Obama Admits To 'Flying Blind' As President

[Slade3200]

an you point out the economic policies Barack Obama put in place that got unemployment to go down? What his policies were to grow the economy?

Historically an administration is always given credit for good outcomes or blamed for bad outcomes. That seems to always lead to clashes in what are the causes and effects. I'm not going to get into a pointless never ending discourse at that level.

...yet the stock market is growing so strongly since Donald Trump's election

During Obama's two terms the stock market more than doubled. Let's see how Trump does at the end of his term before jumping to cause and effect conclusions.

So you can't come up with an Obama policy that grew the economy or decreased unemployment? Noted...

I wouldn't give him stellar marks for his performance as he ran up a pretty large debt but he did bring stability to a country that was in free fall. Specifically, 2008 stimulus spending and bailouts, regulating the banks that got us in the mess, and the additional tax cuts that gave another stimulus boost in 2010. These were the key components to the positive direction he took the economy and employment situation. We've also seen a double in the stock market over his term. Again I'll say, his term want without some mis steps, but it's not nearly as bad as most of his opponents make it out to be.

A "pretty large debt"? Ah, he added more debt than almost all of the Presidents before him combined, Slade. That's not a pretty large debt...that's an amazingly high debt and it would have been even higher if the Democrats hadn't lost control of the House in 2010. What in the 2008 Stimulus did you think led to job creation? If you'll remember, the Obama Administration had to come up with a new economic statistic "jobs created or saved" because the number of jobs they created was so embarrassingly small. The Stimulus protected public sector employees temporarily from being laid off while it essentially ignored those in the private sector. As soon as that stimulus money ran out however States and local governments were forced to lay off large numbers of people because the economy wasn't responding and there wasn't money coming in through revenues from the private sector to pay for public sector salaries. The TARP program started by George W. Bush was the main driver of the recovery...and to be blunt...it was handled much better by the Bush folks than by the Obama folks. We the taxpayers got paid back by the financial institutions that borrowed TARP money under the Bush Administration...but we got left holding the bag on many of the loans made by the Obama Administration. We're still out a ton of money on the GM bailout.

I have critiques on Obamas spending as I'm a small government guy, but I also see a lot of lies and distortion with how people portray Obamas actions. How much of the debt do you put on Obamas shoulders? Are you of the opinion that there should have been no stimulus and no regulations on the banks after the crash?

 

[Oldstyle]

an you point out the economic policies Barack Obama put in place that got unemployment to go down? What his policies were to grow the economy?

Historically an administration is always given credit for good outcomes or blamed for bad outcomes. That seems to always lead to clashes in what are the causes and effects. I'm not going to get into a pointless never ending discourse at that level.

...yet the stock market is growing so strongly since Donald Trump's election

During Obama's two terms the stock market more than doubled. Let's see how Trump does at the end of his term before jumping to cause and effect conclusions.

So you can't come up with an Obama policy that grew the economy or decreased unemployment? Noted...

I wouldn't give him stellar marks for his performance as he ran up a pretty large debt but he did bring stability to a country that was in free fall. Specifically, 2008 stimulus spending and bailouts, regulating the banks that got us in the mess, and the additional tax cuts that gave another stimulus boost in 2010. These were the key components to the positive direction he took the economy and employment situation. We've also seen a double in the stock market over his term. Again I'll say, his term want without some mis steps, but it's not nearly as bad as most of his opponents make it out to be.

A "pretty large debt"? Ah, he added more debt than almost all of the Presidents before him combined, Slade. That's not a pretty large debt...that's an amazingly high debt and it would have been even higher if the Democrats hadn't lost control of the House in 2010. What in the 2008 Stimulus did you think led to job creation? If you'll remember, the Obama Administration had to come up with a new economic statistic "jobs created or saved" because the number of jobs they created was so embarrassingly small. The Stimulus protected public sector employees temporarily from being laid off while it essentially ignored those in the private sector. As soon as that stimulus money ran out however States and local governments were forced to lay off large numbers of people because the economy wasn't responding and there wasn't money coming in through revenues from the private sector to pay for public sector salaries. The TARP program started by George W. Bush was the main driver of the recovery...and to be blunt...it was handled much better by the Bush folks than by the Obama folks. We the taxpayers got paid back by the financial institutions that borrowed TARP money under the Bush Administration...but we got left holding the bag on many of the loans made by the Obama Administration. We're still out a ton of money on the GM bailout.

I have critiques on Obamas spending as I'm a small government guy, but I also see a lot of lies and distortion with how people portray Obamas actions. How much of the debt do you put on Obamas shoulders? Are you of the opinion that there should have been no stimulus and no regulations on the banks after the crash?

I have no problem with the idea of government stimulus, Slade...the basic premise of Keynesian economic theory makes total sense. Where I have a problem is when government continues runaway spending long after a crisis has been averted. Keynes would have been horrified watching what modern governments have been doing in his name with "Keynesian Economic Policy". His economic theory called for brief periods of increased government spending to combat recessions after which incurred debt would be paid down by spending cuts coupled with tax increases during strong economies.

As for stimulus? What I saw from Obama was using "stimulus" way too much to reward his political base at the expense of the rest of the country. Protecting public sector workers from layoffs while letting the private sector lay off millions was great for liberally dominated public sector unions but when that money ran out the public sector isn't the sector that generates tax revenues. Stimulus should be spent where it will create jobs that generate tax revenues...not to keep jobs that don't.

And please stop with the concept that conservatives want to do away with all regulations on banks. We need common sense regulations that aren't driven by ideology. Canada had a much smaller contraction in their housing market because they never bought into the idea that everyone should be able to buy their own house. In Canada the banks were still demanding a good sized down payment to secure a mortgage. They didn't do the "liar loans" that our banks were forced to give to people that should never have qualified for a home loan. When our market contracted people walked away from mortgages that they were way under water on but had invested little of their own capital in...causing our financial institutions to teeter on the brink of insolvency. THAT is stupidity.

 

[Slade3200]

Historically an administration is always given credit for good outcomes or blamed for bad outcomes. That seems to always lead to clashes in what are the causes and effects. I'm not going to get into a pointless never ending discourse at that level.

During Obama's two terms the stock market more than doubled. Let's see how Trump does at the end of his term before jumping to cause and effect conclusions.

So you can't come up with an Obama policy that grew the economy or decreased unemployment? Noted...

