There will be no economic upturn if Obama gets a second term

[Skull Pilot]

Too late. It's already happening. In spite of Republicans best efforts to stop it. Oops.

Really?

In case you hadn't noticed the economy is sliding backwards

US Census Bureau: Economic Indicators

LAMBRO: Romney

In a stunning report Thursday, the U.S. Commerce Department said the slowing economy barely grew at a snail’s pace — 1.3 percent in the second quarter. That’s the economic equivalent of surviving on life support. In another time, this news might have been enough to sink Mr. Obama’s re-election hopes and give Mr. Romney’s candidacy a major boost....

However, the revised 1.3 percent growth rate was down from a dismal 1.7 percent rate the government had reported in August. That was below an anemic 2 percent pace in the first three months of the year, which has plummeted sharply from 3 percent at the end of 2011. The White House blamed the revision on the droughts across the Midwest, but the growth rate has been falling since last winter. Moreover, the 1.3 percent rate followed other signs that the economy had all but stopped growing.

Nationally, unemployment stayed between 8.1 percent and 8.3 percent for the year, though more than half of the states saw jobless rates rise in September (another story buried by the news media).

The government also announced last week that durable goods orders plunged 13.2 percent in August. It was the steepest decline since 2009. While manufacturing rose just slightly in September, it followed three months of severe contraction, falling by a 1.4 percent annual rate — hardly a sign of a turnaround.

I don't know what flavor Kool Aid you're snorting these days.

 

[JWBooth]

Not very likely to be one if Romney is elected either.

 

[candycorn]

A second Obama term won't even be more of the same. It'll be worse b/c he'll have cart blanche to more rigorously pursue his failed agenda.

Liberals can you tell me realistic ways in which you expect the economy to improve under Obama? You can't.

In fact, we may even see that second great depression that Obama is fond of talking about. You idiots will still be blaming Bush of course for that.

Without knowing a bloody thing about macroeconomics, you have a 33 1/3% chance of being right.

The economy will either go up, go down, or stay the same.

However, given that many economic indicators suggest that we are in a feeble recovery, I'd say that, sans some new disaster to the world's economy, the USA's economy will limp along into something less painful than it currently is.

Or maybe not...I am NOT remotely convinced that anyone can really predict the future of something as complex as our MACROeconomy.

If there was a technique that could do so?

EVERYBODY would already know it.

A key indicator in any economy is confidence. The DJIA is over-used (in my opinion) as an indicator in that confidence but it is a tool to be used nonetheless. Currently the Dow sits at 13,482: near record territory.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A second Obama term won't even be more of the same. It'll be worse b/c he'll have cart blanche to more rigorously pursue his failed agenda.

Liberals can you tell me realistic ways in which you expect the economy to improve under Obama? You can't.

In fact, we may even see that second great depression that Obama is fond of talking about. You idiots will still be blaming Bush of course for that.

Without knowing a bloody thing about macroeconomics, you have a 33 1/3% chance of being right.

The economy will either go up, go down, or stay the same.

However, given that many economic indicators suggest that we are in a feeble recovery, I'd say that, sans some new disaster to the world's economy, the USA's economy will limp along into something less painful than it currently is.

Or maybe not...I am NOT remotely convinced that anyone can really predict the future of something as complex as our MACROeconomy.

If there was a technique that could do so?

EVERYBODY would already know it.

A key indicator in any economy is confidence. The DJIA is over-used (in my opinion) as an indicator in that confidence but it is a tool to be used nonetheless. Currently the Dow sits at 13,482: near record territory.

I don't give a shit how confident you are when most tell tale economic indicators show we are losing ground.

Your confidence is naught but whistling in the dark

 

[Toro]

You could have posted this moronic taunt in any thread. What you couldn't do; is say how you expect the economy to improve in a second Obama term.

BTW - you sound like a villain. 'The world is mine. Those Republicans can't stop me now!'

Moronic taunt? You mean like this:

There will be no economic upturn if Obama gets a second term
A second Obama term won't even be more of the same. It'll be worse b/c he'll have cart blanche to more rigorously pursue his failed agenda.

