Obama's Economic Policy

[usmcstinger]

What is the name of his Economic Policy and how does it work?

 

[Nova78]

Obama's Economic Policy - There is none

 

[Rshermr]

Obama's Economic Policy - There is none View attachment 21783

Nova, of course, is lying. Always does. Makes you wonder why. But that is just Nova. He is a con tool who says whatever he wants others to believe, truth be damned.
The Obama economic policy is based on the idea of stimulating the economy, which has had a serious unemployment problem since he took office. So he has proposed a "jobs Program" that includes gov expenditures in infrastructure, education and other areas. It has not been implimented, however, as repubs in congress have filibustered it in the senate on every occasion. Until they took over the House two years ago, and since then they have refused to bring it to the senate. So, they have effectively blocked every effort at this president exercising his jobs program.

Here is an analysis that is NOT political:
Freakonomics » Obama’s Jobs Bill: A Reasonable Plan

 

[expat_panama]

What is the name of his Economic Policy and how does it work?

Obama's Economic Policy - There is none...

There is but names are avoided. Economic policy has included government management, wealth redistribution, and winning the fight to defend the 'have-nots' from exploitation by the 'haves. The obvious category these themes fit into is 'Marxist Socialism', but our leaders don't even what to be called 'liberal'.

 

[tjvh]

What is the name of his Economic Policy and how does it work?

Ponzi... It doesn't.

 

[usmcstinger]

Answer: Keynesian Economics which has never had a long term positive out come. If you want to know how well it works, take a look at Greece, France, Italy and Spain.

 

[TNHarley]

Obama's Economic Policy - There is none View attachment 21783

Nova, of course, is lying. Always does. Makes you wonder why. But that is just Nova. He is a con tool who says whatever he wants others to believe, truth be damned.
The Obama economic policy is based on the idea of stimulating the economy, which has had a serious unemployment problem since he took office. So he has proposed a "jobs Program" that includes gov expenditures in infrastructure, education and other areas. It has not been implimented, however, as repubs in congress have filibustered it in the senate on every occasion. Until they took over the House two years ago, and since then they have refused to bring it to the senate. So, they have effectively blocked every effort at this president exercising his jobs program.

Here is an analysis that is NOT political:
Freakonomics » Obama’s Jobs Bill: A Reasonable Plan

Probably because it sucked just like his budget plan that got shut out 97 - 0.

 

[Freemason9]

Answer: Keynesian Economics which has never had a long term positive out come. If you want to know how well it works, take a look at Greece, France, Italy and Spain.

This is a downright dumb comment. Even Reagan acknowledged Keynsian drivers in economics; why do you think he cut taxes? It has the same effect as spending increases; it allegedly pumps up economic circulation of currency.

Don't overthink this, usmcstinker. This is fundamental economics--and remember that the ONE THING that invariably tanks world powers is concentration of wealth.

That's would should concern you. It won't, but it should.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I call it multiple personality economic policies.
One one hand, he is very clearly supportive of massive social handouts, and even tried to undo the welfare reforms Clinton installed. But on the other hand he has presided over the single largest trickle down economic policies this country has ever seen....or any other country for that matter.
He wants to tax the wealthy more to redistribute that money to have nots - but at the same time takes massive funds from the middle class and hands it over to the wealthy.
It's a little crazy.
The closest term I would apply is a plutocratic policy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

it allegedly pumps up economic circulation of currency.

the idea of pump priming is 1000% idiotic and perfectly liberal. Here's Econ. 101 for you:

When you tax you depress the real economy and when you spend you create mal-investment as opposed to real investment. Over your head?? So, taxing causes depression or recession and using the money to creat mal-investment makes it worse with soviet Solyndra bridges to nowhere. Now even you can understand how FDR kept the Depression going so long and how Barry is on the same track.

if the economy would take care of itself with tax and spend pump priming the whole world would would know it, recessions and depressions would be long lost history, you complete liberal idiot!!, in fact 10-50% growth would be the norm thanks to so called never ending tax and spend stimulus. We'd be economic heaven right now as the Feds are spending $4 trillion a year up from $2 under Bush!!!d

Once "underway" with liberal, Solyndra, soviet, bridge to nowhere, mal- investment stimulus the economy will go into recession as the free market puts things back into their Republican capitalist places.

Now even you know what a recession really is!! Actually it's like now when we are waiting for the free market to correct the liberal housing bubble and all the distortions it created in the Republican free market.

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow??