I wouldn't give him stellar marks for his performance as he ran up a pretty large debt but he did bring stability to a country that was in free fall. Specifically, 2008 stimulus spending and bailouts, regulating the banks that got us in the mess, and the additional tax cuts that gave another stimulus boost in 2010. These were the key components to the positive direction he took the economy and employment situation. We've also seen a double in the stock market over his term. Again I'll say, his term want without some mis steps, but it's not nearly as bad as most of his opponents make it out to be.

A "pretty large debt"? Ah, he added more debt than almost all of the Presidents before him combined, Slade. That's not a pretty large debt...that's an amazingly high debt and it would have been even higher if the Democrats hadn't lost control of the House in 2010. What in the 2008 Stimulus did you think led to job creation? If you'll remember, the Obama Administration had to come up with a new economic statistic "jobs created or saved" because the number of jobs they created was so embarrassingly small. The Stimulus protected public sector employees temporarily from being laid off while it essentially ignored those in the private sector. As soon as that stimulus money ran out however States and local governments were forced to lay off large numbers of people because the economy wasn't responding and there wasn't money coming in through revenues from the private sector to pay for public sector salaries. The TARP program started by George W. Bush was the main driver of the recovery...and to be blunt...it was handled much better by the Bush folks than by the Obama folks. We the taxpayers got paid back by the financial institutions that borrowed TARP money under the Bush Administration...but we got left holding the bag on many of the loans made by the Obama Administration. We're still out a ton of money on the GM bailout.

I have critiques on Obamas spending as I'm a small government guy, but I also see a lot of lies and distortion with how people portray Obamas actions. How much of the debt do you put on Obamas shoulders? Are you of the opinion that there should have been no stimulus and no regulations on the banks after the crash?

I have no problem with the idea of government stimulus, Slade...the basic premise of Keynesian economic theory makes total sense. Where I have a problem is when government continues runaway spending long after a crisis has been averted. Keynes would have been horrified watching what modern governments have been doing in his name with "Keynesian Economic Policy". His economic theory called for brief periods of increased government spending to combat recessions after which incurred debt would be paid down by spending cuts coupled with tax increases during strong economies.

As for stimulus? What I saw from Obama was using "stimulus" way too much to reward his political base at the expense of the rest of the country. Protecting public sector workers from layoffs while letting the private sector lay off millions was great for liberally dominated public sector unions but when that money ran out the public sector isn't the sector that generates tax revenues. Stimulus should be spent where it will create jobs that generate tax revenues...not to keep jobs that don't.

And please stop with the concept that conservatives want to do away with all regulations on banks. We need common sense regulations that aren't driven by ideology. Canada had a much smaller contraction in their housing market because they never bought into the idea that everyone should be able to buy their own house. In Canada the banks were still demanding a good sized down payment to secure a mortgage. They didn't do the "liar loans" that our banks were forced to give to people that should never have qualified for a home loan. When our market contracted people walked away from mortgages that they were way under water on but had invested little of their own capital in...causing our financial institutions to teeter on the brink of insolvency. THAT is stupidity.

I agree with what you are saying. So it sounds like you support some stimulus spending and some regulations on our banks as a course of action but feel that Obama did too much of both, and poor direction for both. But what specifically? How much wasted stimulus did he direct to which agencies? How much did the extra bank regulations contribute to the debt/slow economy, and which Regs were to blame for that.

I'm open minded to your claims as I have critiques of my own... I just don't see the magnitude of fault that you are placing on Obama. I think his actions could have been smarter but they helped things get better, which is much better then getting worse. Slow growth is a mild critique and is much better than causing a catostrophic crash

 

[Wuwei]

The truth is, McConnell didn't announce his plan to buck Obama until a year into the Obama first term.

Wow. I didn't realize he did that so early in Obama's administration. Shame on him.

Obama COULD have passed comprehensive immigration reform that first year...he COULD have passed policies to grow the economy and create jobs! Instead he chose to go after single payer healthcare. The GOP didn't force him into doing that...that was his choice!

So what? Obama lost all power after the second year and congress did nothing. Create jobs? Immigration policies? Congress wasn't helpful after the second year. The irony is that Obama's health care plan was similar to Mitt Romney's state plan.

God, you people are so clueless! Debt increased under Bill Clinton as well, Wuwei! How do you on the left not grasp that?

You are right. I was referring to federal outlays, but worded it wrong.
CNN Fact Check: The last president to balance the budget

Fact Check: Who was president the last time the budget was balanced?
- The U.S. government suffered budget deficits every year from 1970 through 1997.
- Democrat Bill Clinton was president in 1998, when the government finally recorded a surplus.​

Clinton did fairly well keeping federal outlays sort of constant when they are adjusted for population and inflation. It seems that Obama tried a bit too. But that didn't help the debt.
The Rise in Per Capita Federal Spending

 

[Oldstyle]

The truth is, McConnell didn't announce his plan to buck Obama until a year into the Obama first term.

Wow. I didn't realize he did that so early in Obama's administration. Shame on him.

Obama COULD have passed comprehensive immigration reform that first year...he COULD have passed policies to grow the economy and create jobs! Instead he chose to go after single payer healthcare. The GOP didn't force him into doing that...that was his choice!

So what? Obama lost all power after the second year and congress did nothing. Create jobs? Immigration policies? Congress wasn't helpful after the second year. The irony is that Obama's health care plan was similar to Mitt Romney's state plan.

God, you people are so clueless! Debt increased under Bill Clinton as well, Wuwei! How do you on the left not grasp that?

You are right. I was referring to federal outlays, but worded it wrong.
CNN Fact Check: The last president to balance the budget

Fact Check: Who was president the last time the budget was balanced?
- The U.S. government suffered budget deficits every year from 1970 through 1997.
- Democrat Bill Clinton was president in 1998, when the government finally recorded a surplus.​

Clinton did fairly well keeping federal outlays sort of constant when they are adjusted for population and inflation. It seems that Obama tried a bit too. But that didn't help the debt.
The Rise in Per Capita Federal Spending

So now waiting a year to see if an incoming President is willing to compromise on legislation before vowing to fight his agenda is doing it "early", Wuwei? Here's a newsflash for you...if Obama had shown ANY inclination to work with the GOP during that first year then McConnell's attitude might have been completely different but when the Democrats controlled the House, Senate and the Oval Office...Obama essentially told Republicans to go pound sand if they didn't like the legislation that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were writing behind closed doors.

