that search is, e.g., 'looked at ads.' For US statistics, one is "unemployed" if out of work and "actively" searching, e.g., applying for jobs, going through interviews.
Why Is Canada's Unemployment Rate Persistently Higher than that in ... PDF - Freepdfdb.org




3. Canadian and US unemployment rates increased in lockstep from August 2008 to February 2009, when Obama's Stimulus was passed. After that, Canada began to substantially outperform the US in job creation, the supposed point of the stimulus. In the US, unemployment rose to 10.1 % by October 2009, and remained at least at 9.5% for the next 14 months. Canadian unemployment peaked at 7.7 % in July and August of 2009, and has been falling ever since.
Lott, "At The Brink," p. 102-103.

a. When the American unemployment rate in September 2011 was stuck at 9.1 %, Canada's had fallen to 6.3%. The US had increased by 1.3 % since Obama became President, while Canadian unemployment had already fallen below its January 2009 level. Lott, Op. Cit.

b. In January 2009, prior to the Obama Stimulus, the WSJ had surveyed economic forecasters. They predicted an increase of 0.8 % in unemployment by December of 2009. Instead, 4 months after the Stimulus...it had climbed by 2.1 %, while in Canada....up 1 %.
Lott, Op. Cit.

c. So, without the Obama waste of almost a trillion dollars, economic forecasters were braced for less than 1% increase in unemployment.
Instead, with the community organizer at the controls of the economy, unemployment climbed over twice as much.

What does that tell about Keynes...and Obama?
Yup...failures.



4. Be clear: the Canadian government had chosen not to introduce any new big government programs, even though revenues had fallen, and the deficit grew. The US debt as a share of GDP rose by 33 % from 2008 to 2012. Canada's debt rose by just over 13%. "Moreover, the Canadian government didn’t just cut the growth rate of spending, a favorite trick of U.S. politicians who want to claim the mantle of fiscal conservatism. It also cut absolute spending on many programs in dollar terms."
Canada?s Budget Triumph | Mercatus




5. The financial whiz- née community organizer raised effective marginal rates on individuals, discouraging work, refused to cut the corporate income tax rate (Canada cut theirs from 34% to 26%).




It is well past the time of analyzing the Obama economic policies....and that analysis is so apparent that even HuffPo printed this:
"Politically and economically, the U.S. in 2011 fell flat on its face. There are several reasons why our government miserably failed us this year but the most devastating reason is that it did absolutely nothing to help the economy. In fact, the Obama administration helped make matters worse."
Lloyd Chapman: Top 6 Reasons Obama's Economic Policies Failed in 2011
Ask yourself why.

Did you get that?
Again: "...the Obama administration helped make matters worse."



Is Obama stupid?
Clueless about economics?
Or does he know what is in this OP...and consciously chose the path of failure.

You be the judge.

 

[SteadyMercury]

5. The financial whiz- née community organizer raised effective marginal rates on individuals, discouraging work

Which rates raised? I haven't felt any tax changes made me consider no longer working.

 

[bodecea]

I don't see being elected President of the United States as being much of a failure. How do YOUR successes match up?

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. The financial whiz- née community organizer raised effective marginal rates on individuals, discouraging work

Which rates raised? I haven't felt any tax changes made me consider no longer working.

1. "Payroll tax. This is the largest tax increase that resulted from the fiscal cliff deal. The payroll tax cut reduced the Social Security portion of the payroll tax from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent for workers in 2011 and 2012. Its expiration will raise revenues by more than $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years, primarily from middle-class families.[3]

Top marginal income tax rate. The fiscal cliff deal allowed the top marginal income tax rate to rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent for families with taxable income over $450,000 and single filers with taxable income over $400,000. This tax increase will fall heavily on small businesses and investors. Higher taxes on these job creators will lessen their incentive to take risks that would have created new jobs.

