• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will the Economy Recover Under 4 More Years of Obama?

Will the Economy Recover Under 4 More Years of Obama?

  • Total voters
    67
Neomalthusian said:
Why is it the case that he had little to do with it? Because he was a puppet who was only doing as he was instructed? And it would have happened just the same under Gore too?

Click to expand...


The financial crisis was the result of a great variety of complicated factors, very few of which are directly attributable to President Bush. The preeminent economists throughout the world haven't even come to a consensus on the underlying causes or how large of a role they played.

But, no doubt, you are much smarter then they, have seen through all the complexity, and have been able to trace the precise cause directly to a speech made by Bush in 2002. :roll:

Yours is a perfect example of what I'm talking about - people mistakenly attribute far too much influence on the economy to the President.
 
dyanaprajna2011 said:
Why is that when a Democrat is president, anything good that happens is in spite of him, but anything bad is his fault? On the other hand, if a Republican is president, he's praised for anything good that happens, and anything bad that happens, well, it was through no fault of his own? Seems like a double standard to me, but maybe that's just because I've been brainwashed by the socialist left-wing propaganda machine.
Click to expand...

Clinton and his policies are often (mistakenly) cited as the cause of the economy's health during his presidency.
 
the_recruit said:
The financial crisis was the result of a great variety of complicated factors, very few of which are directly attributable to President Bush. The preeminent economists throughout the world haven't even come to a consensus on the underlying causes or how large of a role they played.

But, no doubt, you are much smarter then they, have seen through all the complexity, and have been able to trace the precise cause directly to a speech made by Bush in 2002. :roll:

Yours is a perfect example of what I'm talking about - people mistakenly attribute far too much influence on the economy to the President.
Click to expand...

You're attributing an argument to me that I did not make. I am not attributing the housing bust to Bush. I acknowledge the myriad contributors to it. I was only asking you to support your statement that it had so little to do with Bush. At the very least, he was a cheerleading on the sidelines, obviously publicly advocating for trading in the stock bust for the housing bubble. Whether his role went beyond cheerleading is something I leave open for further discussion.
 
dyanaprajna2011 said:
People think that just because Obama didn't fix the economy in his first term, that he's not capable of doing so.
Click to expand...
Other people think he did nothing to help the economy, and in some ways he made it worse. I'm one of those people.

There's no silver lining with this guy, and you're drinking kool-aid if you think otherwise.
 
Dooble said:
Other people think he did nothing to help the economy, and in some ways he made it worse. I'm one of those people.

There's no silver lining with this guy, and you're drinking kool-aid if you think otherwise.
Click to expand...

All I'll say to that is, we'll see.
 
It depends. At this rate we are outpacing the Feds predictions by a year. The federal reserve protected by 2018 that unployment would be somewhere below 5%, however they were using all available data at the time. This did not include Obamas plans to reinvigorate small business, business brought back to America with incentives or manufacturing industry plans Obama had talked about. I think conservatively, by 2016 federal unemployment will be at 6% but real will be at 9%.

Edit: Id like to add that since Obama has been in office despite several jobs being made since his presidency there has only been 250,000 total more made since October 2008 and many are still making less than they did before. This is the case for several nations right now including Canada and the UK. Countries such as Germany, Japan, and China have very low unemployment a direct result of incredible education and science investments along with strong work ethic on their people's part despite Germany and Japan being far more
liberal than any of these other countries including our own.
 
Last edited:
dyanaprajna2011 said:
All I'll say to that is, we'll see.
Click to expand...
We've already seen. It's called track record. Obama's shown nothing that proves he needs four more years to fix the economy.
 
Dooble said:
We've already seen. It's called track record. Obama's shown nothing that proves he needs four more years to fix the economy.
Click to expand...

Except the fact that the damage Bush did is going to take more than four years to fix. Apparently, there are people who either seem to not realize just how much damage Bush did to the economy, or think that what he did wasn't that bad.

Maybe an analogy would help. A lamp is made in a factory, and it doesn't take that long to do. But if you break it, trying to put the pieces back together will take much longer than it did to originally make it in the first place. Now take something a bit more abstract, like our economy, and you'd have to multiply that many times over.
 
America suffers from problems that can not be dealt with by a President, they must be dealt with by the people.