For God's sake...are you STILL trying to claim that Clinton had a surplus? Did you liberals all fail economics? Before you make a complete ass of yourself look into what intragovernmental holdings are and how they work.

 

[Oldstyle]

So you can't come up with an Obama policy that grew the economy or decreased unemployment? Noted...

I wouldn't give him stellar marks for his performance as he ran up a pretty large debt but he did bring stability to a country that was in free fall. Specifically, 2008 stimulus spending and bailouts, regulating the banks that got us in the mess, and the additional tax cuts that gave another stimulus boost in 2010. These were the key components to the positive direction he took the economy and employment situation. We've also seen a double in the stock market over his term. Again I'll say, his term want without some mis steps, but it's not nearly as bad as most of his opponents make it out to be.

A "pretty large debt"? Ah, he added more debt than almost all of the Presidents before him combined, Slade. That's not a pretty large debt...that's an amazingly high debt and it would have been even higher if the Democrats hadn't lost control of the House in 2010. What in the 2008 Stimulus did you think led to job creation? If you'll remember, the Obama Administration had to come up with a new economic statistic "jobs created or saved" because the number of jobs they created was so embarrassingly small. The Stimulus protected public sector employees temporarily from being laid off while it essentially ignored those in the private sector. As soon as that stimulus money ran out however States and local governments were forced to lay off large numbers of people because the economy wasn't responding and there wasn't money coming in through revenues from the private sector to pay for public sector salaries. The TARP program started by George W. Bush was the main driver of the recovery...and to be blunt...it was handled much better by the Bush folks than by the Obama folks. We the taxpayers got paid back by the financial institutions that borrowed TARP money under the Bush Administration...but we got left holding the bag on many of the loans made by the Obama Administration. We're still out a ton of money on the GM bailout.

I have critiques on Obamas spending as I'm a small government guy, but I also see a lot of lies and distortion with how people portray Obamas actions. How much of the debt do you put on Obamas shoulders? Are you of the opinion that there should have been no stimulus and no regulations on the banks after the crash?

I have no problem with the idea of government stimulus, Slade...the basic premise of Keynesian economic theory makes total sense. Where I have a problem is when government continues runaway spending long after a crisis has been averted. Keynes would have been horrified watching what modern governments have been doing in his name with "Keynesian Economic Policy". His economic theory called for brief periods of increased government spending to combat recessions after which incurred debt would be paid down by spending cuts coupled with tax increases during strong economies.

As for stimulus? What I saw from Obama was using "stimulus" way too much to reward his political base at the expense of the rest of the country. Protecting public sector workers from layoffs while letting the private sector lay off millions was great for liberally dominated public sector unions but when that money ran out the public sector isn't the sector that generates tax revenues. Stimulus should be spent where it will create jobs that generate tax revenues...not to keep jobs that don't.

And please stop with the concept that conservatives want to do away with all regulations on banks. We need common sense regulations that aren't driven by ideology. Canada had a much smaller contraction in their housing market because they never bought into the idea that everyone should be able to buy their own house. In Canada the banks were still demanding a good sized down payment to secure a mortgage. They didn't do the "liar loans" that our banks were forced to give to people that should never have qualified for a home loan. When our market contracted people walked away from mortgages that they were way under water on but had invested little of their own capital in...causing our financial institutions to teeter on the brink of insolvency. THAT is stupidity.

I agree with what you are saying. So it sounds like you support some stimulus spending and some regulations on our banks as a course of action but feel that Obama did too much of both, and poor direction for both. But what specifically? How much wasted stimulus did he direct to which agencies? How much did the extra bank regulations contribute to the debt/slow economy, and which Regs were to blame for that.

I'm open minded to your claims as I have critiques of my own... I just don't see the magnitude of fault that you are placing on Obama. I think his actions could have been smarter but they helped things get better, which is much better then getting worse. Slow growth is a mild critique and is much better than causing a catostrophic crash

Here's my problem with the "Obama Recovery", Slade. If you were to examine the history of recessions you'd see that they are a natural part of economic cycles and have been occurring regularly for hundreds of years. You'd also notice that recessions historically rebound as sharply as they occur and that the more pronounced the economic slowdown the more pronounced the bounce when the rebound takes place. There are however two glaring exceptions to that behavior...the recovery from the Great Depression and the recovery from the Great Recession. Both utilized almost unprecedented spending by Government and both saw the recessions they were trying to alleviate drag on and on. For Barack Obama to have spent the money that he has...and for the Fed to keep interest rates as low as it has for as long as it has...and only achieve around an average of 2% growth is abysmal!

As for what regulations the Obama Administration imposed that slowed the economy? The uncertainty of the Affordable Care Act...it's costs and it's mandates to businesses put an incredible damper on economic growth at the very time when growing the economy should have been the number one priority for Barack Obama's new Presidency. To go after THAT before putting people back to work was the epitome of ideologically driven politics. Rearranging how creditors were in line to be paid in GM's bailout was great for the auto industry unions but awful precedent for how investors viewed the US. We have always been a desirable place for the rest of the world to invest because we are a country of laws and not some Banana Republic that seizes property that rightfully belongs to someone else. What the Obama Administration did when it arbitrarily decided who should get paid first sent a signal to potential investors in US businesses that their interests would NOT be protected under our laws if someone sitting in the Oval Office decided THEY would be making that call.

 

[Slade3200]

I wouldn't give him stellar marks for his performance as he ran up a pretty large debt but he did bring stability to a country that was in free fall. Specifically, 2008 stimulus spending and bailouts, regulating the banks that got us in the mess, and the additional tax cuts that gave another stimulus boost in 2010. These were the key components to the positive direction he took the economy and employment situation. We've also seen a double in the stock market over his term. Again I'll say, his term want without some mis steps, but it's not nearly as bad as most of his opponents make it out to be.

A "pretty large debt"? Ah, he added more debt than almost all of the Presidents before him combined, Slade. That's not a pretty large debt...that's an amazingly high debt and it would have been even higher if the Democrats hadn't lost control of the House in 2010. What in the 2008 Stimulus did you think led to job creation? If you'll remember, the Obama Administration had to come up with a new economic statistic "jobs created or saved" because the number of jobs they created was so embarrassingly small. The Stimulus protected public sector employees temporarily from being laid off while it essentially ignored those in the private sector. As soon as that stimulus money ran out however States and local governments were forced to lay off large numbers of people because the economy wasn't responding and there wasn't money coming in through revenues from the private sector to pay for public sector salaries. The TARP program started by George W. Bush was the main driver of the recovery...and to be blunt...it was handled much better by the Bush folks than by the Obama folks. We the taxpayers got paid back by the financial institutions that borrowed TARP money under the Bush Administration...but we got left holding the bag on many of the loans made by the Obama Administration. We're still out a ton of money on the GM bailout.

