The Economic Case Against Obama

Re-election campaigns are referenda on the President’s previous term.

Here’s proof that his massive pork-laden “stimulus” was just a huge waste of money.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/a-...st-most-important-chart-in-american-politics/

Then, there’s this:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/LABORFORCEPARTSEPT.jpg

Four percent of 300 million people is twelve million people more not working.

This was spotted in Georgia over the weekend.

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/georgiagas.jpg

Life in the Obama Depression is tough for young people.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/an-awful-jobs-report-for-young-people/262097/

Steady 13% unemployment for 20-24 year-olds. Steady 20+% unemployment for younger people. Have we become Europe? I might remind the board that 16-24 are the crime-prone years.

Ain’t so good for seniors, either.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinio...29/seniors-obama-republicans-media/57410976/1

Old coots (if they have any sense) are hanging onto their jobs. They have to. Retirement as their parents knew it has gone the way of the typewriter.

The Obama Depression hits men especially hard.

http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2012/09/07/why-is-the-participation-rate-of-men-in-the-workforce-so-low/

 

Conservative economic policies like Trickle Down (tax cuts for the wealthy in belief of the fairy tale that such largess will eventually "trickle down" to the Middle Class) and deregulation (taking the cops off the beat) of investment banks caused the Great Recession. Obama did not clean up the mess left behind quickly enough. So the solution is to return to the catastrophe of the policies that made the mess in the first place?!?

To quote Bill Clinton (who handed off a budget surplus to George W. Bush) that takes a lot of brass!

 

There was never any budget surplus under Bill Clinton.

It didn't happen, it never existed. It was all smoke and mirrors.

And Obama knows this, which means he issued a bald-faced lie at the convention.

There was never any budget surplus under Bill Clinton.

You can go to treasury.gov for proof.

 

You mean the same Bill Clinton who passed Don't Ask, Don't Tell?
The same Clinton who repealed Wall Street bank reforms?
The same Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagall?
The same Clinton who largely put the pieces in place that caused the 2008 meltdown and the housing bubble?
The same Clinton who added $2,000,000,000,000 to the national debt?
The same Clinton who involved us in Somalia and Kosovo/Serbia?
The same Clinton who was impeached, only the second President to be impeached?
The same Clinton who lied to a federal grand jury?
The same Clinton who passed NAFTA?
The same Clinton who had a chance to nab Bin Laden, but chose instead to let him escape to Afghanistan?
The same Clinton who, in his 1998 State of the Union address, said, "Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire gulf war. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again"?

 

Proof fail.

It's been falling since 2001. So what?

Versus 15 million two and a half years ago. Better.

It was higher in 2008.

Why do you blame Obama for the Recession?

How does it compare to 2 1/2 years ago?

The recession has been tough on most. Why do you blame Obaaaaaaama for it?

 

Conservative revisitionist history. Clinton raised taxes and trimmed spending and was the most fiscally responsible president in the last 30 years if not 60, and left Bush with a surplus budget:

 

LOL, and conservatives claim Democrats blame Bush for everything.

It wasn't Clinton or the Dems who had power as the housing bubble blew up to absured levels and then started imploding.



It was this guy:

[video=youtube;QYvtvcBKgIQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYvtvcBKgIQ&feature=player_embedded[/video]

 

Yet it was Jimmy Carter who supported the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 to "encourage" banks to give loans to poor people.

 

Carter was president 30 years ago, before subprime mortgages were even a thought in some banker's imagination.

 

Reagan was President 30 years ago, yet Democrats seem to have no problem blaming him for problems today.



... I think people make mistakes though trying to lay blame on one party. Both parties have responsibility for the mess we're in. And one party, or one President, isn't going to bring us out of it. Both sides need to work together for that to happen, and that's certainly not happening right now. The politicians in D.C. aren't doing much to help the situation.

 

I blame Reagan for running up a big chunk of debt, but where did I blame Reagan for the conditions today?

 

Fair enough. And we see many now trying to lay blame on Obama. We need to vote out the ideolouges who won't compromise.

 

I didn't say you did.