Liberals can you tell me realistic ways in which you expect the economy to improve under Obama? You can't.

In fact, we may even see that second great depression that Obama is fond of talking about. You idiots will still be blaming Bush of course for that.
__________________

How old are you dude?

Tell me how you think the economy will improve if Obama gets a second term. What benchmarks will he hit?

The excesses in the housing market will be cleared away mid-term, and the biggest anchor on the economy will be lifted. The economy will resume trend line growth. This will happen no matter who is President.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Libs love to give us this blatant lying talking point when their guy is in the White House (pursuing failed policies). The president has a HUGE IMPACT on the economy. Always has; always will.

Maybe they do, but I'm not a liberal. The most powerful person in terms of effect over the economy is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. ALL PRESIDENTS lean on him, always have; always will. That's why I listen mostly to economists. Most of them don't give a shit about party lines, just money.

Libs__ Idiots - One in the same these days. And no, the president has the most economic power by far

Keep saying that over and over. It will work. People will believe you.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Moronic taunt? You mean like this:

There will be no economic upturn if Obama gets a second term
A second Obama term won't even be more of the same. It'll be worse b/c he'll have cart blanche to more rigorously pursue his failed agenda.

Liberals can you tell me realistic ways in which you expect the economy to improve under Obama? You can't.

In fact, we may even see that second great depression that Obama is fond of talking about. You idiots will still be blaming Bush of course for that.
__________________

How old are you dude?

Tell me how you think the economy will improve if Obama gets a second term. What benchmarks will he hit?

The excesses in the housing market will be cleared away mid-term, and the biggest anchor on the economy will be lifted. The economy will resume trend line growth. This will happen no matter who is President.

The prices have been on a reasonable upturn over the last few months. I expect construction to start turning up soon, which will help with unemployment.

 

[Dick Tuck]

The upturn is underway already--job growth month after month, optimism up, etc... Hopefully the signs of recovery will strengthen.

Obama's 'recovery' is worse than Bush's recession.

That's about the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. You ought to start your own right wing blog.

 

[uscitizen]

There will at best be lackluster growth if Romney wins.
About the same as Obama has had.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Presidential candidates have to get elected, that's why they focus on whatever issue is troubling Americans the most. Right now it's the economy, so they will claim to have a solution or some influence over how things will play out. I would like somebody to point out anything that a President has done that had any sort of significant impact on the economy, at least within the confines of his term. The economy does what it does. Major shifts in the economy are unanimously triggered by the market itself, by forces and mechanisms completely out of the control of the President. Obama is no more responsible for the lack of recovery than Bush was for the recession.

I love what Stephen Dubner said about Presidential candidates in an interview on marketplace.org:

"Now, the difference between a new Democratic president and a new Republican president in the space of four hours was actually pretty small -- about 1.5 percent. That is just a sliver of evidence, but it does suggest that the people who pay the most attention to the working economy -- which is to say the Wall Street investors -- didn't really care all that much about which president they got. And most economists will tell you that the president's role when it comes to the economy is much closer to let's say a cheerleader than a CEO."

"...just once I'd love a presidential candidate to get up there on the stump and say: 'My fellow Americans, I can't control the U.S. economy. I've got a little bit of influence but mostly it does what it does. So if it gets worse on my watch, you shouldn't blame me -- and if it happens to get better, you probably shouldn't give me too much credit either.'"

But we all know that won't happen. Presidents love to say that they will create jobs. Presidents cannot create jobs. Do people actually think that the enactment of some fiscal policy is going to cause a corporation to suddenly start hiring or firing people? Do people actually think that Bush was responsible for the stock market crash of 2008, or that Obama was responsible for the growth? The market was responsible for it. Put some fucking stock in the people and stop blaming all of your financial woes on whoever is in the White House. Fucking scapegoat seekers, that's what you are.

 

[candycorn]

Without knowing a bloody thing about macroeconomics, you have a 33 1/3% chance of being right.

The economy will either go up, go down, or stay the same.