I have critiques on Obamas spending as I'm a small government guy, but I also see a lot of lies and distortion with how people portray Obamas actions. How much of the debt do you put on Obamas shoulders? Are you of the opinion that there should have been no stimulus and no regulations on the banks after the crash?

I have no problem with the idea of government stimulus, Slade...the basic premise of Keynesian economic theory makes total sense. Where I have a problem is when government continues runaway spending long after a crisis has been averted. Keynes would have been horrified watching what modern governments have been doing in his name with "Keynesian Economic Policy". His economic theory called for brief periods of increased government spending to combat recessions after which incurred debt would be paid down by spending cuts coupled with tax increases during strong economies.

As for stimulus? What I saw from Obama was using "stimulus" way too much to reward his political base at the expense of the rest of the country. Protecting public sector workers from layoffs while letting the private sector lay off millions was great for liberally dominated public sector unions but when that money ran out the public sector isn't the sector that generates tax revenues. Stimulus should be spent where it will create jobs that generate tax revenues...not to keep jobs that don't.

And please stop with the concept that conservatives want to do away with all regulations on banks. We need common sense regulations that aren't driven by ideology. Canada had a much smaller contraction in their housing market because they never bought into the idea that everyone should be able to buy their own house. In Canada the banks were still demanding a good sized down payment to secure a mortgage. They didn't do the "liar loans" that our banks were forced to give to people that should never have qualified for a home loan. When our market contracted people walked away from mortgages that they were way under water on but had invested little of their own capital in...causing our financial institutions to teeter on the brink of insolvency. THAT is stupidity.

I agree with what you are saying. So it sounds like you support some stimulus spending and some regulations on our banks as a course of action but feel that Obama did too much of both, and poor direction for both. But what specifically? How much wasted stimulus did he direct to which agencies? How much did the extra bank regulations contribute to the debt/slow economy, and which Regs were to blame for that.

I'm open minded to your claims as I have critiques of my own... I just don't see the magnitude of fault that you are placing on Obama. I think his actions could have been smarter but they helped things get better, which is much better then getting worse. Slow growth is a mild critique and is much better than causing a catostrophic crash

Here's my problem with the "Obama Recovery", Slade. If you were to examine the history of recessions you'd see that they are a natural part of economic cycles and have been occurring regularly for hundreds of years. You'd also notice that recessions historically rebound as sharply as they occur and that the more pronounced the economic slowdown the more pronounced the bounce when the rebound takes place. There are however two glaring exceptions to that behavior...the recovery from the Great Depression and the recovery from the Great Recession. Both utilized almost unprecedented spending by Government and both saw the recessions they were trying to alleviate drag on and on. For Barack Obama to have spent the money that he has...and for the Fed to keep interest rates as low as it has for as long as it has...and only achieve around an average of 2% growth is abysmal!

As for what regulations the Obama Administration imposed that slowed the economy? The uncertainty of the Affordable Care Act...it's costs and it's mandates to businesses put an incredible damper on economic growth at the very time when growing the economy should have been the number one priority for Barack Obama's new Presidency. To go after THAT before putting people back to work was the epitome of ideologically driven politics. Rearranging how creditors were in line to be paid in GM's bailout was great for the auto industry unions but awful precedent for how investors viewed the US. We have always been a desirable place for the rest of the world to invest because we are a country of laws and not some Banana Republic that seizes property that rightfully belongs to someone else. What the Obama Administration did when it arbitrarily decided who should get paid first sent a signal to potential investors in US businesses that their interests would NOT be protected under our laws if someone sitting in the Oval Office decided THEY would be making that call.

Kind of similar to what Trump just did with carrier right? I imagine you object to that as well?

As for the recovery, I don't think it is fair to compare to historical recessions and recovery's as conditions are different and new factors are in play. We are now more of a world economy than an isolated national economy and I believe our trade deals were a major factor in the stagnant wage growth and economic growth in our country. The Great Depression was followed by an industrial boom in our country... conditions are completely different in modern times so I don't like the comparison. If you compare our recovery with others around the world we did as good or better than most.

I do agree that the ACA didn't help. It was an anchor to our growth that hurt small business which I did not like. I do like the initiative to reform a broken system and I like the fact that millions got insurance that didn't have it. But the roll out was messy, expensive, and inefficient. That is the fault of both Obama and Congress. Repeal and Replace is BS rhetoric and a waste of time. Our leaders should just focus on improving the system, change what doesn't work and keep what does. Unfortunately, the partisan divide puts so many on the side of wanted to slap obama in the face by taking it away, instead of giving him credit for starting a worthy initiative and working to make it better.

 

[Oldstyle]

A "pretty large debt"? Ah, he added more debt than almost all of the Presidents before him combined, Slade. That's not a pretty large debt...that's an amazingly high debt and it would have been even higher if the Democrats hadn't lost control of the House in 2010. What in the 2008 Stimulus did you think led to job creation? If you'll remember, the Obama Administration had to come up with a new economic statistic "jobs created or saved" because the number of jobs they created was so embarrassingly small. The Stimulus protected public sector employees temporarily from being laid off while it essentially ignored those in the private sector. As soon as that stimulus money ran out however States and local governments were forced to lay off large numbers of people because the economy wasn't responding and there wasn't money coming in through revenues from the private sector to pay for public sector salaries. The TARP program started by George W. Bush was the main driver of the recovery...and to be blunt...it was handled much better by the Bush folks than by the Obama folks. We the taxpayers got paid back by the financial institutions that borrowed TARP money under the Bush Administration...but we got left holding the bag on many of the loans made by the Obama Administration. We're still out a ton of money on the GM bailout.

I have critiques on Obamas spending as I'm a small government guy, but I also see a lot of lies and distortion with how people portray Obamas actions. How much of the debt do you put on Obamas shoulders? Are you of the opinion that there should have been no stimulus and no regulations on the banks after the crash?

I have no problem with the idea of government stimulus, Slade...the basic premise of Keynesian economic theory makes total sense. Where I have a problem is when government continues runaway spending long after a crisis has been averted. Keynes would have been horrified watching what modern governments have been doing in his name with "Keynesian Economic Policy". His economic theory called for brief periods of increased government spending to combat recessions after which incurred debt would be paid down by spending cuts coupled with tax increases during strong economies.