 

[Rshermr]

totally stupid. As usual. Has no example of supply side ever working. Here, ed. Please study these:
Brock University Study Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias & Politics | Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology | LiveScience

U of Arkansas study Study “Proves” Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

British Cohort study Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online

LiveScience study Social conservatives have a lower I.Q.? (probably) | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine

Watching Fox makes you stupid Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

 

[Rshermr]

totally stupid. As usual. Has no example of supply side ever working. Here, ed. Please study these:
Brock University Study Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias & Politics | Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology | LiveScience

U of Arkansas study Study “Proves” Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

British Cohort study Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online

LiveScience study Social conservatives have a lower I.Q.? (probably) | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine

Watching Fox makes you stupid Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Obama's Economic Policy - There is none View attachment 21783

Nova, of course, is lying. Always does. Makes you wonder why. But that is just Nova. He is a con tool who says whatever he wants others to believe, truth be damned.
The Obama economic policy is based on the idea of stimulating the economy, which has had a serious unemployment problem since he took office. So he has proposed a "jobs Program" that includes gov expenditures in infrastructure, education and other areas. It has not been implimented, however, as repubs in congress have filibustered it in the senate on every occasion. Until they took over the House two years ago, and since then they have refused to bring it to the senate. So, they have effectively blocked every effort at this president exercising his jobs program.

Here is an analysis that is NOT political:
Freakonomics » Obama’s Jobs Bill: A Reasonable Plan

He's for an unknown "jobs program" that can't be passed and for public education? That's the best you have for an economic plan?

 

[Rshermr]

Obama's Economic Policy - There is none View attachment 21783

Nova, of course, is lying. Always does. Makes you wonder why. But that is just Nova. He is a con tool who says whatever he wants others to believe, truth be damned.
The Obama economic policy is based on the idea of stimulating the economy, which has had a serious unemployment problem since he took office. So he has proposed a "jobs Program" that includes gov expenditures in infrastructure, education and other areas. It has not been implimented, however, as repubs in congress have filibustered it in the senate on every occasion. Until they took over the House two years ago, and since then they have refused to bring it to the senate. So, they have effectively blocked every effort at this president exercising his jobs program.

Here is an analysis that is NOT political:
Freakonomics » Obama’s Jobs Bill: A Reasonable Plan

He's for an unknown "jobs program" that can't be passed and for public education? That's the best you have for an economic plan?

I said nothing of public education. Must be your imagination. I mentioned education. And the jobs bill could be passed, but will not by repubs because they, like most cons, want the unemployment numbers to be bad. So, history says that stimulus spending works. Perhaps you would like to take an effort at telling us all when tax cuts ever helped a bad economy. Be ready to find it impossible. But then, it is easier for cons to complain about the lack of a economic program rather than to suggest one. Got any great ideas, like ones that have actually worked???

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Nova, of course, is lying. Always does. Makes you wonder why. But that is just Nova. He is a con tool who says whatever he wants others to believe, truth be damned.
The Obama economic policy is based on the idea of stimulating the economy, which has had a serious unemployment problem since he took office. So he has proposed a "jobs Program" that includes gov expenditures in infrastructure, education and other areas. It has not been implimented, however, as repubs in congress have filibustered it in the senate on every occasion. Until they took over the House two years ago, and since then they have refused to bring it to the senate. So, they have effectively blocked every effort at this president exercising his jobs program.

Here is an analysis that is NOT political:
Freakonomics » Obama’s Jobs Bill: A Reasonable Plan

He's for an unknown "jobs program" that can't be passed and for public education? That's the best you have for an economic plan?

I said nothing of public education. Must be your imagination. I mentioned education. And the jobs bill could be passed, but will not by repubs because they, like most cons, want the unemployment numbers to be bad. So, history says that stimulus spending works. Perhaps you would like to take an effort at telling us all when tax cuts ever helped a bad economy. Be ready to find it impossible. But then, it is easier for cons to complain about the lack of a economic program rather than to suggest one. Got any great ideas, like ones that have actually worked???

Govt. expenditures in education is public education. And the truth of the matter is that Mitt has been explicit about his economic program while Obama has not been. Why is that? Could it be because he wants cart blanche to do whatever the hell he wants?

 

[idb]

He's for an unknown "jobs program" that can't be passed and for public education? That's the best you have for an economic plan?