However, given that many economic indicators suggest that we are in a feeble recovery, I'd say that, sans some new disaster to the world's economy, the USA's economy will limp along into something less painful than it currently is.

Or maybe not...I am NOT remotely convinced that anyone can really predict the future of something as complex as our MACROeconomy.

If there was a technique that could do so?

EVERYBODY would already know it.

A key indicator in any economy is confidence. The DJIA is over-used (in my opinion) as an indicator in that confidence but it is a tool to be used nonetheless. Currently the Dow sits at 13,482: near record territory.

I don't give a shit how confident you are when most tell tale economic indicators show we are losing ground.

Your confidence is naught but whistling in the dark

I hear you.
I think the DJIA as an indicator is overused. But it is what it is. Many if not Most of the largest one day drops in the DJIA took place in Bush's last few months.

If you accept the narratives that the DJIA is a leading indicator of confidence and Obama's repeated (and confirmed by many on the right as well) statements that Bush left him with an economy in freefall, the evidence of a crisis of confidence during his term is there.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Presidential candidates have to get elected, that's why they focus on whatever issue is troubling Americans the most. Right now it's the economy, so they will claim to have a solution or some influence over how things will play out. I would like somebody to point out anything that a President has done that had any sort of significant impact on the economy, at least within the confines of his term. The economy does what it does. Major shifts in the economy are unanimously triggered by the market itself, by forces and mechanisms completely out of the control of the President. Obama is no more responsible for the lack of recovery than Bush was for the recession.

I love what Stephen Dubner said about Presidential candidates in an interview on marketplace.org:

"Now, the difference between a new Democratic president and a new Republican president in the space of four hours was actually pretty small -- about 1.5 percent. That is just a sliver of evidence, but it does suggest that the people who pay the most attention to the working economy -- which is to say the Wall Street investors -- didn't really care all that much about which president they got. And most economists will tell you that the president's role when it comes to the economy is much closer to let's say a cheerleader than a CEO."

"...just once I'd love a presidential candidate to get up there on the stump and say: 'My fellow Americans, I can't control the U.S. economy. I've got a little bit of influence but mostly it does what it does. So if it gets worse on my watch, you shouldn't blame me -- and if it happens to get better, you probably shouldn't give me too much credit either.'"

But we all know that won't happen. Presidents love to say that they will create jobs. Presidents cannot create jobs. Do people actually think that the enactment of some fiscal policy is going to cause a corporation to suddenly start hiring or firing people? Do people actually think that Bush was responsible for the stock market crash of 2008, or that Obama was responsible for the growth? The market was responsible for it. Put some fucking stock in the people and stop blaming all of your financial woes on whoever is in the White House. Fucking scapegoat seekers, that's what you are.

You're completely f'ing wrong. Yes, market forces will drive an economy; and many of them are out of the reach of president. However, a president's policies will always have big impacts upon economies and you are completely ignorant to say otherwise.

And you claim not to be a liberal; but frankly I've seen this play time and time again from liberals. When their guy in the WH is struggling, they completely dismiss his policies. You're a plant dude. An intellectually dishonest plant who his pretending to be impartial and educated.

 

[candycorn]

Presidential candidates have to get elected, that's why they focus on whatever issue is troubling Americans the most. Right now it's the economy, so they will claim to have a solution or some influence over how things will play out. I would like somebody to point out anything that a President has done that had any sort of significant impact on the economy, at least within the confines of his term. The economy does what it does. Major shifts in the economy are unanimously triggered by the market itself, by forces and mechanisms completely out of the control of the President. Obama is no more responsible for the lack of recovery than Bush was for the recession.

I love what Stephen Dubner said about Presidential candidates in an interview on marketplace.org:

"Now, the difference between a new Democratic president and a new Republican president in the space of four hours was actually pretty small -- about 1.5 percent. That is just a sliver of evidence, but it does suggest that the people who pay the most attention to the working economy -- which is to say the Wall Street investors -- didn't really care all that much about which president they got. And most economists will tell you that the president's role when it comes to the economy is much closer to let's say a cheerleader than a CEO."