As for stimulus? What I saw from Obama was using "stimulus" way too much to reward his political base at the expense of the rest of the country. Protecting public sector workers from layoffs while letting the private sector lay off millions was great for liberally dominated public sector unions but when that money ran out the public sector isn't the sector that generates tax revenues. Stimulus should be spent where it will create jobs that generate tax revenues...not to keep jobs that don't.

And please stop with the concept that conservatives want to do away with all regulations on banks. We need common sense regulations that aren't driven by ideology. Canada had a much smaller contraction in their housing market because they never bought into the idea that everyone should be able to buy their own house. In Canada the banks were still demanding a good sized down payment to secure a mortgage. They didn't do the "liar loans" that our banks were forced to give to people that should never have qualified for a home loan. When our market contracted people walked away from mortgages that they were way under water on but had invested little of their own capital in...causing our financial institutions to teeter on the brink of insolvency. THAT is stupidity.

I agree with what you are saying. So it sounds like you support some stimulus spending and some regulations on our banks as a course of action but feel that Obama did too much of both, and poor direction for both. But what specifically? How much wasted stimulus did he direct to which agencies? How much did the extra bank regulations contribute to the debt/slow economy, and which Regs were to blame for that.

I'm open minded to your claims as I have critiques of my own... I just don't see the magnitude of fault that you are placing on Obama. I think his actions could have been smarter but they helped things get better, which is much better then getting worse. Slow growth is a mild critique and is much better than causing a catostrophic crash

Here's my problem with the "Obama Recovery", Slade. If you were to examine the history of recessions you'd see that they are a natural part of economic cycles and have been occurring regularly for hundreds of years. You'd also notice that recessions historically rebound as sharply as they occur and that the more pronounced the economic slowdown the more pronounced the bounce when the rebound takes place. There are however two glaring exceptions to that behavior...the recovery from the Great Depression and the recovery from the Great Recession. Both utilized almost unprecedented spending by Government and both saw the recessions they were trying to alleviate drag on and on. For Barack Obama to have spent the money that he has...and for the Fed to keep interest rates as low as it has for as long as it has...and only achieve around an average of 2% growth is abysmal!

As for what regulations the Obama Administration imposed that slowed the economy? The uncertainty of the Affordable Care Act...it's costs and it's mandates to businesses put an incredible damper on economic growth at the very time when growing the economy should have been the number one priority for Barack Obama's new Presidency. To go after THAT before putting people back to work was the epitome of ideologically driven politics. Rearranging how creditors were in line to be paid in GM's bailout was great for the auto industry unions but awful precedent for how investors viewed the US. We have always been a desirable place for the rest of the world to invest because we are a country of laws and not some Banana Republic that seizes property that rightfully belongs to someone else. What the Obama Administration did when it arbitrarily decided who should get paid first sent a signal to potential investors in US businesses that their interests would NOT be protected under our laws if someone sitting in the Oval Office decided THEY would be making that call.

Kind of similar to what Trump just did with carrier right? I imagine you object to that as well?

As for the recovery, I don't think it is fair to compare to historical recessions and recovery's as conditions are different and new factors are in play. We are now more of a world economy than an isolated national economy and I believe our trade deals were a major factor in the stagnant wage growth and economic growth in our country. The Great Depression was followed by an industrial boom in our country... conditions are completely different in modern times so I don't like the comparison. If you compare our recovery with others around the world we did as good or better than most.

I do agree that the ACA didn't help. It was an anchor to our growth that hurt small business which I did not like. I do like the initiative to reform a broken system and I like the fact that millions got insurance that didn't have it. But the roll out was messy, expensive, and inefficient. That is the fault of both Obama and Congress. Repeal and Replace is BS rhetoric and a waste of time. Our leaders should just focus on improving the system, change what doesn't work and keep what does. Unfortunately, the partisan divide puts so many on the side of wanted to slap obama in the face by taking it away, instead of giving him credit for starting a worthy initiative and working to make it better.

Let's be honest here, Slade...the biggest problem with the ACA is cost...something that is "baked in" because the people who wrote the legislation didn't care if it was workable from a cost standpoint! Yes, millions got insured through the ACA but millions of Middle Class Americans are being forced to pick up the tab for the cost of that and they've got sticker shock at the levels their health care premiums are now going to. Why are they now going up by 30 or 40%? It's because someone has to pay for those millions of people who didn't have insurance before and now do! Take having young people stay on their parent's plan until well into adulthood. Why are we as a country doing this? Since when do we need to subsidize that cost for young people to have healthcare when we've never done so before? Because it's a "vote getter" for Democrats as a throw in for part of their base? Because it's one step closer to government run healthcare from the cradle to the grave? To some extent the same problem exists for "pre-existing conditions". In theory telling insurance companies they can't charge a different rate to someone who is obese and a smoker with diabetes and at risk for lung cancer sounds commendable but in essence what you're telling people is that you can make all the bad choices you want in life but the cost of those bad choices will now be absorbed by society with people who didn't overeat and smoke paying for you. I'm sorry but that's inherently unfair. It's one of the reasons why we as a nation are in trouble right now. We've taken personal responsibility and substituted a government "nanny state" that will look after us. Don't feel like working to improve yourself? Ask your politicians for a "living wage" so that your minimum wage job pays more and you don't need to learn new job skills! Want to overeat and not work out? Smoke like a chimney? No problem! When you get sick because of that behavior...and you will...your fellow citizens will pick up the tab for your massive health care costs!

 

[jon_berzerk]

I have critiques on Obamas spending as I'm a small government guy, but I also see a lot of lies and distortion with how people portray Obamas actions. How much of the debt do you put on Obamas shoulders? Are you of the opinion that there should have been no stimulus and no regulations on the banks after the crash?

I have no problem with the idea of government stimulus, Slade...the basic premise of Keynesian economic theory makes total sense. Where I have a problem is when government continues runaway spending long after a crisis has been averted. Keynes would have been horrified watching what modern governments have been doing in his name with "Keynesian Economic Policy". His economic theory called for brief periods of increased government spending to combat recessions after which incurred debt would be paid down by spending cuts coupled with tax increases during strong economies.