I said nothing of public education. Must be your imagination. I mentioned education. And the jobs bill could be passed, but will not by repubs because they, like most cons, want the unemployment numbers to be bad. So, history says that stimulus spending works. Perhaps you would like to take an effort at telling us all when tax cuts ever helped a bad economy. Be ready to find it impossible. But then, it is easier for cons to complain about the lack of a economic program rather than to suggest one. Got any great ideas, like ones that have actually worked???

Govt. expenditures in education is public education. And the truth of the matter is that Mitt has been explicit about his economic program while Obama has not been. Why is that? Could it be because he wants cart blanche to do whatever the hell he wants?

Explicit?
Oh this I gotta see!
Apart from de-funding PBS, what explicit policy has Romney proposed?

 

[Rshermr]

I said nothing of public education. Must be your imagination. I mentioned education. And the jobs bill could be passed, but will not by repubs because they, like most cons, want the unemployment numbers to be bad. So, history says that stimulus spending works. Perhaps you would like to take an effort at telling us all when tax cuts ever helped a bad economy. Be ready to find it impossible. But then, it is easier for cons to complain about the lack of a economic program rather than to suggest one. Got any great ideas, like ones that have actually worked???

Govt. expenditures in education is public education. And the truth of the matter is that Mitt has been explicit about his economic program while Obama has not been. Why is that? Could it be because he wants cart blanche to do whatever the hell he wants?

Explicit?
Oh this I gotta see!
Apart from de-funding PBS, what explicit policy has Romney proposed?

Well, IDB, the point is, me poor ignorant con, that education of the population has always been a key in helping the economy of any country. I was avoiding your issue of private vs public education. Perhaps that discussion belongs elsewhere. But, in terms of economic growth and economic success, perhaps you can name a couple of countries who are doing as you apparently want, i.e., providing education to the majority of their youth via private education. And of course, perhaps you can let us all know why you would attack education at all. Seems to be a con malady. Cons hate education, unless it is being delivered by a private enterprise. Which is another way of saying, me con tool, that you do not value education.
Relative to economic plans, obama's intent as far as getting the unemployment rate under control is well spelled out. You could know it if you want to. Perhaps you would like to suggest what Romney's is. It seems to change daily. So, does he want to decrease taxes by 20%, which would amount to about a $5T decrease in gov. income, or does he not? He has said he did support it when talking to a strictly con audience. Now he disavows it, though he made the statement many, many times over the past two years.
Does he fully support Ryan's s plan, or has he his own. He has said both. So, what is it. And once you can define it, then how do you suggest it will help. Seriously, how do you believe the Romney plan (whatever it is) is going to help reduce unemployment? I would take book gladly on the bet that you have no earthly idea. So, there is the challenge, again. Show me how reducing taxes is going to help. You won't, I expect, because you can not. But then, you probably do not know that you can not. Just find a time when decreasing taxes has helped during a bad economy. But of course, you can not. You simply want to post dogma. Which is a total waste of time.

 

[idb]

Govt. expenditures in education is public education. And the truth of the matter is that Mitt has been explicit about his economic program while Obama has not been. Why is that? Could it be because he wants cart blanche to do whatever the hell he wants?

Explicit?
Oh this I gotta see!
Apart from de-funding PBS, what explicit policy has Romney proposed?

Well, IDB, the point is, me poor ignorant con, that education of the population has always been a key in helping the economy of any country. I was avoiding your issue of private vs public education. Perhaps that discussion belongs elsewhere. But, in terms of economic growth and economic success, perhaps you can name a couple of countries who are doing as you apparently want, i.e., providing education to the majority of their youth via private education. And of course, perhaps you can let us all know why you would attack education at all. Seems to be a con malady. Cons hate education, unless it is being delivered by a private enterprise. Which is another way of saying, me con tool, that you do not value education.
Relative to economic plans, obama's intent as far as getting the unemployment rate under control is well spelled out. You could know it if you want to. Perhaps you would like to suggest what Romney's is. It seems to change daily. So, does he want to decrease taxes by 20%, which would amount to about a $5T decrease in gov. income, or does he not? He has said he did support it when talking to a strictly con audience. Now he disavows it, though he made the statement many, many times over the past two years.
Does he fully support Ryan's s plan, or has he his own. He has said both. So, what is it. And once you can define it, then how do you suggest it will help. Seriously, how do you believe the Romney plan (whatever it is) is going to help reduce unemployment? I would take book gladly on the bet that you have no earthly idea. So, there is the challenge, again. Show me how reducing taxes is going to help. You won't, I expect, because you can not. But then, you probably do not know that you can not. Just find a time when decreasing taxes has helped during a bad economy. But of course, you can not. You simply want to post dogma. Which is a total waste of time.