"...just once I'd love a presidential candidate to get up there on the stump and say: 'My fellow Americans, I can't control the U.S. economy. I've got a little bit of influence but mostly it does what it does. So if it gets worse on my watch, you shouldn't blame me -- and if it happens to get better, you probably shouldn't give me too much credit either.'"

But we all know that won't happen. Presidents love to say that they will create jobs. Presidents cannot create jobs. Do people actually think that the enactment of some fiscal policy is going to cause a corporation to suddenly start hiring or firing people? Do people actually think that Bush was responsible for the stock market crash of 2008, or that Obama was responsible for the growth? The market was responsible for it. Put some fucking stock in the people and stop blaming all of your financial woes on whoever is in the White House. Fucking scapegoat seekers, that's what you are.

You're completely f'ing wrong. Yes, market forces will drive an economy; and many of them are out of the reach of president. However, a president's policies will always have big impacts upon economies and you are completely ignorant to say otherwise.

And you claim not to be a liberal; but frankly I've seen this play time and time again from liberals. When their guy in the WH is struggling, they completely dismiss his policies. You're a plant dude. An intellectually dishonest plant who his pretending to be impartial and educated.

And yet he still sounds eons smarter than you ever did Klanny.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Presidential candidates have to get elected, that's why they focus on whatever issue is troubling Americans the most. Right now it's the economy, so they will claim to have a solution or some influence over how things will play out. I would like somebody to point out anything that a President has done that had any sort of significant impact on the economy, at least within the confines of his term. The economy does what it does. Major shifts in the economy are unanimously triggered by the market itself, by forces and mechanisms completely out of the control of the President. Obama is no more responsible for the lack of recovery than Bush was for the recession.

I love what Stephen Dubner said about Presidential candidates in an interview on marketplace.org:

"Now, the difference between a new Democratic president and a new Republican president in the space of four hours was actually pretty small -- about 1.5 percent. That is just a sliver of evidence, but it does suggest that the people who pay the most attention to the working economy -- which is to say the Wall Street investors -- didn't really care all that much about which president they got. And most economists will tell you that the president's role when it comes to the economy is much closer to let's say a cheerleader than a CEO."

"...just once I'd love a presidential candidate to get up there on the stump and say: 'My fellow Americans, I can't control the U.S. economy. I've got a little bit of influence but mostly it does what it does. So if it gets worse on my watch, you shouldn't blame me -- and if it happens to get better, you probably shouldn't give me too much credit either.'"

But we all know that won't happen. Presidents love to say that they will create jobs. Presidents cannot create jobs. Do people actually think that the enactment of some fiscal policy is going to cause a corporation to suddenly start hiring or firing people? Do people actually think that Bush was responsible for the stock market crash of 2008, or that Obama was responsible for the growth? The market was responsible for it. Put some fucking stock in the people and stop blaming all of your financial woes on whoever is in the White House. Fucking scapegoat seekers, that's what you are.

You're completely f'ing wrong. Yes, market forces will drive an economy; and many of them are out of the reach of president. However, a president's policies will always have big impacts upon economies and you are completely ignorant to say otherwise.

And you claim not to be a liberal; but frankly I've seen this play time and time again from liberals. When their guy in the WH is struggling, they completely dismiss his policies. You're a plant dude. An intellectually dishonest plant who his pretending to be impartial and educated.

I am dead honest about everything I say. If you have trust issues that's not my fault.

Now, if you can provide me with clear examples of how a President has had big impacts on the economy, at least that can be measured within a 4-year term, I am all ears. Until you do, I have no reason to believe you either. If you take some time to read publications like The Economist or Wall Street Journal, you will see that most professional opinions don't look at the White House, they look at what the market is doing. The President has nothing to do with why the housing market crashed, nor with why it is so stagnant in rebounding. If that were the case then I would blame Bush for the housing crash and Obama for the stagnation. That is absurd.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Presidential candidates have to get elected, that's why they focus on whatever issue is troubling Americans the most. Right now it's the economy, so they will claim to have a solution or some influence over how things will play out. I would like somebody to point out anything that a President has done that had any sort of significant impact on the economy, at least within the confines of his term. The economy does what it does. Major shifts in the economy are unanimously triggered by the market itself, by forces and mechanisms completely out of the control of the President. Obama is no more responsible for the lack of recovery than Bush was for the recession.