As a side effect of the rate increase, Congress created another tax bracket. It retained the 35 percent rate for taxable incomes roughly between $380,000 of taxable income for families and single filers and the new thresholds for the top rate. There will now be seven tax rates in the income tax system: 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent, 35 percent, and 39.6 percent. Congress created the new rate to prevent certain taxpayers from paying a lower marginal tax rate because of the fiscal cliff deal. As part of the deal, it increased the income threshold for the new top rate above $380,000, where it had been previously, but left where all the other rates begin intact. Without the new rate, taxpayers earning above the old top rate threshold ($380,000) but below the new top rate threshold ($450,000) would have paid a top rate of 33 percent—lower than the 35 percent rate they paid previously.

President Obama has frequently said that he wanted to raise the top rate back to where it stood under President Clinton. Yet because Obamacare previously raised the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) portion of the payroll tax from 2.9 percent to 3.8 percent for family incomes over $250,000, the top rate is higher now than it ever was during Clinton’s presidency. The HI tax applies to every dollar of wage income, so to calculate the top rate properly, it must be added to the top marginal income tax rate. President Clinton’s top rate was 42.5 percent; President Obama’s is now 43.4 percent.

Effective marginal tax rates. The fiscal cliff deal raised effective marginal tax rates by allowing the reinstitution of the Personal Exemption Phase-out (PEP) and the phase down of itemized deductions (known as the “Pease” provision). Both provisions begin at $250,000 of adjusted gross income (AGI) for singles and $300,000 for families. These provisions raise tax liabilities without raising the top statutory rate paid by taxpayers. However, they raise effective rates, which hurts economic growth the same as an increase in statutory rates because they lessen work incentives the same. And because both PEP and Pease begin at the same income level, they combine to sharply raise effective tax rates, which compounds the damage to work incentives they would cause separately.

Tax increase on investment. Higher tax rates on capital gains and dividends increase the tax bias against investment. The fiscal cliff deal allowed these tax rates to increase from 15 percent to 20 percent for families with taxable incomes over $450,000 and singles with taxable incomes over $400,000. Obamacare, as with the top marginal income tax rate, raises these rates further. It levies a 3.8 percent surtax on capital gains and dividends for incomes over $250,000 for families and $200,000 for singles starting this year. This is also the first time that a payroll tax applies to investment income—which sets a dangerous precedent. The total rate on capital gains and dividends therefore rose from 15 percent to 23.8 percent. That is a 59 percent increase in the tax rate. This large increase will lower investment across the economy. Less investment will reduce capital formation, which means that businesses will create fewer jobs and pay their workers less.
Death tax. The fiscal cliff deal allowed the death tax rate to rise from 35 percent to 40 percent but, in a small consolation to grieving families, kept the exemption amount above $5 million ($10 million for married couples) and indexed it for inflation. A higher death tax, like higher capital gains and dividends taxes, represents a tax increase on capital which will result in the same negative effect on jobs.

Expensing tax. In 2011 and 2012, all businesses could expense, or immediately deduct from income, the full cost of new capital expenditures. This approach represents sound policy, and Congress should have maintained it permanently. However, it allowed expensing to lapse, which will raise the cost of capital and slow job creation."
Fiscal Cliff Deal: How it Will Affect Taxpayers and the Economy


2. "Here's a full list of ObamaCare Taxes? The 21 new ObamaCare tax hikes and breaks impact us all, but which ObamaCare taxes will you actually pay? Find out how how the new taxes in Obamacare, tax breaks and tax credits will affect you, your family and your business. Below is a full list of the health care taxes found in President Obama's tax plan and how they will effect your tax returns for 2012 and beyond."
ObamaCare Tax: Full List of ObamaCare Taxes

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't see being elected President of the United States as being much of a failure. How do YOUR successes match up?

I'll be kind and accept your post as some sort of joke.


The reason that this OP is in economics is because it is an analysis of his record as President in the area of economic policy.

If you'd like to discuss his record in that light, vis-a-vis Canada....please don't hesitate.



As an aside, I recommend the book "The Peter Principle."

"A person who excels at his position is often rewarded with a higher position, eventually one that exceeds the employee's field of expertise. This is called the Peter Principle, an observation put forth in the late 1960s by Dr. Laurence J. Peter, a psychologist and professor of education [source: Business Open Learning Archive]."

One rises to the level of their incompetence.
As has Barack Obama, the windbag-in-chief.
His incompetence has been on display in economic policy, as well as foreign policy.