Are you agreeing with me now?
You first said that Romney has been explicit in spelling out his policy while Obama hasn't, and then you reverse that in your reply to me.

You're either a Romney acolyte or things have been lost in translation.

 

[Rshermr]

Explicit?
Oh this I gotta see!
Apart from de-funding PBS, what explicit policy has Romney proposed?

Well, IDB, the point is, me poor ignorant con, that education of the population has always been a key in helping the economy of any country. I was avoiding your issue of private vs public education. Perhaps that discussion belongs elsewhere. But, in terms of economic growth and economic success, perhaps you can name a couple of countries who are doing as you apparently want, i.e., providing education to the majority of their youth via private education. And of course, perhaps you can let us all know why you would attack education at all. Seems to be a con malady. Cons hate education, unless it is being delivered by a private enterprise. Which is another way of saying, me con tool, that you do not value education.
Relative to economic plans, obama's intent as far as getting the unemployment rate under control is well spelled out. You could know it if you want to. Perhaps you would like to suggest what Romney's is. It seems to change daily. So, does he want to decrease taxes by 20%, which would amount to about a $5T decrease in gov. income, or does he not? He has said he did support it when talking to a strictly con audience. Now he disavows it, though he made the statement many, many times over the past two years.
Does he fully support Ryan's s plan, or has he his own. He has said both. So, what is it. And once you can define it, then how do you suggest it will help. Seriously, how do you believe the Romney plan (whatever it is) is going to help reduce unemployment? I would take book gladly on the bet that you have no earthly idea. So, there is the challenge, again. Show me how reducing taxes is going to help. You won't, I expect, because you can not. But then, you probably do not know that you can not. Just find a time when decreasing taxes has helped during a bad economy. But of course, you can not. You simply want to post dogma. Which is a total waste of time.

Are you agreeing with me now?
You first said that Romney has been explicit in spelling out his policy while Obama hasn't, and then you reverse that in your reply to me.

You're either a Romney acolyte or things have been lost in translation.

You seem to be challenged by the queens english. I said the following:

Relative to economic plans, obama's intent as far as getting the unemployment rate under control is well spelled out.

And then I said:

Perhaps you would like to suggest what Romney's is. It seems to change daily. So, does he want to decrease taxes by 20%, which would amount to about a $5T decrease in gov. income, or does he not? He has said he did support it when talking to a strictly con audience. Now he disavows it, though he made the statement many, many times over the past two years.
Does he fully support Ryan's s plan, or has he his own. He has said both.

So, not sure if you are simply challenged by logic and the english language, or if you are just totally dishonest.

 

[usmcstinger]

Answer: Keynesian Economics which has never had a long term positive out come. If you want to know how well it works, take a look at Greece, France, Italy and Spain.

This is a downright dumb comment. Even Reagan acknowledged Keynsian drivers in economics; why do you think he cut taxes? It has the same effect as spending increases; it allegedly pumps up economic circulation of currency.

Don't overthink this, usmcstinker. This is fundamental economics--and remember that the ONE THING that invariably tanks world powers is concentration of wealth.

That's would should concern you. It won't, but it should.

Your assumptions about Keynesian Economics shows how little you know about the system and economics in general.

Your attempt to rewrite history has no substance to it.
Your snide little comments show your lack of maturity

If Keynesian theory was correct, the 1981 Reagan tax cut, which reduced revenue by close to 3 percent of GDP per year, should have been massively inflationary. But in fact, inflation dropped like a rock, from 12.5 percent in 1980 to 8.9*percent in 1981 and 3.8 percent in 1982, where it basically stayed for the rest of the 1980s.

"To his great credit, however, Reagan stuck by Volcker even when it would have been politically expedient for him to pressure the Fed Chairman to expand the money supply to provide a short-term boost to the economy. Both men's patience paid off after 1983, when—with inflation under control at last—the economy began growing again."
If Keynesian theory was correct, the 1981 Reagan tax cut, which reduced revenue by close to 3 percent of GDP per year, should have been massively inflationary. But in fact, inflation dropped like a rock, from 12.5 percent in 1980 to 8.9*percent in 1981 and 3.8 percent in 1982, where it basically stayed for the rest of the 1980s.
http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/290283/bruce-bartlett-reagan-tax-cuts-