We are no longer a White Christian nation. Manufacturing is automated or we can't be competitive. Our politicians are, for the most part, stupid and dishonest or cunning and selfish.

There won't be enough jobs for everyone. Our immigrants will provide low cost labor. Our middle class will provide educated ones to oversee the technology that produces our products. The rich will always be rich. The poorly educated former blue-collar workers will become increasingly dependent on the governments to provide basic necessities.

There is and always will be opportunities. The range will be narrower. The Mom & Pop operations will be absorbed by the Walmarts. However, there are still many areas in which individuals can succeed, from writing apps to the sex industry.

Hopefully, more people will recognize this and the bitter divide between left and right will narrow.
 
dyanaprajna2011 said:
Except the fact that the damage Bush did is going to take more than four years to fix.
Click to expand...
That still doesn't exonerate the President from his spending sprees and total lack of action. Tear yourself from George Bush for just a few moments and tell me what Barack Obama has done to fix this economy.

Did he "repair the lamp" so to speak, or did he just sweep the remnants under the rug and go spend more money on family vacations?
 
Last edited:
Dooble said:
That still doesn't exonerate the President from his spending sprees and total lack of action. Tear yourself from George Bush for just a few moments and tell me what Barack Obama has done to fix this economy.

Did he "repair the lamp" so to speak, or did he just sweep the remnants under the rug and go spend more money on family vacations?
Click to expand...

I think the fact that recent stats show the economy and jobs on an upswing, and you'll have your answer. He's working on the lamp, but it just takes time.
 
dyanaprajna2011 said:
I think the fact that recent stats show the economy and jobs on an upswing,
Click to expand...
Can you get me the links to those stats? I want to be sure we're both on the same page.
 
I really don't know for sure. Most "experts" i hear about say for a situation like this to recover it takes 10 years. So far if we want to be far Obama has had 2. ANother 4 would make 6 that means the real burden will be on whoever comes next.
 
Either way the economy will bounce back.
 
it will probably improve, but the basic problems remain somewhat outside the scope of government to fix in the short term. specifically, at our current point in history, we are in the late transition from national economy to global economy. additionally, technology is moving us closer and closer to a post-labor economy. finally, we're in sight of a time when the entire global energy model will change.

summary : I think regardless of the winner, the president elect is set to preside over four years of at least modest growth. however, our long term labor issues remain.
 
Neomalthusian said:
You're attributing an argument to me that I did not make. I am not attributing the housing bust to Bush.
Click to expand...

Well, my mistake then. But it certainly looked like that's exactly what were arguing - by challenging my statement that it didn't have much to do with Bush and then posting a speech by Bush promoting and speaking of measures that would promote home ownership. It seemed like you were taking one of the two most common narratives - that government intervention falsely inflated the market and caused the bubble. But I'm glad to see you are not in fact taking that stance, and you acknowledge that it was only but one of many factors, and that Bush himself actually played little role in the legislation that promoted such home ownership.

Neomalthusian said:
I acknowledge the myriad contributors to it. I was only asking you to support your statement that it had so little to do with Bush.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow you. You acknowledge there were a myriad of factors. You want me to show you how they are not all traceable to Bush? That's very easy.

Take for example, the derivatives market. Many private financial institutions did a woeful job of adequately controlling their credit risk (even from a purely selfish, self-preservation standpoint), to the extent that Greenspan was famously quoted as being "shocked" to discover.

Neomalthusian said:
At the very least, he was a cheerleading on the sidelines, obviously publicly advocating for trading in the stock bust for the housing bubble. Whether his role went beyond cheerleading is something I leave open for further discussion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the "cheerleading" analogy is probably the best descriptor of the kind of influence the President has. In other words - not very much.

But nobody wants to hear that and no candidate is stupid enough to run on a campaign of "I can't do anything about the economy - vote for me!"
 
Gipper said:
I will. However, I will say that the economic boom of the 90s didn't happen because of Clinton, but in spite of him. I think the record levels of prosperity could've actually been higher.

I also will say that Obama didn't have direct impact on the fumbling economy, but his standoff with corporate America forced them to hold on to liquidity, jobs, and their treasury positions. That most certainly had a direct impact on America's economy.
Click to expand...