On the other hand, he is remarkably suited to be Master of Ceremonies in any venue. He speaks well, and had a gift in this area.
But, not in any others.

Certainly not as President of the United States.


Don't you agree?

 

[Mad Scientist]

I don't see being elected President of the United States as being much of a failure. How do YOUR successes match up?

Good to see that many Americans still think the President ISN'T a Banker Puppet!

 

[midcan5]

Our economy is so much better than 07/08/09 saying otherwise is dishonest. We still need to manage outsourcing, build here, and create a fair tax system. If corporations like Apple want to build in China and hide revenues overseas fine, but let's all stop buying their products. As far as Keynes, he was right and history proves it. Both the spending of FDR and WWII spending were Keynesian economics at work. Also Eisenhower's interstate highway system, another Keynesian move. Information below counters any revisionist nonsense PC has had transmitted into her tele-receiver.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." President Dwight Eisenhower

Timeline of the Great Depression
Summary
Timeline of the Great Depression
The Great Depression, to 1935
The Main Causes of the Great Depression
Stiff upper lip.

 

[PredFan]

I don't see being elected President of the United States as being much of a failure. How do YOUR successes match up?

I'll be kind and accept your post as some sort of joke.


The reason that this OP is in economics is because it is an analysis of his record as President in the area of economic policy.

If you'd like to discuss his record in that light, vis-a-vis Canada....please don't hesitate.



As an aside, I recommend the book "The Peter Principle."

"A person who excels at his position is often rewarded with a higher position, eventually one that exceeds the employee's field of expertise. This is called the Peter Principle, an observation put forth in the late 1960s by Dr. Laurence J. Peter, a psychologist and professor of education [source: Business Open Learning Archive]."

One rises to the level of their incompetence.
As has Barack Obama, the windbag-in-chief.
His incompetence has been on display in economic policy, as well as foreign policy.




On the other hand, he is remarkably suited to be Master of Ceremonies in any venue. He speaks well, and had a gift in this area.
But, not in any others.

Certainly not as President of the United States.


Don't you agree?

Most thoroughly and soundly pwned! Nice work!

 

[rdean]

Who among us can claim that Obama's full-throated endorsing of Keynesian economics has proven successful?
What to make of the voters who re-elected Obama, with clear evidence of his incompetence?



1. If Keynesian economic theory is correct, the American economy should have performed well compared with countries that followed others policies. Realize, the concept of the 'Obama Stimulus' is directly out of Keynes...i.e., Liberal economic theory.

Canada provides an interesting contrast, as our economies are closely interconnected.

a. Canada is our largest trading partner. Any cutback by American consumers directly affects Canadian-made goods, and, therefore, their employment picture.

2. Defenders of this administration will likely point to unemployment rates in the two nations, noting the Canadian is higher. Not so. The definition of unemployment is different...but the US Bureau of Labor Statistics has recalculated the Canadian rates so as to make them comparable.

a. Canadian data counts as "unemployed" if they have engaged in 'any' job search during the previous month, no matter how superficial that search is, e.g., 'looked at ads.' For US statistics, one is "unemployed" if out of work and "actively" searching, e.g., applying for jobs, going through interviews.
Why Is Canada's Unemployment Rate Persistently Higher than that in ... PDF - Freepdfdb.org




3. Canadian and US unemployment rates increased in lockstep from August 2008 to February 2009, when Obama's Stimulus was passed. After that, Canada began to substantially outperform the US in job creation, the supposed point of the stimulus. In the US, unemployment rose to 10.1 % by October 2009, and remained at least at 9.5% for the next 14 months. Canadian unemployment peaked at 7.7 % in July and August of 2009, and has been falling ever since.
Lott, "At The Brink," p. 102-103.

a. When the American unemployment rate in September 2011 was stuck at 9.1 %, Canada's had fallen to 6.3%. The US had increased by 1.3 % since Obama became President, while Canadian unemployment had already fallen below its January 2009 level. Lott, Op. Cit.

b. In January 2009, prior to the Obama Stimulus, the WSJ had surveyed economic forecasters. They predicted an increase of 0.8 % in unemployment by December of 2009. Instead, 4 months after the Stimulus...it had climbed by 2.1 %, while in Canada....up 1 %.
Lott, Op. Cit.

c. So, without the Obama waste of almost a trillion dollars, economic forecasters were braced for less than 1% increase in unemployment.
Instead, with the community organizer at the controls of the economy, unemployment climbed over twice as much.