I love what Stephen Dubner said about Presidential candidates in an interview on marketplace.org:

"Now, the difference between a new Democratic president and a new Republican president in the space of four hours was actually pretty small -- about 1.5 percent. That is just a sliver of evidence, but it does suggest that the people who pay the most attention to the working economy -- which is to say the Wall Street investors -- didn't really care all that much about which president they got. And most economists will tell you that the president's role when it comes to the economy is much closer to let's say a cheerleader than a CEO."

"...just once I'd love a presidential candidate to get up there on the stump and say: 'My fellow Americans, I can't control the U.S. economy. I've got a little bit of influence but mostly it does what it does. So if it gets worse on my watch, you shouldn't blame me -- and if it happens to get better, you probably shouldn't give me too much credit either.'"

But we all know that won't happen. Presidents love to say that they will create jobs. Presidents cannot create jobs. Do people actually think that the enactment of some fiscal policy is going to cause a corporation to suddenly start hiring or firing people? Do people actually think that Bush was responsible for the stock market crash of 2008, or that Obama was responsible for the growth? The market was responsible for it. Put some fucking stock in the people and stop blaming all of your financial woes on whoever is in the White House. Fucking scapegoat seekers, that's what you are.

You're completely f'ing wrong. Yes, market forces will drive an economy; and many of them are out of the reach of president. However, a president's policies will always have big impacts upon economies and you are completely ignorant to say otherwise.

And you claim not to be a liberal; but frankly I've seen this play time and time again from liberals. When their guy in the WH is struggling, they completely dismiss his policies. You're a plant dude. An intellectually dishonest plant who his pretending to be impartial and educated.

I am dead honest about everything I say. If you have trust issues that's not my fault.

Now, if you can provide me with clear examples of how a President has had big impacts on the economy, at least that can be measured within a 4-year term, I am all ears. Until you do, I have no reason to believe you either. If you take some time to read publications like The Economist or Wall Street Journal, you will see that most professional opinions don't look at the White House, they look at what the market is doing. The President has nothing to do with why the housing market crashed, nor with why it is so stagnant in rebounding. If that were the case then I would blame Bush for the housing crash and Obama for the stagnation. That is absurd.

You're a bold faced liar and I could give you countless examples of why you're full of shit. But frankly, I'm not going to dignify your plant shit.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

You're completely f'ing wrong. Yes, market forces will drive an economy; and many of them are out of the reach of president. However, a president's policies will always have big impacts upon economies and you are completely ignorant to say otherwise.

And you claim not to be a liberal; but frankly I've seen this play time and time again from liberals. When their guy in the WH is struggling, they completely dismiss his policies. You're a plant dude. An intellectually dishonest plant who his pretending to be impartial and educated.

I am dead honest about everything I say. If you have trust issues that's not my fault.

Now, if you can provide me with clear examples of how a President has had big impacts on the economy, at least that can be measured within a 4-year term, I am all ears. Until you do, I have no reason to believe you either. If you take some time to read publications like The Economist or Wall Street Journal, you will see that most professional opinions don't look at the White House, they look at what the market is doing. The President has nothing to do with why the housing market crashed, nor with why it is so stagnant in rebounding. If that were the case then I would blame Bush for the housing crash and Obama for the stagnation. That is absurd.

You're a bold faced liar and I could give you countless examples of why you're full of shit. But frankly, I'm not going to dignify your plant shit.

I'm not asking for countless examples. I'm only asking for one or two. Tell me of a case where a presidential policy decision had a significant impact on how the economy is doing. Watching the debates, both candidates do the same thing they do every race, make bold-faced lies themselves about things they will do that they CAN'T do. This is a debate forum, if you can't support your claims and the best you can do is say "you're a liar," why are you here?