• 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

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,627
Reaction score
14,970
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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?
 
I'll tell you in 4 years.
 
I'll tell you in 4 years.

Fair enough, although my poll is supposed to be more of a prediction of what people think.
 
That depends on a lot of factors & Obama aint all of them
 
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?

I'm not at all sure, but I can confidently predict that if it doesn't he'll get all the credit, and if it does, he'll get none.
 
probably. but it would recover a lot quicker if the house would stop blocking everything. this recovery has been slow and painful because of gridlocking.

also: the economy is on much better footing than it was when obama took office:
29993785.jpg
sorry to use this picture again but since the figures keep being ignored they need to be presented again.
 
I'm not at all sure, but I can confidently predict that if it doesn't he'll get all the credit, and if it does, he'll get none.

It is still the Bush economy if it does not improve, otherwise it is the Obama economy, saved by transfering lots of borrowed money to unions, green energy wishes and blue state/city gov'ts. Yes he did!
 
Fair enough, although my poll is supposed to be more of a prediction of what people think.

Honestly it's hard to tell. Most people didn't anticipate the 2008 crisis.

But realistically, how do you fix something in 4 years (or even 8 years) that took decades to create?
 
Honestly it's hard to tell. Most people didn't anticipate the 2008 crisis.

But realistically, how do you fix something in 4 years (or even 8 years) that took decades to create?

you give the rich tax breaks, they'll fix the economy. actually they should pay negative taxes. we should pay them to live here.
 
People think that just because Obama didn't fix the economy in his first term, that he's not capable of doing so. But these people are forgetting a few things: Bush severely crippled our economy, and it's going to take alot of time and work to fix it, time and work that Obama might have actually been able to better start in his first term, if Republicans didn't do everything in their power to stonewall him from getting anything accomplished. But, things have actually improved, if only by a tiny amount. Provided he doesn't get the same from Republicans in his second term, I think he can get things fixed, or at least make things better. Like it's been pointed out, he's not the only one involved. He has to work with Congress on how to fix the mess we're in, and let's hope Republicans learn to at least compromise, instead of the playing the BS partisan game they did his first term.
 
People think that just because Obama didn't fix the economy in his first term, that he's not capable of doing so. But these people are forgetting a few things: Bush severely crippled our economy, and it's going to take alot of time and work to fix it, time and work that Obama might have actually been able to better start in his first term, if Republicans didn't do everything in their power to stonewall him from getting anything accomplished. But, things have actually improved, if only by a tiny amount. Provided he doesn't get the same from Republicans in his second term, I think he can get things fixed, or at least make things better. Like it's been pointed out, he's not the only one involved. He has to work with Congress on how to fix the mess we're in, and let's hope Republicans learn to at least compromise, instead of the playing the BS partisan game they did his first term.

i liked your post until the bolded part. you should know that will not happen until the next election at the earliest.
 
It'll go up in 2013 and the beginning of 2014, at which time it'll plummet when the private sector tells Obama to go fist himself...harder.
 
probably. but it would recover a lot quicker if the house would stop blocking everything. this recovery has been slow and painful because of gridlocking.

also: the economy is on much better footing than it was when obama took office:
View attachment 67137796
sorry to use this picture again but since the figures keep being ignored they need to be presented again.

Nice picture but clever dividing into presidential "terms" makes the Obama spending look much smaller than it was, since the single TARP huge spending year then became the federal spending "baseline". Also budgets (spending authorizations) are actually passed by congress not the president, who can only sign them or veto them.

See this: Federal Spending by the Numbers - 2012
 
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?

The economy is like an aircraft carrier. It takes a while to turn around. Business is its engine. As long as business has confidence in leadership, tax and other regulations, it will power the ship. Right now, there's no such confidence. I'd say it's going to be a long journey, but ultimately the economy will prevail and the carrier will complete the turn.
 
you give the rich tax breaks, they'll fix the economy. actually they should pay negative taxes. we should pay them to live here.

Those aren't the people who are really suffering though.

