Economists: Obama's Policies 'Fair' or 'Poor'

Let me assure you that the designers of this "survey" were not at all expert at it, and it is quite likely that the credentials of at least most of the supposed experts interviewed would not stack up to my own.

And what were their actual criticisms again? There are claims that he was distracted by health care. There are claims that ARRA was "poorly designed". There are claims that ARRA wasn't big enough.

The last of these is true, as was discussed at the time, but the package procured was the largest that could be gotten past the "I hope he fails" obstructionism of Republicans, and the best you can get is certainly better than everything less than the best you can get.

There is meanwhile no evidence either offered or anywhere in existence to suggest that Obama lacked the basic multi-tasking skills needed to deal simultaneoulsy with both the economy and desperately needed health care reform. Not to mention at the same time working to get us out of the colossally bungled situation in Iraq, revamping efforts in Afghanistan, developing a consensus global recovery strategy within the G-20, expanding S-CHIP, getting the last of the FY2009 budget passed, pushing through credit card and tobacco reform, and doing all the other things that occupied his agenda at the time. This complaint is simply vapid on its face.

Neither is there evidence offered or anywhere in existence to suggest that ARRA was poorly designed. Indeed, there is a great deal of testimony to be heard over how well it was designed, especially in comparison to the Bush notion from 2008 of just sending everyone a check. Those sums went disproportionately into savings or paying down debt, thus diminishing their stimulus effect. The Make Work Pay credit by contrast was implemented in advance through the withholding tables, making sure that people got the money only in small drips and drops that would hopefully just blend into their regular spending patterns, which is exactly what happened. ARRA was in addition split into three parts. There was short-term stimulus such as the tax cuts, expansions in food stamp and unemployment benefits, and direct aid to states losing their revenue just as fast as the federal government was. There was mid-term stimulus typified by the 90,000 infrastucture projects supported all across the country and also by lower profile programs such as retrofitting homes, offices, and other facilities for improved energy efficiency. Then there were long-term stimulus programs such as investments in health, energy, communications, and transportation research and technology. And throughout the bill, care was taken to move resources out through those most likely to spend them quickly thereby providing the maximum possible stimulus effect per dollar spent. So there are a few of the points that render "poorly designed" complaints (whatever they might have been) a pile of useless junk as well.

I hate to break it to you, but Obama gets no credit at all for being Obama, but rather for the steps he has taken and the things he has done, many of which it seems right-wingers have either never heard of or don't even begin to understand. Worse yet, you're going to have five more years of this stuff to try to catch up with. Just think how far out of the loop the right-wing will be by 2016!!!

 

OK, I'm just curious enough to ask you, very sincerely, what economic model you do prefer since you don't like "laisses-faire" (sic) free-market capitalism? And, if you will, please indicate how Barack Obama would bring your idealized economic model into being (if only we retarded, stupid, dreadful, etc., etc., Conservatives would all commit suicide and let him).

It is clear enough to all of us now what you hate in our form of economy. Now... tell us what you would love to see become our new "reality"! Oh, and please be thorough enough in your description to tell us how your idealized utopia would be paid for. You've been aching to educate us, the loathsome, unwashed, ignorant, despicable Right Wing -- so, please... grace us with the droppings from your *superior mind*! (I do hope that this is more penetrating and revealing than your ruminations on stock market investments a month or two ago....)

 

Once again, your comments reflect lack of knowledge or misinformation, no doubt derived from right wing propaganda sources.

The unemployment rate is 8.6% and inflation has slowed.

U.S. inflation is slowing after a surge early in the year.

Now, more broadly, the Commerce Department's measure of consumer prices for November, released Friday, stood 2.5% above year-ago levels in November, down from year-over-year increases of 2.7% in October and 2.9% in September. A less volatile measure excluding food and energy, watched closely by the Fed, rose 1.7% from a year earlier.

Another closely tracked measure, the Labor Department's consumer-price index, has risen at a 0.8% annual rate in the past three months.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203686204577116521286547832.html?KEYWORDS=Hilsenrath

 

If you are talking about liking him personally as opposed to his policies, people like Obama too.

 

They seem to think that less spending will somehow turn the trick. I presume this somehow comes from all those years of private sector business acumen and experience gained in standing around the store, hoping and praying that customers will spend less. That always helps the bottom line.

 

Indeed. As a confirmed Kool Aid Level supporter, you're discredited.

 

....except for everything else.

 

We hear over and over from the Left that Obama "isn't a socialist", and that we who see socialistic trappings in everything the man does are just, uh, "uneducated and ignorant".

OK, I'm in an unusually inquisitive mood today... so if Obama isn't a socialist, just what is he, in your estimation? I do look forward to your reply, and, in the interest of being thread topic-centric, please tie your view of what Obama is to his recent dismal rating among these economists who rated him "Fair" to "Poor".