Obama does deserve some blame. He took office with under 8% unemployment, four years later and its still above 8%. He took office promising to cut the deficit in half, instead each year he's been in office we've spent +$1,000,000,000,000 MORE than we've taken in, and he attacked Bush for $5 trillion in new debt over 8 years, while he has added $6 trillion in less than four years - MORE debt in HALF the time. That's not a record of success, or moving the country "Forward".

Obama's problem, why he should shoulder some of the blame for the mess we're in, is because he has followed a strategy of divide and conquer. Granted, during the election in 2008 he made all these wonderful promises about bringing Republicans and Democrats together, but as President he's said he doesn't want Republicans to do a lot of talking, that they have to sit in the back, that the TEA party is just a bunch of racists and hostage-takers, and he called on Hispanics to "punish our enemies" (Republicans). I don't know how he could run for office saying he's gonna bring the sides together, and then as President he refers to Republicans as his enemies.

Last, you talk about the "big chunk of debt" Reagan is responsible for...

Over 8 years, Reagan added about $1.7 trillion in debt. $980 billion in debt when he took office, $2.6 trillion when he left.
Over 4 years, Bush I added about $1.5 trillion. $2.6 trillion when he took office, $4.1 trillion when he left.
Over 8 years, Clinton added about $1.5 trillion. $4.1 trillion when he took office, $5.6 trillion when he left.
Over 8 years, Bush II added $5 trillion. $5.6 trillion when he took office, $10.6 trillion when he left.
Over 4 years, Obama added nearly $6 trillion. $10.6 trillion when he took office, over $16 trillion today.

None of these Presidents were particularly good when it comes to the national debt. Clinton just wasn't as bad. But he still added $1.5 trillion dollars. That's a lot of teachers, firefighters, and pediatricians.

 

I got it. You "think people make mistakes though trying to lay blame on one party. Both parties have responsibility for the mess we're in. And one party, or one President, isn't going to bring us out of it. Both sides need to work together for that to happen, and that's certainly not happening right now" but blame Obama.

Why are you blaming Obama for the Recession? Take out the first year of his presidency, when the Great Recession he inherited was raging, and he's done pretty well.

When Obama took office, the economy was tanking at a -9% real rate, losing 700,000+ jobs a month, unemployment was skyrocketing upward, and the stock markets were crashing in the worst recession in 80 years. The housing market was destroyed and the economy was headed straight for a depression.

But now the economy has been growing steadily for almost three straight years, the private sector has added more jobs every month for 30 months in a row, stock markets are up almost 100% from their recession lows, the unemployment rate has fallen from above 10% to 8.1%, and over 4.6 million additional private sector jobs have been added since Jan 2010.

And this despite an obstructionist Tea Party Republican party whose stated top priority is not to work with the president to improve the economy but get him out of office.

That's a pretty good record of sucess and moving forward in my book.

Partisan blaming. Obama tried to compromise with conservatives with hundreds of billions of tax cuts in the Stimulus package, and extending the Bush tax cuts, and offering cutting trillions in spending including SS and health care.

But you can't really compromise with a party that has sworn allegiance to Grove Norquist and whose stated top priority is not fixing the economy but getting Obama out of office.

Put it in proportion. Reagan increased the debt by 180% and increased it 20 percentage points relative to GDP, and he inherited a modest deficit and a booming economy. Obama inherited a deficit that was projected to be over one trillion before he took office and a train wreck. The greatest increase in the debt was in his first year in 2009 from the budget and recession he inherited, where it increase $1.9 trillion. It's been increasing slower since then, $1.2 trillion last year.

 

I never did that. To suggest I blamed Obama for the recession is a straw man argument. I said, specifically, that Obama bears SOME of the blame for our present unemployment (8.1%), unemployed Americans (23,000,000), Americans on food stamps (46,000,000, up from 32,000,000 when he took office), stagnant economic growth (about 1.7% GDP growth), and spiraling national debt (+$16,000,000,000,000).

Obama's done pretty well?

.... Has our country done pretty well?

See above. 8.1% unemployment, 23,000,000 unemployed Americans, etc. etc. etc.... You think that is pretty well? Or did I misunderstand you? Our country is in a lot of trouble right now. I never blamed Obama for all of it. I clearly said this is a mess that both parties have created, along with a lot of factors that neither party really has control over.

Also, its easy to make a President look good "If you take out X-year of their Presidency." Hey, George W. Bush looks good if you don't include 2008. Unemployment averaged about 5%, the deficit averaged about $400 billion... That's not bad, if you ignore the horrible 2008 numbers. However, its not as if 2008 was a horrible year, and 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 have been great. Those numbers, 8.1% unemployment, 23,000,000 unemployed Americans, those aren't 2008 numbers, or 2009 numbers, they are September 2012 numbers. That's today. Obama has had four years to work on this, and he hasn't improved things very much.

Hmm.... Yeah... "Things were very horrible when I took office, but now they're only fairly horrible!"

Not someone I'd want for four more years.

1.7% growth is stagnant, not "steadily." Unless you want to argue that sloooooow growth is "steady". But I'd say you are reading too much Huffington Post or ThinkProgress.

"Private sector has added more jobs..." We have 8.1% unemployment and 23,000,000 unemployed Americans, and Americans receiving food stamps has gone UP from 32,000,000 to 46,000,000. That is not improvement. In addition, the average time someone is out of work now is something like 36 months. That's unacceptable.

"stock markets are up." Great, the 1% is doing well. How is the 99% doing though? The middle class? The average American family has lost $4,000 of their annual income over the last four years. The middle class are struggling badly. The rich are doing fine, sure. I'll grant you that. I'm not concerned about the rich, however.

"unemployment rate has fallen from 10.1% to 8.1%." If I recall, Obama's administration said unemployment would never get above 8% with the stimulus. And they said by now unemployment would be down to 6%. Yet they were wrong about unemployment not getting above 8% - it got above 10%. And they were wrong about unemployment being 6% today; it's still above 8%. Its been above 8% for over 43 months. That's not a record of success, or a healthy turnaround.

"over 4.6 million additional jobs." No, the private sector lost something like 9,000,000 jobs over the last five years or whatever, and only 4.6 million of those jobs have returned. That is still a net loss of over 5 million jobs. The "recession" was supposed to have ended in July of 2009 I think, yet we're still knee deep in unemployment, deficits, debt, food stamps, welfare, etc. This President does NOT deserve a second term. He took office during a very bad economic time, I don't think anyone in their right mind would dispute that, he's not God and he can't work wonders, granted, but the economy is still way too bad, its not improving fast enough, we're in the slowest economic recovery since the Great Depression (in fact Obama's policies look a lot like Hoover and FDR's failed policies).... This is not a President who deserves re-election. Its time we get someone else in there.

Newsflash, every opposition party is to defeat the incumbent President and get him out of office. Dems wanted Eisenhower out of office, Reps wanted JFK and LBJ out of office, Dems wanted Nixon and Ford out of office, Reps wanted Carter out of office, Dems wanted Reagan and Bush out of office, Reps wanted Clinton out of office, Dems wanted Bush out of office, and Reps now want Obama out of office. And hey, guess what, if Mitt Romney gets elected, Democrats will oppose his agenda and try to get HIM out of office too!

Okay, if you want to argue that 8.1% unemployment, 46,000,000 Americans on food stamps, 23 million unemployed Americans, four straight +$1 trillion deficits, and $6 trillion added to the national debt, if you want to argue that is "a pretty good record" and that these things are "moving [the country] forward" in your book, then.... okay.... .... Maybe you are reading your book upside down???

 

You are citing stats largely based upon the consequences of the recession Obama inherited. You blame him for unemployment going up 0.3% when in fact it was skyrocketing upwards when he took office because of the recession. The number hit 10% in 2009 (and could have been a lot higher). You are counting the 3-4 million jobs lost during the first few months in office becasue of the recession he inherited. You are counting the $1.9 trillion borrowed because of the recession he inherited.

So again, why are you blaming Obama for the recession?

Sure.

Compared to how it was doing in Jan 2009? It's doing great.

