Has Obama really helped to improve the economy?

[Neotrotsky]

Has Obama really helped to improve the economy?


No

unless you are large contributor to him
or somehow connected to friends of his

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Has Obama really helped to improve the economy?

The question assumes that a president’s fiscal policies have an immediate impact on the economy and that he governs alone without a Legislative or Judicial Branch. Since neither is the case the question is nonsense.

The economy will heal in its own time and in its own manner. The economy is improving, not as quickly as the president’s supporters would like, and to the joy of the president’s opponents, but improving nonetheless.

And if one is going to ‘blame’ Obama for current economic conditions, then GWB should be blamed for the December 2007 recession. Or, if one rejects the notion of blaming Bush for the December 2007 recession, then Obama is likewise not responsible for current economic conditions.

If the partisan right wants to play the economic blame-game, they need to understand that it must be played in a comprehensive, consistent manner, where the economic disaster Obama inherited, and its aftermath we deal with today, was the direct result of failed Bush fiscal policies.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Papa Obama' s people promised the Pork Bill would keep unemployment from passing 8 percent

sorry
he owns it now

Obama isn't working

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

President Nixon and President Ford left President Carter with high inflation, serious unemployment and an economy in such bad shape a new word was coined to describe it: STAGFLATION.

Only very dumb parrots suggest Carter was responsible for the mess we were in the late 1970's.

Inflation was at 5 percent when he took office and 14 percent when he left. Unemployment was about 7.5 when he took office and 7.0 when he left.

You never measure inflation like that you dumbass because inflation drops and spikes ca be affected by events that precede a person coming into office, do you real think the govt and economy goes into neutral the day someone takes over? If a previous president enacted policies that could effect the economy years on down the line after they're out of office you can't pin the outcome of that shat on the next man coming into office, neither can they be changed at the drop of a dime, you're political and economically facked up in the brain.

According to the left President Carter's policies had absolutely nothing to do with the economy experiencing an increase in inflation, or the gas crisis where Americans had to purchase gas based on whether they had an odd or even license plate on their vehicle. It all had to do with the previous administration setting the pace of what that President was stuck with. Yet, when the left talks about the economy under President Clinton, you will get a whole new version of the story of who is responsible. Passing the blame when confronted with a President that introduced bad policies during a recession, or placing that President on a pedistal when the economy quickly recovers under his administration, appears to be extent of the left's comprehension of the economy.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

To rocko.........you are dead right. Higher taxes, gives obama more money to blow and it would not go on the deficit. He is a spend spend and spend president and we are further in debt now then ever in our lifetimes. The young people will be saddled with this. Its laughable that anyone thinks obama would take taxes and pay on the deficit. Good grief even proven facts don't sink into some people.

When the Democrats won't even pass a simple budget during the entire time Obama has been in office, it tells you alot about how serious they are at reducing the debt and cutting spending. We have seen a reduction in the military and NASA's budget, yet where is the entitlement cuts that take the greater portion of the Federal Governments budget?

Isn't it interesting how a Federal Government, that the most fiscally irresponsible of anyone else you can find in this country, demands more from those that are the most fiscally responsible and (dare we say) is able to actually show the ability to create a surplus a.k.a. a PROFIT. In other words, having a huge debt with runaway spending is good, while someone who is able to maintain a budget that creates a surplus or profit is somehow bad - according to liberal logic. Perhaps the liberals in the federal Government can actually learn something from those with a better grasp on [even the most basic of] financial matters.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Do you mean after he made it worse?

 

[Katzndogz]

The entire point of the democrat economic catastrophe might be to eliminate our military defenses.

 

[Neotrotsky]

It is interesting how things got worse under Papa Obama and now any movement is suppose to be
a testament to his greatness

"...chocolate ration went up to 25 grams per week"

Just like spending, they have raised it through the roof
and they want raise taxes first

No doubt a poor attempt to normalize such a high level of spending

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Has Obama really helped improve the economy?

Uh, no...

Did you really have to ask this? That scares me...

 

[Neotrotsky]

Has Obama really helped to improve the economy?
No

which is why he has to run from his record
-----------------------------------





Here boy, here boy