Has Obama really helped to improve the economy?

[SniperFire]

to pay down the debt you don't cut taxes

Economics is clearly not your long suit.

How's that hopey changey thingy workin out for ya?

Then explain to us in detail how you think cutting taxes at this point will pay down the debt.

Not very bright. Read my post on this.

 

[billyerock1991]

Four years ago the market was on its way down. It was heading for a low of 8000. Today the market is around 13,000. That is a huge increase.

Four years ago we were in TWO wars. We are out of one war and plans have been made to get us out of the other. The parade of coffins is almost over.

Four years ago we were losing jobs in this country by the hundreds of thousands. That has been stopped and we are gaining back jobs.

Four years ago virtually every economist (left and right) was predicting a massive depression that would rival the 30's. The depression was avoided and we are out of the recession. All the economic indicators are pretty much pointing up.

Four years ago bin Laden was still alive and al Qaida was still a force to reckon with. Today bin Laden is dead along with 20 to 30 al Qaida leaders who have met untimely deaths.

Are we better off today than we were four years ago?
DAMN STRAIGHT WE A

 

[iamwhatiseem]

to pay down the debt you don't cut taxes

to pay down debt you don't borrow to pay down the debt.
you don't simply shuffle money from one place to another.
you don't increase social spending to the point of madness

 

[Sallow]

Depends on what benchmarks you are using. IE The Bush economy vs. the Clinton economy. Compared to the out come of the Clinton economy..this is not improvement. But compared to the outcome of the Bush economy, it is.

Yup. Also depends on what one means by "helped". Short term back in 2009, all the "quantitative easing" (love that euphemism for "printing money") was almost certainly needed and provided a desperately needed foundation. Short term, yeah, I think they did the right thing. The subsequent spending, not so sure. And I can't imagine anyone (who is actually honest) is really going to know its long term effects for at least five to ten years, maybe twenty. We'll see.


.

I'm not really sure what you mean about the "subsequent spending". In any case..there were big differences between what Clinton got..and what Obama got. George HW Bush was a rational and fairly pragmatic President..and reversed much of the damage caused by what he termed, voodoo economics. He also left Clinton a blueprint for futhering economic gains via NAFTA. Clinton was able to work and improve on the George HW Bush's work. George W. Bush, however, screwed the pooch completely and left Obama with a mess.

In any case..you are completely right about QE. Without it..the market would have tanked.

 

[Sallow]

Lets see...losing 700,000 jobs a month when he took office...now we have had 20+ months of job gains. That sounds like an improvement.

Dow doubled since he took office...yup that's improvmenty.

Corporations are raking in record profits. Their economy is certainly improving.

It's still a very weird economy..and I basically think that's because no one in the top tier was really hurt..and indeed they benefitted.

They don't feel obligated to do anything to help..and because nothing was done to them in the way of the law..they continue on..BAU.

 

[billyerock1991]

Hauser's law:

Hauser's law is the proposition that, in the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the marginal tax rate.[1]
The proposition was first put forward in 1993 by William Kurt Hauser, a San Francisco investment economist, who wrote, "No matter what the tax rates have been, in postwar America tax revenues have remained at about 19.5% of GDP."[3]

Hauser cited Arthur Laffer's concept of the Laffer curve in his original
article. While the two concepts are similar, Hauser's law was put forward as an empirical observation whereas the Laffer curve was thought of theoretically.[4]

In a May 20, 2008 editorial by David Ranson, the Wall St. Journal published a graph showing that even though the top marginal tax rate of federal income tax had varied between a low of 28% to a high of 91%, between 1950 and 2007, federal tax revenues had remained close to 19.5% of GDP.[4] The editorial went on to say, "The economics of taxation will be moribund until economists accept and explain Hauser's law. For progress to be made, they will have to face up to it, reconcile it with other facts, and incorporate it within the body of accepted knowledge."[4]