As for stimulus? What I saw from Obama was using "stimulus" way too much to reward his political base at the expense of the rest of the country. Protecting public sector workers from layoffs while letting the private sector lay off millions was great for liberally dominated public sector unions but when that money ran out the public sector isn't the sector that generates tax revenues. Stimulus should be spent where it will create jobs that generate tax revenues...not to keep jobs that don't.

And please stop with the concept that conservatives want to do away with all regulations on banks. We need common sense regulations that aren't driven by ideology. Canada had a much smaller contraction in their housing market because they never bought into the idea that everyone should be able to buy their own house. In Canada the banks were still demanding a good sized down payment to secure a mortgage. They didn't do the "liar loans" that our banks were forced to give to people that should never have qualified for a home loan. When our market contracted people walked away from mortgages that they were way under water on but had invested little of their own capital in...causing our financial institutions to teeter on the brink of insolvency. THAT is stupidity.

I agree with what you are saying. So it sounds like you support some stimulus spending and some regulations on our banks as a course of action but feel that Obama did too much of both, and poor direction for both. But what specifically? How much wasted stimulus did he direct to which agencies? How much did the extra bank regulations contribute to the debt/slow economy, and which Regs were to blame for that.

I'm open minded to your claims as I have critiques of my own... I just don't see the magnitude of fault that you are placing on Obama. I think his actions could have been smarter but they helped things get better, which is much better then getting worse. Slow growth is a mild critique and is much better than causing a catostrophic crash

Here's my problem with the "Obama Recovery", Slade. If you were to examine the history of recessions you'd see that they are a natural part of economic cycles and have been occurring regularly for hundreds of years. You'd also notice that recessions historically rebound as sharply as they occur and that the more pronounced the economic slowdown the more pronounced the bounce when the rebound takes place. There are however two glaring exceptions to that behavior...the recovery from the Great Depression and the recovery from the Great Recession. Both utilized almost unprecedented spending by Government and both saw the recessions they were trying to alleviate drag on and on. For Barack Obama to have spent the money that he has...and for the Fed to keep interest rates as low as it has for as long as it has...and only achieve around an average of 2% growth is abysmal!

As for what regulations the Obama Administration imposed that slowed the economy? The uncertainty of the Affordable Care Act...it's costs and it's mandates to businesses put an incredible damper on economic growth at the very time when growing the economy should have been the number one priority for Barack Obama's new Presidency. To go after THAT before putting people back to work was the epitome of ideologically driven politics. Rearranging how creditors were in line to be paid in GM's bailout was great for the auto industry unions but awful precedent for how investors viewed the US. We have always been a desirable place for the rest of the world to invest because we are a country of laws and not some Banana Republic that seizes property that rightfully belongs to someone else. What the Obama Administration did when it arbitrarily decided who should get paid first sent a signal to potential investors in US businesses that their interests would NOT be protected under our laws if someone sitting in the Oval Office decided THEY would be making that call.

Kind of similar to what Trump just did with carrier right? I imagine you object to that as well?

As for the recovery, I don't think it is fair to compare to historical recessions and recovery's as conditions are different and new factors are in play. We are now more of a world economy than an isolated national economy and I believe our trade deals were a major factor in the stagnant wage growth and economic growth in our country. The Great Depression was followed by an industrial boom in our country... conditions are completely different in modern times so I don't like the comparison. If you compare our recovery with others around the world we did as good or better than most.

I do agree that the ACA didn't help. It was an anchor to our growth that hurt small business which I did not like. I do like the initiative to reform a broken system and I like the fact that millions got insurance that didn't have it. But the roll out was messy, expensive, and inefficient. That is the fault of both Obama and Congress. Repeal and Replace is BS rhetoric and a waste of time. Our leaders should just focus on improving the system, change what doesn't work and keep what does. Unfortunately, the partisan divide puts so many on the side of wanted to slap obama in the face by taking it away, instead of giving him credit for starting a worthy initiative and working to make it better.

Let's be honest here, Slade...the biggest problem with the ACA is cost...something that is "baked in" because the people who wrote the legislation didn't care if it was workable from a cost standpoint! Yes, millions got insured through the ACA but millions of Middle Class Americans are being forced to pick up the tab for the cost of that and they've got sticker shock at the levels their health care premiums are now going to. Why are they now going up by 30 or 40%? It's because someone has to pay for those millions of people who didn't have insurance before and now do! Take having young people stay on their parent's plan until well into adulthood. Why are we as a country doing this? Since when do we need to subsidize that cost for young people to have healthcare when we've never done so before? Because it's a "vote getter" for Democrats as a throw in for part of their base? Because it's one step closer to government run healthcare from the cradle to the grave? To some extent the same problem exists for "pre-existing conditions". In theory telling insurance companies they can't charge a different rate to someone who is obese and a smoker with diabetes and at risk for lung cancer sounds commendable but in essence what you're telling people is that you can make all the bad choices you want in life but the cost of those bad choices will now be absorbed by society with people who didn't overeat and smoke paying for you. I'm sorry but that's inherently unfair. It's one of the reasons why we as a nation are in trouble right now. We've taken personal responsibility and substituted a government "nanny state" that will look after us. Don't feel like working to improve yourself? Ask your politicians for a "living wage" so that your minimum wage job pays more and you don't need to learn new job skills! Want to overeat and not work out? Smoke like a chimney? No problem! When you get sick because of that behavior...and you will...your fellow citizens will pick up the tab for your massive health care costs!

dont know about millions

as of friday

4,015,709

that is counting "auto enrollments"

if the numbers are great why has the deadline been extended once again

 

[Oldstyle]

As for the ACA being an anchor to economic growth? To be quite blunt...Progressives didn't care. If you were one of the millions of Americans laid off in the Private Sector in the first year of the Obama Administration you were left twisting in the wind while liberals went after their political "holy grail"...government run healthcare. At a time when by far the number one priority of Americans was jobs and the economy...the number one priority of Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi was not jobs and the economy but using their majorities in the House and Senate to push through sweeping healthcare reform. You want to know why so many blue collar workers turned away from the Democrats in this last election? Because of how they were treated when Progressives were running the show.

 

[Slade3200]

I have critiques on Obamas spending as I'm a small government guy, but I also see a lot of lies and distortion with how people portray Obamas actions. How much of the debt do you put on Obamas shoulders? Are you of the opinion that there should have been no stimulus and no regulations on the banks after the crash?