We'd essentially be rewarding the very people who got us into this mess.
 
MaggieD said:
The economy is like an aircraft carrier. It takes a while to turn around. Business is its engine. As long as business has confidence in leadership, tax and other regulations, it will power the ship. Right now, there's no such confidence. I'd say it's going to be a long journey, but ultimately the economy will prevail and the carrier will complete the turn.

Actually, it kind of depends on the situation. If you use a presidential litmus test insofar as his policies, a proponent of deregulation and contractionary monetary policy is more like an aircraft carrier, but an incredibly "hands-on" president who likes to tighten screws and throw money at the problem is closer to a submarine. My argument is that, from what I've seen, the aircraft carrier will turn the right way, whereas the submarine will turn the wrong one.
 
I think 4 years is not long enough for the economy too make a full recovery and the more i learn about politics the more i learn that Obama is not that great of an economic president, but hes better then Romney imo
 
Obama has had 4 years to fix the economy and so far it seems no better than when he came into office.

What do you mean "fix the economy?" We've had 20 years of roller coaster economics because of the stock and housing bubbles. What would really demonstrate that the economy is "fixed?" We haven't started cannibalizing one another. There aren't bands of marauders roaming the countryside. We have stability, at least compared to that scenario. Is the stabilization a "fix?" What WOULD be a fix? Finding another bubble to inflate?

I chose "Other" because I don't see the POTUS' role as "fixing the economy."
 
The economy is like an aircraft carrier. It takes a while to turn around. Business is its engine. As long as business has confidence in leadership, tax and other regulations, it will power the ship. Right now, there's no such confidence. I'd say it's going to be a long journey, but ultimately the economy will prevail and the carrier will complete the turn.

i hope not, otherwise the chinese will tag it with their new magical-harry-potter invislble ballistic missile with super stealth generation 8 epicness antimatter warhead.
 
The economy is like an aircraft carrier. It takes a while to turn around. Business is its engine. As long as business has confidence in leadership, tax and other regulations, it will power the ship. Right now, there's no such confidence. I'd say it's going to be a long journey, but ultimately the economy will prevail and the carrier will complete the turn.

Business does power it to a certain degree, but it does not add capacity, or more jobs unless they believe consumer demand exists to require the added capacity and new jobs. Given the still high debt loads of much of the US middle class and the number of people un/under employed, the consumer demand does not exist to justify business invesment in added capacity or create jobs.

This has very little to do with the government, the only thing Obama could do to change this situation is to force the banks to write off or down significant amounts of consumer debt. Which means the US economy will remain sluggish untill the consumer returns to a level in which consumption requires added capacity. This will take years, unless the wealthy decide to ramp up personal consumption levels. Then they will become true job creators
 
Yes. But not because of anything Obama has done. People believe the president has FAR more control over the economy than he actually does. Clinton had very little to do with the economic high during his tenure. Bush had very little to do with the economic crash at the end of his. And Obama has had very little to do with the slow recovery.

Of course, no candidate would ever admit that. :lol:
 
Yes. But not because of anything Obama has done. People believe the president has FAR more control over the economy than he actually does. Clinton had very little to do with the economic high during his tenure. Bush had very little to do with the economic crash at the end of his.

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?

 
the_recruit said:
Yes. But not because of anything Obama has done. People believe the president has FAR more control over the economy than he actually does. Clinton had very little to do with the economic high during his tenure. Bush had very little to do with the economic crash at the end of his. And Obama has had very little to do with the slow recovery.

Of course, no candidate would ever admit that.

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.
 
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.
 
When the stock market booms despite a higher capital gains tax, it means that the government caught fire by an economy pushing through worse odds. Also, I'm not praising Bush, but saying that "it's Bush's fault" when stupid people were getting loans they couldn't pay back from stupid banks that never should've been giving it to them...is beyond ignorant.

Clinton was a very good president, but to think that he had a major hand in the prosperity is foolish. Conversely, throwing all or even most of the blame at Bush is the epitome of scapegoatism. However, people will believe what they believe.
 
Back
Top Bottom