Kushinator;1062108681]What is it? He is either not doing enough (intervention) or he is doing too much (intervention). It cannot be both!
If you ever managed anything or had any personal responsibility in dealing with actual people you might understand the concept of intervention. Has Obamanomics been a success?
That is contrary to the empirical evidence. Prior to active government intervention of the 20th and 21st centuries, recovery rates were similar to the one we are currently in. Of course much of that has to do with the frequency of financial crises prior to 1945. There was a financial panic (some times more than one) in every decade of the 19th century. After 1929, it's once every 80 years.
There you go again with the textbooks. This is 2013 and we have over 100 million Americans dependent on some form of taxpayer assistance including welfare. This is the society you and your ilk are creating. Maybe that is good for people like you who deal with numbers and academia but not real people in the real world.
Nothing that Obama did negates the vast amounts of federal expenditure or base money creation since 2009. Companies are not hiring because they can make record profits with dramatically less labor costs, which signals a demand problem. Only a boost in demand (this is a fact, not an opinion) can push top line growth to levels necessary for the type of expansion that incorporates strong job creation.
Obama was hired because he told Americans that he would solve the problems, he has failed and with failure in a private sector economy there are consequences, not so with a Federal Govt. Companies don't create demand, consumers do and you create demand by having more spendable income. Happens all the time. No business owner is going to expand with the uncertainties of Obamanomics
Depends on how you define success. I understand that without intervention, the financial sector would have collapsed. The next domino to fall was Goldman Sachs without the AIG bailout. After that, it's anybody's guess. Im happy that GDP is at $15 trillion and not $9 trillion. Therefore i view it as a success.
That is your opinion, some banks didn't want TARP, wonder why?
Now if you view success as massive job creation in the recovery, then of course you cannot view Obamaonomics as successful. I simply see massive job creation unrealistic; a position that can be supported by empirical evidence.
success is a strong growing economy built on the private sector not govt. spending. Strong job creation happens in a strong growing economy which this one isn't. It is be restricted by Obamanomics. If you ever invested your own money in a business you would understand why
False! My point rests in the fact that profitability does not necessary equate to strong hiring or expansion. The idea that companies should not expand until the end of Obama's term is partisan vitriol. It's about demand, silly!
Where did I say profitability equates to strong hiring? You really need to get some help understanding how the private sector works. Businesses aren't in business to hire people like you, they are in business to make a profit. To make that profit they need demand, demand created by the private consumer and that isn't going to happen with massive govt. expenditures. Of course it is about demand, what is Obama doing to stimulate demand? Obamacare? EPA regulations? higher taxes during slow economic growth? Income redistribution?
The Fed cannot purchase toxic assets. Aggregate demand will continue to operate at a shortfall until the middle and low consumer classes rebuild their balance sheets to previous levels. That my dear Conservative takes time! Especially true when more jobs were lost between 2007-2009 than in any other period in our countries history. You have even negated your own point hundreds of times! With less of a percentage of the population working, the positive economic impact of tax cuts diminish.
The Fed is purchasing Toxic Assets thus QE. Demand will never grow as long as consumer confidence remains low and the labor participation rate stays are record lows. Obama leadership is lacking and will never promote the private sector. That isn't his desire.
The returns in the most diversified equity indexes have been over 100% since the March lows. Housing prices (even though they've increased) did not move lockstep. Again (for the nth time), continued consumer deleveraging and balance sheet repair is a negative for short term growth.
You are easily swayed but a distorted view of personal spending habits and personal income levels. About half the country owns homes so how does higher real estate values affect the other half? How are the unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers affected by equity indexes? The guy you hired to fix the problem doesn't even understand the problem and is incompetent. Most book smart people are also incompetent when it comes to street issues.
You don't know anything about me. Therefore this is a pointless comment (logical fallacy in the form of ad hominem) .
You are right and I have no interest in actually knowing you, but I do know a lot of people like you, book smart and street stupid.
This is a partisan talking point that lacks substance. What, 40% of all homeowners are still underwater on their mortgages? That has nothing to do with Obama. What is deleveraging?
Cite your source that 40% of all home owners are under water and tell me what leadership Obama has shown on the issue?
So increasing the size and scope of government is only acceptable when you support it? The way he handled it led to a trillion dollar war that was unnecessary, lower taxes that were maximized at higher incomes, and the largest real estate bubble... ever! No wonder you hate Obama, you've lost faith in the presidency in 2008.
Never have I supported increasing the size and scope of govt. Looks like another reading comprehension problem. I don't hate Obama, but know Obama is in over his head lacking any understanding of the private sector and how it works. He and you have a lot in common with regard to that area.
Actually, $509,826,000 since October 1, 2012.
Don't see the surplus then that you said existed. only a true liberal takes a victory lap for what will be a deficit of around 800 billion or more dollars because it is a cut? Bush never had a 800 billion dollar deficit
Companies are not hiring because they don't need to! Their goal is to make profit, not hire employees. Profits are higher than they have ever been!
Great, so what is the govt. doing to create incentive and grow demand? We agree, the goal is to make a profit, the incentive to grow more will be there when there is incentive to create demand. People buy during a sale, why? Obama is an economic failure in understanding how to motivate people and how to increase demand.
After reviewing the data, only about $47 billion was allocated towards infrastructure.
Is that how the stimulus was sold? Seems I remember shovel ready jobs being mentioned over and over. Name for me one economic prediction Obama has made that has been accurate?
To a degree. There needs to be better regulation, not more regulation.
Ok, what is Obama doing to create better regulations rather than growing regulations? Why is the Keystone Pipeline not up to the states to decide? Why is coal being regulated by anyone other than the people of W. Va. Why should the NLRB try to block Boeing from opening a plant in Carolina? Why is it a bureaucrats responsibility to administer healthcare for individuals in 50 states?
That is complete bull****. There have literally been millions of dollars in consultancy purchases by corporations to model potential cost scenarios.
You don't get it, do you? Who picks up the spending when the govt. buck stops? Why is it your responsibility to pay for my states liabilities? Throwing money at the problem is all the govt. is good at, never solving a problem. The federal govt. continues to reward bad behavior and expects behavior to change. never going to happen
Instead of discussing the content of my post, you decide to discuss your perception of me? This is debatepolitics.com not debatewhatithinkofyou.com.
You are part of the problem because you are so out of touch with the real world and real people
Increasing spendable income does not necessarily mean it will increase economic activity. It depends on whether the new spendable income was spent (really, how much of it). Now, how do consumers deleverage?
Really? what do you do with more spendable income and how does that affect the economy? Whether it was spent, saved, invested, or used to pay down debt, it doesn't matter, all benefit the economy. A free market capitalist would understand how
We haven't lived in normal times since December 2007.
Yep, and Obama is doing nothing to return us to normal times. The economic numbers are a disaster and Obama is a failure. Accept that reality and you are on the way to a cure for your lack of understanding as to how the private sector economy works
Yep, backed by actual economic numbers and current poll numbers