However, 2009 tax collections, at 15% of GDP, were the lowest level of the past 50 years and 4.5 percentage points lower than Hauser's law suggests.[5] The Heritage Foundation has stated that the recent world economic recession pushed receipts to a level significantly below the historical average.[6]

Economist Mike Kimel, writing for the Angry Bear website, writes that Hauser's Law is misleading as it sweeps large differences under the table. He states that tax revenue is higher in the years following a tax increase and lower in the years following a tax cut. He defines the time periods 1951-1953, 1967-1968, and 1991-2001 as "tax hike eras", and 1953-1967, 1969-1991, 2001-2010 as "tax cut eras", and argues that tax revenues increase in "tax hike eras" and that tax cuts do not lead to higher revenue.[9]

Journalist Jonathan Chait has written in The New Republic that "swings are fairly dramatic" through U.S. history for tax receipts as a percent of GDP. He stated that the George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations received "massive" extra revenues as the result of tax increases while the George W. Bush administration tax cuts lead to a "massive" drop in revenues. He labeled the idea of static, flat revenues as a "scam".[10]
Hauser's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

come on now ... you're going above SniperFire ability to understand... ya got to keep it simple like saying , cutting taxes doesn't pay for the national debt... you have to raise taxes ... keep it simple, for these simple minded ones

 

[SniperFire]

'Economist Mike Kimel, writing for the Angry Bear website'

LOL

 

[Mr. Shaman]

to pay down the debt you don't cut taxes

Do you really think Obama's going to pay down the debt with all that so-called extra tax revenue??

As-soon-as we allow the Bush Tax-Cuts to die, on the vine (in December), we'll revert to.....​

....The CLINTON Tax-Rates!!!​

"Not only was the entire national deficit eliminated after raising taxes on the wealthy in 1993, but the economy grew so fast for the remainder of the decade that many conservative economists thought that the Fed should raise the prime interest rate in order to slow it down."

September 27, 2000​

"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."

Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.

This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."

Record Budget Surplus​

 

[Sallow]

Hauser's law:

Hauser's law is the proposition that, in the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the marginal tax rate.[1]
The proposition was first put forward in 1993 by William Kurt Hauser, a San Francisco investment economist, who wrote, "No matter what the tax rates have been, in postwar America tax revenues have remained at about 19.5% of GDP."[3]

Hauser cited Arthur Laffer's concept of the Laffer curve in his original
article. While the two concepts are similar, Hauser's law was put forward as an empirical observation whereas the Laffer curve was thought of theoretically.[4]

In a May 20, 2008 editorial by David Ranson, the Wall St. Journal published a graph showing that even though the top marginal tax rate of federal income tax had varied between a low of 28% to a high of 91%, between 1950 and 2007, federal tax revenues had remained close to 19.5% of GDP.[4] The editorial went on to say, "The economics of taxation will be moribund until economists accept and explain Hauser's law. For progress to be made, they will have to face up to it, reconcile it with other facts, and incorporate it within the body of accepted knowledge."[4]

However, 2009 tax collections, at 15% of GDP, were the lowest level of the past 50 years and 4.5 percentage points lower than Hauser's law suggests.[5] The Heritage Foundation has stated that the recent world economic recession pushed receipts to a level significantly below the historical average.[6]

Economist Mike Kimel, writing for the Angry Bear website, writes that Hauser's Law is misleading as it sweeps large differences under the table. He states that tax revenue is higher in the years following a tax increase and lower in the years following a tax cut. He defines the time periods 1951-1953, 1967-1968, and 1991-2001 as "tax hike eras", and 1953-1967, 1969-1991, 2001-2010 as "tax cut eras", and argues that tax revenues increase in "tax hike eras" and that tax cuts do not lead to higher revenue.[9]

Journalist Jonathan Chait has written in The New Republic that "swings are fairly dramatic" through U.S. history for tax receipts as a percent of GDP. He stated that the George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations received "massive" extra revenues as the result of tax increases while the George W. Bush administration tax cuts lead to a "massive" drop in revenues. He labeled the idea of static, flat revenues as a "scam".[10]
Hauser's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

come on now ... you're going above SniperFire ability to understand... ya got to keep it simple like saying , cutting taxes doesn't pay for the national debt... you have to raise taxes ... keep it simple, for these simple minded ones

The overall debate is Friedman economics vs. Keynes economics. There are similarities in both..in that both Friedman and Keynes points out that when times are tough, government needs to intervene..except Friedman's theories does nothing to provide funding for that.