What does that tell about Keynes...and Obama?
Yup...failures.



4. Be clear: the Canadian government had chosen not to introduce any new big government programs, even though revenues had fallen, and the deficit grew. The US debt as a share of GDP rose by 33 % from 2008 to 2012. Canada's debt rose by just over 13%. "Moreover, the Canadian government didn’t just cut the growth rate of spending, a favorite trick of U.S. politicians who want to claim the mantle of fiscal conservatism. It also cut absolute spending on many programs in dollar terms."
Canada?s Budget Triumph | Mercatus




5. The financial whiz- née community organizer raised effective marginal rates on individuals, discouraging work, refused to cut the corporate income tax rate (Canada cut theirs from 34% to 26%).




It is well past the time of analyzing the Obama economic policies....and that analysis is so apparent that even HuffPo printed this:
"Politically and economically, the U.S. in 2011 fell flat on its face. There are several reasons why our government miserably failed us this year but the most devastating reason is that it did absolutely nothing to help the economy. In fact, the Obama administration helped make matters worse."
Lloyd Chapman: Top 6 Reasons Obama's Economic Policies Failed in 2011
Ask yourself why.

Did you get that?
Again: "...the Obama administration helped make matters worse."



Is Obama stupid?
Clueless about economics?
Or does he know what is in this OP...and consciously chose the path of failure.

You be the judge.

Blah blah blah

You make so many ridiculous assumptions and assertions. Why not just come out and say "I hate Obama"? It would save time.

 

[PredFan]

Our economy is so much better than 07/08/09 saying otherwise is dishonest. We still need to manage outsourcing, build here, and create a fair tax system. If corporations like Apple want to build in China and hide revenues overseas fine, but let's all stop buying their products. As far as Keynes, he was right and history proves it. Both the spending of FDR and WWII spending were Keynesian economics at work. Also Eisenhower's interstate highway system, another Keynesian move. Information below counters any revisionist nonsense PC has had transmitted into her tele-receiver.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." President Dwight Eisenhower

Timeline of the Great Depression
Summary
Timeline of the Great Depression
The Great Depression, to 1935
The Main Causes of the Great Depression
Stiff upper lip.

Blah blah blah, the very small amount of recovery that isn't simply obamatons cooking the books had nothing at all to do with obama's policies. The idiot-in-chief only served to extend the recession/depression (depending on who you ask) much longer than it would have lasted. And if there is any kind of economic good news going on right now it's because the federal reserve is shoveling billions of freshly printed dollars into the economy. Your president is a failure in every economic respect, as is Keynesian economic which history proves to be the case.

 

[mudwhistle]

I don't see being elected President of the United States as being much of a failure. How do YOUR successes match up?

Being elected isn't the only thing he had to do.

I think he has to do his job as well.

Guess you don't expect that from him.

As long as he's keeping a Republican out of the office that's all you're interested in. You really could care less what he does or doesn't do while he occupies the office.

 

[PredFan]

Who among us can claim that Obama's full-throated endorsing of Keynesian economics has proven successful?
What to make of the voters who re-elected Obama, with clear evidence of his incompetence?



1. If Keynesian economic theory is correct, the American economy should have performed well compared with countries that followed others policies. Realize, the concept of the 'Obama Stimulus' is directly out of Keynes...i.e., Liberal economic theory.

Canada provides an interesting contrast, as our economies are closely interconnected.

a. Canada is our largest trading partner. Any cutback by American consumers directly affects Canadian-made goods, and, therefore, their employment picture.