 

I agree as a general proposition that in the case of a particular company that fails, it should not be bailed out. However, where the problems arise not specific to a particular company's mismanagement but because of systematic or general economic conditions, a different analysis applies and intervention may be warranted to prevent the unnecessary destruction of otherwise sound industries and businesses.

 

A couple of my fellow Right-wingers criticize me for praising our honorable liberal adversary, Iriemon. Well, read his post above if nothing else and you will see why! Unlike some on the Left who post here with little more than self-glorification, dogma, spittle, and spew, Iriemon buttresses his arguments with facts, presented with unveiled, straightforward intent.

I cannot help but respect and admire a worthy adversary of Iriemon's calibre, even though we disagree on so much. Truly, Obamanite socialists do not deserve the stalwart loyalty of this man, and those like him. You on the Left who have such lofty opinions of yourselves would do well to examine the mentality, reasoning, and tactics of this interesting, thought-provoking man. Who knows? Maybe some of you others could be formidable, too....

Now, back to the trenches, to our seemingly endless trench warfare. Will we Americans ever be united again? When you on the Left are led by more people like Iriemon and fewer like Obama there will a greater possibility.

 

....and enlightened leftwads ALWAYS know which unions and green industries to support and which secured bondholders to screw over.

 

Note that I am not defending Bush's spending or war fighting (our that of congress by the way), but one can see even by your own graph you are absolutely wrong.

The current debt is 15+ Trillion, as of December 2011, only 3 years into Obama's presidency. Your graph was apparently made a year or so ago, when Obama had already spent more in 2 years than Bush did in 8! Literally, factually, "Obama" spends more than twice as readily (though we all should admit that this can't be pinned directly on the White House, it is just as much a congressional issue).

 

Obama inherited a bad economy, a government overspending on military and wars, and an American public that is increasingly unhealthy and cannot take care of themselves.

Let's not blame our current circumstances on him. Not to say he is some fantastic president, or that I would consider saying "go Obama" but the job he took on was terrible. The real estate bubble was at its peak and about to pop, and wall street was out of control risk wise and imploding. The economy had no chance with or without Obama taking the reins.

Our nation needs a turn around in responsibility by the public as well as the government. We need to focus as a whole on what we can do to help our country and its citizens.

My #1 suggestion is - let's all get healthy. Let's focus on eating right, portion control, and avoiding all of the health implications of being overweight. Let's help our kids do the same and grow up healthy so they do not also become a burden on our economy.

 

Thank you. There are few that have the objectivity, courtesy and confidence to acknowledge anything positive about something that dervices from someone with different of opposing views, and kudos for it.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that too many (and I include those on both sides of the isle) approach political issues wholly based on brand allegiance.

You remind us (and and that includes me), that regardless of our predisposed beliefs, we would all benefit by discussing these issues based upon facts and rational discussion, as opposed to approaching it as if we were cheering for our favorite team and a football game.

 

I agree that that the decisions of when and how to intervene are often not easy or clear cut.

 

Full on, Constitutionally protected individual and economic liberty

Removing... with extreme prejudice...absurdly expensive, invasive, social and economic engineering, tax and spend, "benevolent" central planner boots off the purportedly "free" necks of the productive taxpayer class, would be a step in the right direction to getting the economy going again....

Reapplying...with extreme prejudice.... consequences for irresponsible individual behavior instead of systemically subsidizing and expanding it, would be a step in the right direction to getting the economy going again...

Eliminating...with extreme prejudice...the money, and the incestuous relationships between big business protectionism and corrupt law makers, would be a step in the right direction to getting the economy going again...

Slashing...with extreme prejudice...the outrageous, ever expanding budgets and authority of federal/state/local government agencies, would be a step in the right direction to getting the economy going again....

Exterminating...with extreme prejudice...criminal, free market manipulating, public sector unions, would be a step in the right direction to getting the economy going again...

There are many, many more....and all include shrinking the expense, scope, authority, and corruption of those who we've permitted to assume the role of lording over us instead of working for us....


but the most important of all would be to...

never...

ever...

let anyone who has ever, in any capacity, aligned themselves with the modern Democrat Party...

or who has ever once claimed allegiance to "progressive" or "humanist" world views...
or who has ever once used the words "collective good", "social democracy", "public good", "redistribute", "fairness", "increase", "raise", or "victims" in a stump speech...
or who has ever once uttered the words "compassionate conservatism"....

anywhere near a position of national political import...

 

Three years. Where's the beef? WTF has Obama done to lead us toward responsibility?

I can list many acts that engender LESS responsibility. SNAP expands. Mortgage refiguring. UAW bailed out. Cash 4 clunkers. 99 weeks UI, &c.