No offense intended, Gip, but I gotta say I would've pegged you as a Clinton fan - what with him being a shmoozy womanizer and all. :lol:
 
I personally don't think Obama and his staff are smart enough to recognize the intelligent plans intelligent people make to fix the economy. They will continue party doctrine despite the warnings saying: This is just a rough patch. we'll get there. And no, intelligent people aren't the libertarians or the republicans. I am talking about non-partisan people who actually studies economics, have the skills and the knowledge to make good calls on things regardless without regard of political affiliation. They just don't get any time of day on the news because who cares about that.
 
The economy is growing slowly. However, this global economic meltdown is certainly out of Obama's control, and since the USA does not live in an economic vacuum, the economic crisis in Europe would continue to affect the US no matter who is president.

And yes, I'm going to say it. Obama is playing the hand he was dealt, one which included record deficits and two decades-long wars that were not of his making, and taking office at a time that the entire world was teetering on the edge of a global recession. So let's all look at the big picture here, okay? :lol:
 
digsbe said:
Obama has had 4 years to fix the economy and so far it seems no better than when he came into office. Do you think after his next term that we will see full economic recovery and growth?
Click to expand...


The Great Depression lasted over a decade and took a World War to pull us out of it.

I think the economy was broken before Obama got elected and will take longer to actually hit bottom before it can rebound. All of those bailouts and TARP funds were temporary fixes of a much bigger problem. We fueled that last 2 decades of growth with credit that has finally run out. The gov debt is even a result of the flawed premise that credit can continue endlessly without repayment. It don't work that way and never will. Once the dust settles in another 5-8 years we'll see how far we've progressed and what kind of global transformation and evolution we're going through.
 
the_recruit said:
No offense intended, Gip, but I gotta say I would've pegged you as a Clinton fan - what with him being a shmoozy womanizer and all.
Click to expand...

I am a Clinton fan. I thought he was a great president. He didn't walk on water, though.
 
DiAnna said:
The economy is growing slowly. However, this global economic meltdown is certainly out of Obama's control, and since the USA does not live in an economic vacuum, the economic crisis in Europe would continue to affect the US no matter who is president.
Click to expand...

Bush dealt with 9/11, a collapse of the stock market, subprime/real estate bubbles bursting, and widespread bailouts. His 8 year debt makes Obama's 4 year debt look like lunch money.

And yes, I'm going to say it. Obama is playing the hand he was dealt, one which included record deficits and two decades-long wars that were not of his making, and taking office at a time that the entire world was teetering on the edge of a global recession. So let's all look at the big picture here, okay?
Click to expand...

So his answer to "record deficits" is...breaking the record? Is this an example of "to heal you, I have to hurt you first"? The wars were costly, but Obamacare will make Iraq and Afghanistan look like a drop in the bucket.

The changes he made from Bush's administration were the things that Bush did great...and the things Bush screwed up on were the ones he kept. Doubleplusungood.
 
Doubt if the economy is going to recover unless a compromise is reached.

Obama has invited congressional leaders to the White House on Friday to discuss the issue, with only 50 days left until the end of the year. Unless Congress acts first, $600 billion in tax hikes and automatic federal spending cuts would take effect at the end of December, with a potentially devastating impact on the economy.

The Obama administration and congressional leaders are attempting to negotiate a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff, and instead work toward a deficit-reduction package in the next session of Congress that begins in January
Click to expand...

Republicans say deal can be done on U.S. fiscal cliff | Reuters
 
digsbe said:
Obama has had 4 years to fix the economy and so far it seems no better than when he came into office. Do you think after his next term that we will see full economic recovery and growth?
Click to expand...

I answered yes based on the poll question "Will the Economy Recover Under 4 More Years of Obama?"
it has already recovered and is not going down overall, this recovery as been slow and in little snips. Many money/economy men say it will take 10 years.

now on to what you asked above, "Do you think after his next term that we will see full economic recovery and growth?"

FULL recovery? no thats doubtful. I gotta go with the money/economy guys again with their ten year mark. Not to mention since the planet is basically in rescission theres other factors but we are recovering faster than the rest.

as for growth, we will see some more growth just like we already have.

I think its impossible to see a full recovery or even large recovery in the next four years no matter who was in office, I think its silly for anybody to think different also. Unless theres some unforeseen global failure or unforeseen economy boom (new tech or something) will will be on a slow course with improvement happening along the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom