wrong, get some help with comprehension, Obama did intervene in the economy and prolonged the problem. Leadership is lacking in the case of Obama non existent.Kushinator;1062108267]You are blaming Obama for not intervening in the economy enough while simultaneously claiming that intervention is wrong. Contradictory!
The private sector economy will correct itself and the time it takes to do so depends on the govt. actions and policies. Obama has prolonged the correction for the middle class American who is dependent on job creation from that private sector.Laissez faire and the theory regarding self correction is used to teach basic (textbook) economic concepts. There is not any empirical support for economies correcting themselves in a timely manner.
Your point? You think Obamonomics has been a success?The private sector has never been left alone.
You need to get your nose out of the textbook and get out into the real world seeing how Obamanomics has affected the individual. Your charts and graphs don't do that. You confuse profitability with economic growth and activity. Companies today have excess cash which doesn't mean strong economic or business growth. They aren't spending money to expand and grow nor should they until Obama is fired or leaves office.You don't know what you are talking about. Sure, liquidity prevents deflation in asset prices, but U.S. companies are more profitable than they have ever been. EVER!
Supply and demand is driving the market plus the influx of cash from the Fed as they buy toxic assets. Because of the huge influx of cash and low interest rates demand for a higher return is up and will remain up until it collapse under the weight of govt. intervention and high debtWhich shows the level of understanding you have in regards to the stock market. Equity prices are driven by profits! Companies are more profitable than before the financial crisis! Therefore, stock prices will likely be higher than they were prior to the recession.
Aw, yes, my perception of leadership vs. yours who has never led anything. Deleveraging the middle class is what Obama is doing by making them more dependent on the govt. That creates a dependent class which is good for liberals.It is not about your perception of leadership. It is about a continued deleveraging of the middle and lower classes.
Bush came into office with the dot.com bubble bursting and a recession then was hit with 9/11. In fiscal year 2013 the deficit is already up over 600 billion dollars. Some people claimed they would never forget 9/11 or its cost. Apparently you aren't in that groupOf course there were monthly surpluses during the Bush administration. He came into office with a balanced budget, therefore he likely presided over many monthly budget surpluses. It just so happens that the largest monthly budget deficit on record occurred in June of 2013 (under a democrat administration!).
Obama has done nothing to lower taxes, the tax rates are still low but economic growth is stagnant due to Obamanomics. You are paying the same tax rate today as you did when Bush implemented the tax cuts in 2001-2003. The average American isn't benefiting today because companies aren't hiring due to uncertainty and lack of leadershipTaxes are still near their historic lows. In fact, taxes have been lower during the Obama administration than they have been during any other administration since the Great Depression. This is simply a matter of fact.
800 billion over 10 years is 80 billion a year and does nothing for economic growth. The govt. doesn't need to spend money to stimulate the economy, they need to stop over regulating, stop interfering and simply get out of the way.How much? $80 billion in the span of 11 years? It needed to be something like $1 trillion a year for 5 years, as highlighted by the output gap i provided.
The private sector has no incentive to step up and grow as they have no idea what the cost of doing so would be under Obamanomics.The government could borrow, or better yet... the private sector can step up! Instead, they prefer record profits earned in a jobless recovery.
Your charts show a book smart individual out of touch with reality and human behavior.Weak strawman! I never stated that the charts provided are a relief to anyone. I do use data to support my positions, of which you continue to ignore.
No, tax cuts increase spendable income and economic activity. Normally tax cuts will increase demand for goods and services which could drive up prices.Not an opinion. Tax cuts lower prices, which is a no-no during periods of low inflation and/or deflation.
And Obama dealt with it poorly as the current economic numbers and poll numbers show.They never had to deal with the greatest amount of wealth loss and credit contraction and bank failures (Bear Stearns and Lehman survived the Great Depression!) since the GD.