No, I think that 8.1% unemployment is pretty good compared to 10% unemployment. Don't you?

23 million Americans are not unemployed. You've allowed yourself to be deceived by the right wing propaganda.

12.5 million Americans are not employed.

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

It was 15.4 million unemployed in 2009.

I think 12.5 million unemployed is pretty good compared to 15.4 million unemployed, don't you?

George Bush did not inherit 2008 from someone else.

Again, the 23 million isn't any year's number. It's disinformation from the right wing propaganda you've been fooled by.

Personally, I'd much prefer "fairly horrible" but improving to "very horrible."

No, stagnant would be -0-%.

I mean the 1.7% is not great, I agree. That has been the average annual real growth since the Bush tax cuts were passed in 2001.

Not stagnant, but I think we agree, that is not great.

Again, you've been mislead.

You prefer the stock markets being down 45% like when the last Republican president left office?

I'll pass on that choice.

You recall false conservative propaganda. Obama or his administration never said that.

You really should consider getting your information from a more reliable source. It is obvious your conclusions come from a number of erroneous beliefs.

I don't recall anyone saying any such thing. Please provide a link to the quote of someone saying this.

Again, you are blaming Obama for the recessin.

I disagree. Since Jan 2010, 4.6 million new private sector jobs have been created, there are almost 3 million less employed, and the unemployment rate has dropped from over 10% to 8.1%.

I agree things were really bad in 2009. When you count that, you're just blaming Obama for the recession he inherited.

But they didn't deliberately undermine the economy to do it.

That was the last Republican president. I'm just not believing deceptive conservative propaganda.

 

Trickle-down is not about 'largesse' it is about the natural tendency for the so-called 'rich' to create work not only by expanding their businesses but also spending their revenue for goods and services which creates a need and thus jobs. The so-called 'poor' cannot adequately do this, even if given government 'largesse'....There is no such thing as trickle-up. It can't happen.

When government punishes the top-earners they will naturally flee for shelter and their money will turn to intrinsic items such as gold and gems.

 

The poor and middle class spend most their income. The 1% spend less than half. When we funnel more money to the 1%, it doesn't trickle down. It trickles into offshore accounts were it doesn't do a lot of good.

When the middle class and poor get money they spend most of it. That creates demand for products and services, which creates more production, which creates more jobs. Which in turn creates more profits. It very much trickles up.

 

So for decades consevatives have been telling us to give these guys big tax cuts the Govt has borrowed trillions to fund so they can take the money and flee for shelter and their money will turn to intrinsic items such as gold and gems?

That was a great (*)(*)(*)(*)ing plan.

 

President Obama is running on President Bush's economic record, instead of health care reform, he could have focused on creating jobs but he didn't.

So yes, President Obama's record on job creation, is horrible.

 

What would have happened differently had he focused on creating jobs, and how in your opinion should he have creatd them?

4.6 million private sector jobs in about 30 months isn't bad. The last Republican president's record over 8 years is -650,000. That's pretty horrible. Tax cuts and all.

 

Its ridiculous to attempt to defend President Obama on job creation, when he had the full support of Congress his first 2 years, with a democratic majority. He could have done many things with that power, to create jobs, instead he used that opportunity to pass the beginning of a socialist universal health care bill

Secondly, those private sector jobs were created despite the President, Big Business took those risks to create those jobs in an anti business environment, filled with regulations and higher taxes on business.

So, instead of the President working with Republicans, and the chamber of commerce, he decided to go his own way.

 

Again, what would have happened differently had he focused on creating jobs, and how in your opinion should he have created them?

The fact that he against all odds passed the historic health care reform law that will provide coverage for tens of millions of Americans and a host of other benefits isn't an argument about what your claim that he should have "created jobs".

What higher taxes on businesses? What about the tax cuts?

He's president. Republcians should work with him. Not have as their top priority undermining the economy to get him out of office.

 

Obama is running on Bill Clinton's record against George W. Bush's record.

 

Despite the predictions of conservatives about Clinton's big tax increase, if Obama had Clinton's record this election wouldn't be a contest.