Hence the "Voodoo Economics" tag.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Lets see...losing 700,000 jobs a month when he took office...now we have had 20+ months of job gains. That sounds like an improvement.

Dow doubled since he took office...yup that's improvmenty.

Corporations are raking in record profits. Their economy is certainly improving.

It's still a very weird economy..and I basically think that's because no one in the top tier was really hurt..and indeed they benefitted.

They don't feel obligated to do anything to help..and because nothing was done to them in the way of the law..they continue on..BAU.

It is not a weird economy at all.
As you know the American economy is over 80% dependant on consumer spending. If Greenspan and company didn't grossly manipulate interest rates, and other steps by others that exponentially increased the number of lenders in America - we would have began to see a declining economy in the 1990's and on. Instead these guys caused a false economy where that 80% of GDP - was based on 67% consumer debt. People were spending money they didn't have. Then you add in the false housing boom created by government - and the result is 2007.
What, Sallow - do you think is going to stop the next crash that will happen?
Exactly - nothing. We are in the middle of the first phase of a PERMANENT decrease in American standard of living.

 

[Sallow]

Lets see...losing 700,000 jobs a month when he took office...now we have had 20+ months of job gains. That sounds like an improvement.

Dow doubled since he took office...yup that's improvmenty.

Corporations are raking in record profits. Their economy is certainly improving.

It's still a very weird economy..and I basically think that's because no one in the top tier was really hurt..and indeed they benefitted.

They don't feel obligated to do anything to help..and because nothing was done to them in the way of the law..they continue on..BAU.

It is not a weird economy at all.
As you know the American economy is over 80% dependant on consumer spending. If Greenspan and company didn't grossly manipulate interest rates, and other steps by others that exponentially increased the number of lenders in America - we would have began to see a declining economy in the 1990's and on. Instead these guys caused a false economy where that 80% of GDP - was based on 67% consumer debt. People were spending money they didn't have. Then you add in the false housing boom created by government - and the result is 2007.
What, Sallow - do you think is going to stop the next crash that will happen?
Exactly - nothing. We are in the middle of the first phase of a PERMANENT decrease in American standard of living.

Those are basically the symptoms of a much larger problem..deregulation. Once the barriers between the financial institutions ( and I am specifically referring to trading firms ) and banks was lifted..as well as the firms that did the auditing..much of this trouble began to occur. Which is why you saw things like interest rate manipulation going on..

It basically was a work around and did nothing to address root cause.

 

[zeke]

We are in the middle of the first phase of a PERMANENT decrease in American standard of living.

Not for everyone. But for a great many.

When people lost that job paying 22 an hour plus bennies and replaced it with a job paying 12 dollars an hour w/no bennies, then yes, their standard of living has gone down. And wil stay down more than likely. The 22 dollar an hour job went somewhere else.

This is the same reason the recovery has been so slow. People did not lose their good paying job then get called back to work at the good paying job. They went back to work (if lucky) for a lot less on the hour. That loss of hourly rate income will cause a slow recovery.

 

[Sallow]

We are in the middle of the first phase of a PERMANENT decrease in American standard of living.

Not for everyone. But for a great many.

When people lost that job paying 22 an hour plus bennies and replaced it with a job paying 12 dollars an hour w/no bennies, then yes, their standard of living has gone down. And wil stay down more than likely. The 22 dollar an hour job went somewhere else.