I have no problem with the idea of government stimulus, Slade...the basic premise of Keynesian economic theory makes total sense. Where I have a problem is when government continues runaway spending long after a crisis has been averted. Keynes would have been horrified watching what modern governments have been doing in his name with "Keynesian Economic Policy". His economic theory called for brief periods of increased government spending to combat recessions after which incurred debt would be paid down by spending cuts coupled with tax increases during strong economies.

As for stimulus? What I saw from Obama was using "stimulus" way too much to reward his political base at the expense of the rest of the country. Protecting public sector workers from layoffs while letting the private sector lay off millions was great for liberally dominated public sector unions but when that money ran out the public sector isn't the sector that generates tax revenues. Stimulus should be spent where it will create jobs that generate tax revenues...not to keep jobs that don't.

And please stop with the concept that conservatives want to do away with all regulations on banks. We need common sense regulations that aren't driven by ideology. Canada had a much smaller contraction in their housing market because they never bought into the idea that everyone should be able to buy their own house. In Canada the banks were still demanding a good sized down payment to secure a mortgage. They didn't do the "liar loans" that our banks were forced to give to people that should never have qualified for a home loan. When our market contracted people walked away from mortgages that they were way under water on but had invested little of their own capital in...causing our financial institutions to teeter on the brink of insolvency. THAT is stupidity.

I agree with what you are saying. So it sounds like you support some stimulus spending and some regulations on our banks as a course of action but feel that Obama did too much of both, and poor direction for both. But what specifically? How much wasted stimulus did he direct to which agencies? How much did the extra bank regulations contribute to the debt/slow economy, and which Regs were to blame for that.

I'm open minded to your claims as I have critiques of my own... I just don't see the magnitude of fault that you are placing on Obama. I think his actions could have been smarter but they helped things get better, which is much better then getting worse. Slow growth is a mild critique and is much better than causing a catostrophic crash

Here's my problem with the "Obama Recovery", Slade. If you were to examine the history of recessions you'd see that they are a natural part of economic cycles and have been occurring regularly for hundreds of years. You'd also notice that recessions historically rebound as sharply as they occur and that the more pronounced the economic slowdown the more pronounced the bounce when the rebound takes place. There are however two glaring exceptions to that behavior...the recovery from the Great Depression and the recovery from the Great Recession. Both utilized almost unprecedented spending by Government and both saw the recessions they were trying to alleviate drag on and on. For Barack Obama to have spent the money that he has...and for the Fed to keep interest rates as low as it has for as long as it has...and only achieve around an average of 2% growth is abysmal!

As for what regulations the Obama Administration imposed that slowed the economy? The uncertainty of the Affordable Care Act...it's costs and it's mandates to businesses put an incredible damper on economic growth at the very time when growing the economy should have been the number one priority for Barack Obama's new Presidency. To go after THAT before putting people back to work was the epitome of ideologically driven politics. Rearranging how creditors were in line to be paid in GM's bailout was great for the auto industry unions but awful precedent for how investors viewed the US. We have always been a desirable place for the rest of the world to invest because we are a country of laws and not some Banana Republic that seizes property that rightfully belongs to someone else. What the Obama Administration did when it arbitrarily decided who should get paid first sent a signal to potential investors in US businesses that their interests would NOT be protected under our laws if someone sitting in the Oval Office decided THEY would be making that call.

Kind of similar to what Trump just did with carrier right? I imagine you object to that as well?

As for the recovery, I don't think it is fair to compare to historical recessions and recovery's as conditions are different and new factors are in play. We are now more of a world economy than an isolated national economy and I believe our trade deals were a major factor in the stagnant wage growth and economic growth in our country. The Great Depression was followed by an industrial boom in our country... conditions are completely different in modern times so I don't like the comparison. If you compare our recovery with others around the world we did as good or better than most.

I do agree that the ACA didn't help. It was an anchor to our growth that hurt small business which I did not like. I do like the initiative to reform a broken system and I like the fact that millions got insurance that didn't have it. But the roll out was messy, expensive, and inefficient. That is the fault of both Obama and Congress. Repeal and Replace is BS rhetoric and a waste of time. Our leaders should just focus on improving the system, change what doesn't work and keep what does. Unfortunately, the partisan divide puts so many on the side of wanted to slap obama in the face by taking it away, instead of giving him credit for starting a worthy initiative and working to make it better.

Let's be honest here, Slade...the biggest problem with the ACA is cost...something that is "baked in" because the people who wrote the legislation didn't care if it was workable from a cost standpoint! Yes, millions got insured through the ACA but millions of Middle Class Americans are being forced to pick up the tab for the cost of that and they've got sticker shock at the levels their health care premiums are now going to. Why are they now going up by 30 or 40%? It's because someone has to pay for those millions of people who didn't have insurance before and now do! Take having young people stay on their parent's plan until well into adulthood. Why are we as a country doing this? Since when do we need to subsidize that cost for young people to have healthcare when we've never done so before? Because it's a "vote getter" for Democrats as a throw in for part of their base? Because it's one step closer to government run healthcare from the cradle to the grave? To some extent the same problem exists for "pre-existing conditions". In theory telling insurance companies they can't charge a different rate to someone who is obese and a smoker with diabetes and at risk for lung cancer sounds commendable but in essence what you're telling people is that you can make all the bad choices you want in life but the cost of those bad choices will now be absorbed by society with people who didn't overeat and smoke paying for you. I'm sorry but that's inherently unfair. It's one of the reasons why we as a nation are in trouble right now. We've taken personal responsibility and substituted a government "nanny state" that will look after us. Don't feel like working to improve yourself? Ask your politicians for a "living wage" so that your minimum wage job pays more and you don't need to learn new job skills! Want to overeat and not work out? Smoke like a chimney? No problem! When you get sick because of that behavior...and you will...your fellow citizens will pick up the tab for your massive health care costs!

You make some good points that I agree with. It also over exaggerate a lot. Many many preexisting conditions are not from lifestyle choices. And people who do make unhealthy choices don't do it because they have confidence that the state will take care of them when they get sick and suffer.

The fact is, many feel that in our rich civilized society we have a responsibility to care for each other. These people don't feel it is right to leave people to die on the street. So when somebody is sick we treat them. even before ACA healthcare premiums were skyrocketing and insurance companies were out of control, there have been problems for a long time. Costs are an issue with the ACA that need to get fixed but it took a big step in getting a lot of people insured, which is better than those people not being insured.