2. Defenders of this administration will likely point to unemployment rates in the two nations, noting the Canadian is higher. Not so. The definition of unemployment is different...but the US Bureau of Labor Statistics has recalculated the Canadian rates so as to make them comparable.

a. Canadian data counts as "unemployed" if they have engaged in 'any' job search during the previous month, no matter how superficial that search is, e.g., 'looked at ads.' For US statistics, one is "unemployed" if out of work and "actively" searching, e.g., applying for jobs, going through interviews.
Why Is Canada's Unemployment Rate Persistently Higher than that in ... PDF - Freepdfdb.org




3. Canadian and US unemployment rates increased in lockstep from August 2008 to February 2009, when Obama's Stimulus was passed. After that, Canada began to substantially outperform the US in job creation, the supposed point of the stimulus. In the US, unemployment rose to 10.1 % by October 2009, and remained at least at 9.5% for the next 14 months. Canadian unemployment peaked at 7.7 % in July and August of 2009, and has been falling ever since.
Lott, "At The Brink," p. 102-103.

a. When the American unemployment rate in September 2011 was stuck at 9.1 %, Canada's had fallen to 6.3%. The US had increased by 1.3 % since Obama became President, while Canadian unemployment had already fallen below its January 2009 level. Lott, Op. Cit.

b. In January 2009, prior to the Obama Stimulus, the WSJ had surveyed economic forecasters. They predicted an increase of 0.8 % in unemployment by December of 2009. Instead, 4 months after the Stimulus...it had climbed by 2.1 %, while in Canada....up 1 %.
Lott, Op. Cit.

c. So, without the Obama waste of almost a trillion dollars, economic forecasters were braced for less than 1% increase in unemployment.
Instead, with the community organizer at the controls of the economy, unemployment climbed over twice as much.

What does that tell about Keynes...and Obama?
Yup...failures.



4. Be clear: the Canadian government had chosen not to introduce any new big government programs, even though revenues had fallen, and the deficit grew. The US debt as a share of GDP rose by 33 % from 2008 to 2012. Canada's debt rose by just over 13%. "Moreover, the Canadian government didn’t just cut the growth rate of spending, a favorite trick of U.S. politicians who want to claim the mantle of fiscal conservatism. It also cut absolute spending on many programs in dollar terms."
Canada?s Budget Triumph | Mercatus




5. The financial whiz- née community organizer raised effective marginal rates on individuals, discouraging work, refused to cut the corporate income tax rate (Canada cut theirs from 34% to 26%).




It is well past the time of analyzing the Obama economic policies....and that analysis is so apparent that even HuffPo printed this:
"Politically and economically, the U.S. in 2011 fell flat on its face. There are several reasons why our government miserably failed us this year but the most devastating reason is that it did absolutely nothing to help the economy. In fact, the Obama administration helped make matters worse."
Lloyd Chapman: Top 6 Reasons Obama's Economic Policies Failed in 2011
Ask yourself why.

Did you get that?
Again: "...the Obama administration helped make matters worse."



Is Obama stupid?
Clueless about economics?
Or does he know what is in this OP...and consciously chose the path of failure.

You be the judge.

Blah blah blah

You make so many ridiculous assumptions and assertions. Why not just come out and say "I hate Obama"? It would save time.

I'll say it. I hate obama. He's the worst president in the history of the country. He sucks at foreign policy, domestic policy, economic policy, and he has built the most corrupt administration that anyone has ever seen outside of a banana republic. The worst thing about him is his magical hold on the mentally deficient voting majority.

 

[PredFan]

I don't see being elected President of the United States as being much of a failure. How do YOUR successes match up?

Being elected isn't the only thing he had to do.

I think he has to do his job as well.

Guess you don't expect that from him.

As long as he's keeping a Republican out of the office that's all you're interested in. You really could care less what he does or doesn't do while he occupies the office.

You nailed it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Our economy is so much better than 07/08/09 saying otherwise is dishonest. We still need to manage outsourcing, build here, and create a fair tax system. If corporations like Apple want to build in China and hide revenues overseas fine, but let's all stop buying their products. As far as Keynes, he was right and history proves it. Both the spending of FDR and WWII spending were Keynesian economics at work. Also Eisenhower's interstate highway system, another Keynesian move. Information below counters any revisionist nonsense PC has had transmitted into her tele-receiver.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." President Dwight Eisenhower

Timeline of the Great Depression
Summary
Timeline of the Great Depression
The Great Depression, to 1935
The Main Causes of the Great Depression
Stiff upper lip.