This is the same reason the recovery has been so slow. People did not lose their good paying job then get called back to work at the good paying job. They went back to work (if lucky) for a lot less on the hour. That loss of hourly rate income will cause a slow recovery.

Which is why this cyclical race to the bottom will hurt the overall economy.

 

[Mr Natural]

"Prosperity Through Lower Wages!"

 

[zeke]

Which is why this cyclical race to the bottom will hurt the overall economy.

I think the damage to the economy will take many many years to recover from (if ever). The loss of jobs, home equity, retirement account losses, rising costs on energy and food. Rising local and state taxes. Rising fees for service on everything. All those things applied to a decreased income are a sure fire way to lower the standard of living.

And because the economy is based on confident consumer spending, when you see friends and neighbors failing, even if you have a good job, you draw back on your spending. That's just survival.

We are in a mess. With one political party celebrating the mess. Weird shit is happening.

 

[Sallow]

Which is why this cyclical race to the bottom will hurt the overall economy.

I think the damage to the economy will take many many years to recover from (if ever). The loss of jobs, home equity, retirement account losses, rising costs on energy and food. Rising local and state taxes. Rising fees for service on everything. All those things applied to a decreased income are a sure fire way to lower the standard of living.

And because the economy is based on confident consumer spending, when you see friends and neighbors failing, even if you have a good job, you draw back on your spending. That's just survival.

We are in a mess. With one political party celebrating the mess. Weird shit is happening.

Actually..it could recover quite quickly. The private sector is swimming in oceans of cash they are loath to spend. And the last three years they got all sorts of incentives to spend it. That didn't work. It's really time to pull out the regulatory whip. Reinstating Glass-Steagall would be a good first step. As well as the government threating to REALLY cut spending. Like pulling out of government 401ks, getting out of privately owned buildings, putting stops on buying technology..and the like. Changing the tax structure to punish off shoring would help as well.

The poltical will isn't there..however. The Republicans just filibustered a measure to stop tax breaks for super rich oil companies..a move that is highly popular in this country.

 

[SniperFire]

The economy is going to EXPLODE the moment we have a POTUS which is not viewed as anti-business.

 

[zeke]

The economy is going to EXPLODE the moment we have a POTUS which is not viewed as anti-business.

Yea, right. And why would that be? Mittens going to send out personal checks to the un employed?

Hate to tell you, but the lack of demand for goods and services is the reason the economy is dragging along. And the lack of demand is based on the lack on disposable income from consumers and the lack of income is the result of so much job losses and or new jobs paying much less. What will mittens to to fix that?

Actually, I think it will be your head that explodes when Obama is re elected. IMO.

 

[Sallow]

The economy is going to EXPLODE the moment we have a POTUS which is not viewed as anti-business.

Yea, right. And why would that be? Mittens going to send out personal checks to the un employed?

Hate to tell you, but the lack of demand for goods and services is the reason the economy is dragging along. And the lack of demand is based on the lack on disposable income from consumers and the lack of income is the result of so much job losses and or new jobs paying much less. What will mittens to to fix that?

Actually, I think it will be your head that explodes when Obama is re elected. IMO.

It's funny that the "Pro-Business" types like Reagan and George W. Bush led the economy to complete shambles..

 

[SniperFire]

The economy is going to EXPLODE the moment we have a POTUS which is not viewed as anti-business.

Yea, right. And why would that be?

Because... our investment class hates and fears his commie guts.

an. 22 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. investors overwhelmingly see President Barack Obama as anti-business and question his ability to manage a financial crisis, according to a Bloomberg survey.

The global quarterly poll of investors and analysts who are Bloomberg subscribers finds that 77 percent of U.S. respondents believe Obama is too anti-business and four-out-of-five are only somewhat confident or not confident of his ability to handle a financial emergency.'



Obama Seen as Anti-Business by 77% of U.S. Investors (Update1) - Bloomberg



Vote responsibly next time.