How about you list a few than engender more.

 

The only thing that has ever worked for the public good or is ever likely to is managed-capitalism, a world in which markets and private ownership and ingenuity are encouarged up to the point of their inevitable failures. The asinine disciples of laissez-faire free-market economics seem not to realize that what they believe in is an antiquated and discredited fundie extremist version of economics that has no favorable history whatsoever to commend itself. Too much of this stuff is toxic. It's a plain and painful lesson already many times learned, but one which know-nothings somehow manage not to recognize at all.

The model has long existed and the priority now -- after 30 years of abysmally failed deregulation and wanton disregard for plain economic sense -- is to take measured steps back toward that model. We cannot survive with federal taxes at 15% of GDP. We cannot survive with a profit-driven, fee-for-service health care system. We cannot survive on the basis of some space-cadet belief that financial markets are wise enough to regulate themselves or that other markets will not similarly act to the detriment of society by wantonly seeking to internalize profits and externalize costs.

I do not meanwhile advocate suicide for conservatives, merely education sufficient to break the bonds of ignorance you so eloquently speak of.

Yes, greed, failure, collapse, policies that produce widespread pain and suffering. We should probably stick simple stupidity in there somewhere too since it seems so often to rear its ugly head.

I am forced by the continuing deluge of zombie-lies and otherwise totally untrue or incorrect posts put up by right-wingers to be about the business of education 24/7 when venturing into these parts. The degrees of utter ignorance over even mundane and commonplace matters are truly quite astounding. And how do these react to being preseneted with actual fact and history? Why, they resent being corrected. Many will resort to any measure to protect and defend their continued residence in a fact-free, demon-haunted world of manufactured myth and superstititon.

As for paying for things, here's a clue. The Great Bush Recession has of course knocked all sorts of numbers out of kilter, so these data are from 2007...

In these countries, the government spent at least 50% of GDP:
France, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Malta, Qatar, Kuwait, Belgium, Norway, Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Finland, Portugal, United Kingdom.

In these countries, the government spent 40-50% of GDP:
Germany, Canada, Spain, New Zealand, Israel, Australia, Ireland, Saudi Arabia.

In these countries, the government spent 30-40% of GDP:
Switzerland, Luxembourg, South Africa, Japan, United Arab Emirates

In these countries, the government spent 20-30% of GDP:
India, Russia, China, Poland

In this country, the government spent less than 20% of GDP:
United States of America

No clue as to what exchange you speak of. I recall using actual DJIA data and analyses somewhere in or about that time frame to obliterate completely the cherry-picked and other deliberately dishonest claims made by DA60 in trying to assert a non-effectiveness of New Deal policiies. If you had some other instance in mind, it plainly left a far greater impression on you than it did on me.

 

Actual federal outlays:

FY2001-FY2008: $19.2 trillion
FY2009-FY2010: $ 6.9 trillion

And this is doing Bush the favor of counting Clinton's final budget for him and not counting his own final budget against him.

No, that's wrong. Obama has in fact cut the rate of growth in non-emergency federal spending more than in half from what it was during the pre-recession Bush years. What right-wing propgandists interested only in ginning up more partisan outrage will point you to of course is emergency spending that exists only because the Great Bush Recession did.

 

Lol... you should REALLY try and at least to a quick check before you introduce yet another argument FOR THE OPPOSING SIDE...



Thanks!

 

Hilarious... that's a good word.

 

Where did you get that information?

It boggles my mind how many people says things like this with such affirmation when they are so totally wrong.

The only thing I can thing of that explains the phenonemon is that many get their entire source of information from right wing propaganda sources which so often fabricate and distort information, and folks just gullibly believe whatever they hear or see.

 

I can only repeat Iriemon's post following your's.... a "fairly mild" recession?

Holy (*)(*)(*)(*). It's no wonder that George Bush was able to get re-elected.

 

Ok Add a Trillion and half ... what's you're POINT Sport?

Remember, there's still another Bush War going on.

 

I suppose everyone think that what happens in their "universe" (fairly common human condition) is bigger then anything else that has happen in history but historically speaking the 07-08 was nothing more then a mild/average recession after 30 plus years of fairly good times. If you an others want to think otherwise be my guest but the facts are facts, 7.6 unemployment rate historically for recessions/depressions is mild. In the early 80's Reagen inherited 10% plus unemployment, now spin that anyway you care but those pesky facts are hard to overcome in any serious discussion.

Yet once again, President Obama is gonna have a problem with attempting to blame Bush while running for his second term, at least IMHO. Bush is actually going up in favorablility polls as did Reagen and the left minded people have serious problems but the fact is, most of Bush's years we seen 5% unemployment which is for all considerations zero unemployment.