1. You are a clueless ideologue.

Your posts are less like a thinking human being, able to consider reality in your calculations, and more like an iron filing in a magnetic field.


2. "Our economy is so much better than 07/08/09 saying otherwise is dishonest."
I hesitate to use the reference, but since you've opened that door, let me walk through.
It's dishonest to respond to an OP not having read it.
As you have obviously done.

The OP compares Obama's failure with our economy to a related one that chose not to opt for a Keynesian 'Stimulus.'

If you choose to read the OP at this late date, you will see that the conclusion is unassailable.




3. "... create a fair tax system."

What would be a 'fair share' of the results of one's legally obtained remuneration?
Am I correct that Progressives see no limit, as Obama's father suggested, 100%?

"Barack Obama Sr. "Tax 100% of income." Like Father, Like Son?"
Barack Obama Sr. "Tax 100% of income." Like Father, Like Son? | Peace . Gold . Liberty


Or, is this 'fair':
a. Joseph gathered very much grain: It seems it was customary for Pharaoh to take 10% of the grain in Egypt as a tax. Essentially, Joseph doubled the taxes over the next seven years (Genesis 41:34 mentions one-fifth, that is, 20%).




4. " As far as Keynes, he was right and history proves it. Both the spending of FDR and WWII spending were Keynesian economics at work."

That's what I mean by clueless.
FDR used Keynesian theory, and extended a recession into the Depression

a. Federal spending went from 2.5 % in 1929 to 9 % in 1936: Washington’s portion of the economy increased by 360 % in just seven years- with no benefit to the economy.

b. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in "The National Experience," in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .

c. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
The Real Deal - Society and Culture - AEI

d. Warren Harding inherited one of the sharpest recessions in American history in 1921. By July it was over. Harding and Treasury Sec’y Mellon cut government expenditures by 40 %, allowing wages to fall, in a natural recovery to full employment. The cuts, and even sharper tax cuts under Coolidge, produced the long period of growth and rising living standards associated with the Roaring Twenties.


Notice how deftly you've been put in your place.


PS...Happy Father's Day


PPS....be very careful about suggesting dishonesty on my part.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who among us can claim that Obama's full-throated endorsing of Keynesian economics has proven successful?
What to make of the voters who re-elected Obama, with clear evidence of his incompetence?



1. If Keynesian economic theory is correct, the American economy should have performed well compared with countries that followed others policies. Realize, the concept of the 'Obama Stimulus' is directly out of Keynes...i.e., Liberal economic theory.

Canada provides an interesting contrast, as our economies are closely interconnected.

a. Canada is our largest trading partner. Any cutback by American consumers directly affects Canadian-made goods, and, therefore, their employment picture.

2. Defenders of this administration will likely point to unemployment rates in the two nations, noting the Canadian is higher. Not so. The definition of unemployment is different...but the US Bureau of Labor Statistics has recalculated the Canadian rates so as to make them comparable.

a. Canadian data counts as "unemployed" if they have engaged in 'any' job search during the previous month, no matter how superficial that search is, e.g., 'looked at ads.' For US statistics, one is "unemployed" if out of work and "actively" searching, e.g., applying for jobs, going through interviews.
Why Is Canada's Unemployment Rate Persistently Higher than that in ... PDF - Freepdfdb.org




3. Canadian and US unemployment rates increased in lockstep from August 2008 to February 2009, when Obama's Stimulus was passed. After that, Canada began to substantially outperform the US in job creation, the supposed point of the stimulus. In the US, unemployment rose to 10.1 % by October 2009, and remained at least at 9.5% for the next 14 months. Canadian unemployment peaked at 7.7 % in July and August of 2009, and has been falling ever since.
Lott, "At The Brink," p. 102-103.

a. When the American unemployment rate in September 2011 was stuck at 9.1 %, Canada's had fallen to 6.3%. The US had increased by 1.3 % since Obama became President, while Canadian unemployment had already fallen below its January 2009 level. Lott, Op. Cit.

b. In January 2009, prior to the Obama Stimulus, the WSJ had surveyed economic forecasters. They predicted an increase of 0.8 % in unemployment by December of 2009. Instead, 4 months after the Stimulus...it had climbed by 2.1 %, while in Canada....up 1 %.
Lott, Op. Cit.

c. So, without the Obama waste of almost a trillion dollars, economic forecasters were braced for less than 1% increase in unemployment.
Instead, with the community organizer at the controls of the economy, unemployment climbed over twice as much.

What does that tell about Keynes...and Obama?
Yup...failures.



4. Be clear: the Canadian government had chosen not to introduce any new big government programs, even though revenues had fallen, and the deficit grew. The US debt as a share of GDP rose by 33 % from 2008 to 2012. Canada's debt rose by just over 13%. "Moreover, the Canadian government didn’t just cut the growth rate of spending, a favorite trick of U.S. politicians who want to claim the mantle of fiscal conservatism. It also cut absolute spending on many programs in dollar terms."
Canada?s Budget Triumph | Mercatus




5. The financial whiz- née community organizer raised effective marginal rates on individuals, discouraging work, refused to cut the corporate income tax rate (Canada cut theirs from 34% to 26%).




It is well past the time of analyzing the Obama economic policies....and that analysis is so apparent that even HuffPo printed this:
"Politically and economically, the U.S. in 2011 fell flat on its face. There are several reasons why our government miserably failed us this year but the most devastating reason is that it did absolutely nothing to help the economy. In fact, the Obama administration helped make matters worse."
Lloyd Chapman: Top 6 Reasons Obama's Economic Policies Failed in 2011
Ask yourself why.

Did you get that?
Again: "...the Obama administration helped make matters worse."



Is Obama stupid?
Clueless about economics?
Or does he know what is in this OP...and consciously chose the path of failure.

You be the judge.

Blah blah blah

You make so many ridiculous assumptions and assertions. Why not just come out and say "I hate Obama"? It would save time.

I certainly hate his policies.

Haven't I made that clear enough?

And...what is the time it would save you: you haven't even tried to rebut or counter the OP.

A wise move, BTW.

 

[Rshermr]

Who among us can claim that Obama's full-throated endorsing of Keynesian economics has proven successful?
What to make of the voters who re-elected Obama, with clear evidence of his incompetence?



1. If Keynesian economic theory is correct, the American economy should have performed well compared with countries that followed others policies. Realize, the concept of the 'Obama Stimulus' is directly out of Keynes...i.e., Liberal economic theory.

Canada provides an interesting contrast, as our economies are closely interconnected.

a. Canada is our largest trading partner. Any cutback by American consumers directly affects Canadian-made goods, and, therefore, their employment picture.

2. Defenders of this administration will likely point to unemployment rates in the two nations, noting the Canadian is higher. Not so. The definition of unemployment is different...but the US Bureau of Labor Statistics has recalculated the Canadian rates so as to make them comparable.

a. Canadian data counts as "unemployed" if they have engaged in 'any' job search during the previous month, no matter how superficial that search is, e.g., 'looked at ads.' For US statistics, one is "unemployed" if out of work and "actively" searching, e.g., applying for jobs, going through interviews.
Why Is Canada's Unemployment Rate Persistently Higher than that in ... PDF - Freepdfdb.org




3. Canadian and US unemployment rates increased in lockstep from August 2008 to February 2009, when Obama's Stimulus was passed. After that, Canada began to substantially outperform the US in job creation, the supposed point of the stimulus. In the US, unemployment rose to 10.1 % by October 2009, and remained at least at 9.5% for the next 14 months. Canadian unemployment peaked at 7.7 % in July and August of 2009, and has been falling ever since.
Lott, "At The Brink," p. 102-103.

a. When the American unemployment rate in September 2011 was stuck at 9.1 %, Canada's had fallen to 6.3%. The US had increased by 1.3 % since Obama became President, while Canadian unemployment had already fallen below its January 2009 level. Lott, Op. Cit.

b. In January 2009, prior to the Obama Stimulus, the WSJ had surveyed economic forecasters. They predicted an increase of 0.8 % in unemployment by December of 2009. Instead, 4 months after the Stimulus...it had climbed by 2.1 %, while in Canada....up 1 %.
Lott, Op. Cit.

c. So, without the Obama waste of almost a trillion dollars, economic forecasters were braced for less than 1% increase in unemployment.
Instead, with the community organizer at the controls of the economy, unemployment climbed over twice as much.

What does that tell about Keynes...and Obama?
Yup...failures.



4. Be clear: the Canadian government had chosen not to introduce any new big government programs, even though revenues had fallen, and the deficit grew. The US debt as a share of GDP rose by 33 % from 2008 to 2012. Canada's debt rose by just over 13%. "Moreover, the Canadian government didn’t just cut the growth rate of spending, a favorite trick of U.S. politicians who want to claim the mantle of fiscal conservatism. It also cut absolute spending on many programs in dollar terms."
Canada?s Budget Triumph | Mercatus




5. The financial whiz- née community organizer raised effective marginal rates on individuals, discouraging work, refused to cut the corporate income tax rate (Canada cut theirs from 34% to 26%).




It is well past the time of analyzing the Obama economic policies....and that analysis is so apparent that even HuffPo printed this:
"Politically and economically, the U.S. in 2011 fell flat on its face. There are several reasons why our government miserably failed us this year but the most devastating reason is that it did absolutely nothing to help the economy. In fact, the Obama administration helped make matters worse."
Lloyd Chapman: Top 6 Reasons Obama's Economic Policies Failed in 2011
Ask yourself why.

Did you get that?
Again: "...the Obama administration helped make matters worse."



Is Obama stupid?
Clueless about economics?
Or does he know what is in this OP...and consciously chose the path of failure.

You be the judge.

Blah blah blah

You make so many ridiculous assumptions and assertions. Why not just come out and say "I hate Obama"? It would save time.

I'll say it. I hate obama. He's the worst president in the history of the country. He sucks at foreign policy, domestic policy, economic policy, and he has built the most corrupt administration that anyone has ever seen outside of a banana republic. The worst thing about him is his magical hold on the mentally deficient voting majority.

Jesus. What a valuable post. The opinion of a con tool and congenital idiot. Nice.

 

[regent]

When a recession/depression seems imminent do both Republicans and Democrats now use Keynes to ease the problem?

 

[SteadyMercury]

1. "Payroll tax. This is the largest tax increase that resulted from the fiscal cliff deal. The payroll tax cut reduced the Social Security portion of the payroll tax from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent for workers in 2011 and 2012. Its expiration will raise revenues by more than $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years, primarily from middle-class families.[3]

You said Obama raised marginal tax rates. How does the expiration of a temporary social security tax rate decrease equate to someone raising marginal tax rates? The taxpayer relief act of 2010 lowered the rate, then it expired. Comes out to 6.2% in the end, same as it was when he took office.

Top marginal income tax rate. The fiscal cliff deal allowed the top marginal income tax rate to rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent for families with taxable income over $450,000 and single filers with taxable income over $400,000.

Ahh so the increase in marginal rate for those making almost half a million bucks is what has you all wound up. This is what is discouraging people from working, the slice of income over 400-450k being taxed at 4.6% higher rate? What percentage of taxpayers does this impact? My wife and I make pretty good money, but we don't have a marginal tax rate over 450k so this doesn't affect us. Does it affect you? Has it discouraged you from working since all that money over 450k you get an extra 4% tax on it?

This tax increase will fall heavily on small businesses and investors. Higher taxes on these job creators will lessen their incentive to take risks that would have created new jobs.

In what way, do small businesses usually have a lot of employees making over 400k? In my experience most small businesses do not, salaries that high are usually for executives in larger corporations.

Investors would be paying most of their taxes on qualified dividends and long term capital gains, neither of which would be impacted by the change to 39.6% in the top tax tier.

 

[oldfart]

When a recession/depression seems imminent do both Republicans and Democrats now use Keynes to ease the problem?

Only when they are trying to get re-elected.

 

[Old Rocks]

PC's theme song;

"Let's go back to when the poor were poor and the rich were rich,
And you felt so damn secure just knowing which was which...........