Economically speaking it was a bump, but also a step towards providing a better system to take care of our citizens, still many more steps to go before it's right, but at least it's a step

 

[Oldstyle]

I have no problem with the idea of government stimulus, Slade...the basic premise of Keynesian economic theory makes total sense. Where I have a problem is when government continues runaway spending long after a crisis has been averted. Keynes would have been horrified watching what modern governments have been doing in his name with "Keynesian Economic Policy". His economic theory called for brief periods of increased government spending to combat recessions after which incurred debt would be paid down by spending cuts coupled with tax increases during strong economies.

As for stimulus? What I saw from Obama was using "stimulus" way too much to reward his political base at the expense of the rest of the country. Protecting public sector workers from layoffs while letting the private sector lay off millions was great for liberally dominated public sector unions but when that money ran out the public sector isn't the sector that generates tax revenues. Stimulus should be spent where it will create jobs that generate tax revenues...not to keep jobs that don't.

And please stop with the concept that conservatives want to do away with all regulations on banks. We need common sense regulations that aren't driven by ideology. Canada had a much smaller contraction in their housing market because they never bought into the idea that everyone should be able to buy their own house. In Canada the banks were still demanding a good sized down payment to secure a mortgage. They didn't do the "liar loans" that our banks were forced to give to people that should never have qualified for a home loan. When our market contracted people walked away from mortgages that they were way under water on but had invested little of their own capital in...causing our financial institutions to teeter on the brink of insolvency. THAT is stupidity.

I agree with what you are saying. So it sounds like you support some stimulus spending and some regulations on our banks as a course of action but feel that Obama did too much of both, and poor direction for both. But what specifically? How much wasted stimulus did he direct to which agencies? How much did the extra bank regulations contribute to the debt/slow economy, and which Regs were to blame for that.

I'm open minded to your claims as I have critiques of my own... I just don't see the magnitude of fault that you are placing on Obama. I think his actions could have been smarter but they helped things get better, which is much better then getting worse. Slow growth is a mild critique and is much better than causing a catostrophic crash

Here's my problem with the "Obama Recovery", Slade. If you were to examine the history of recessions you'd see that they are a natural part of economic cycles and have been occurring regularly for hundreds of years. You'd also notice that recessions historically rebound as sharply as they occur and that the more pronounced the economic slowdown the more pronounced the bounce when the rebound takes place. There are however two glaring exceptions to that behavior...the recovery from the Great Depression and the recovery from the Great Recession. Both utilized almost unprecedented spending by Government and both saw the recessions they were trying to alleviate drag on and on. For Barack Obama to have spent the money that he has...and for the Fed to keep interest rates as low as it has for as long as it has...and only achieve around an average of 2% growth is abysmal!

As for what regulations the Obama Administration imposed that slowed the economy? The uncertainty of the Affordable Care Act...it's costs and it's mandates to businesses put an incredible damper on economic growth at the very time when growing the economy should have been the number one priority for Barack Obama's new Presidency. To go after THAT before putting people back to work was the epitome of ideologically driven politics. Rearranging how creditors were in line to be paid in GM's bailout was great for the auto industry unions but awful precedent for how investors viewed the US. We have always been a desirable place for the rest of the world to invest because we are a country of laws and not some Banana Republic that seizes property that rightfully belongs to someone else. What the Obama Administration did when it arbitrarily decided who should get paid first sent a signal to potential investors in US businesses that their interests would NOT be protected under our laws if someone sitting in the Oval Office decided THEY would be making that call.

Kind of similar to what Trump just did with carrier right? I imagine you object to that as well?

As for the recovery, I don't think it is fair to compare to historical recessions and recovery's as conditions are different and new factors are in play. We are now more of a world economy than an isolated national economy and I believe our trade deals were a major factor in the stagnant wage growth and economic growth in our country. The Great Depression was followed by an industrial boom in our country... conditions are completely different in modern times so I don't like the comparison. If you compare our recovery with others around the world we did as good or better than most.

I do agree that the ACA didn't help. It was an anchor to our growth that hurt small business which I did not like. I do like the initiative to reform a broken system and I like the fact that millions got insurance that didn't have it. But the roll out was messy, expensive, and inefficient. That is the fault of both Obama and Congress. Repeal and Replace is BS rhetoric and a waste of time. Our leaders should just focus on improving the system, change what doesn't work and keep what does. Unfortunately, the partisan divide puts so many on the side of wanted to slap obama in the face by taking it away, instead of giving him credit for starting a worthy initiative and working to make it better.

Let's be honest here, Slade...the biggest problem with the ACA is cost...something that is "baked in" because the people who wrote the legislation didn't care if it was workable from a cost standpoint! Yes, millions got insured through the ACA but millions of Middle Class Americans are being forced to pick up the tab for the cost of that and they've got sticker shock at the levels their health care premiums are now going to. Why are they now going up by 30 or 40%? It's because someone has to pay for those millions of people who didn't have insurance before and now do! Take having young people stay on their parent's plan until well into adulthood. Why are we as a country doing this? Since when do we need to subsidize that cost for young people to have healthcare when we've never done so before? Because it's a "vote getter" for Democrats as a throw in for part of their base? Because it's one step closer to government run healthcare from the cradle to the grave? To some extent the same problem exists for "pre-existing conditions". In theory telling insurance companies they can't charge a different rate to someone who is obese and a smoker with diabetes and at risk for lung cancer sounds commendable but in essence what you're telling people is that you can make all the bad choices you want in life but the cost of those bad choices will now be absorbed by society with people who didn't overeat and smoke paying for you. I'm sorry but that's inherently unfair. It's one of the reasons why we as a nation are in trouble right now. We've taken personal responsibility and substituted a government "nanny state" that will look after us. Don't feel like working to improve yourself? Ask your politicians for a "living wage" so that your minimum wage job pays more and you don't need to learn new job skills! Want to overeat and not work out? Smoke like a chimney? No problem! When you get sick because of that behavior...and you will...your fellow citizens will pick up the tab for your massive health care costs!

You make some good points that I agree with. It also over exaggerate a lot. Many many preexisting conditions are not from lifestyle choices. And people who do make unhealthy choices don't do it because they have confidence that the state will take care of them when they get sick and suffer.

The fact is, many feel that in our rich civilized society we have a responsibility to care for each other. These people don't feel it is right to leave people to die on the street. So when somebody is sick we treat them. even before ACA healthcare premiums were skyrocketing and insurance companies were out of control, there have been problems for a long time. Costs are an issue with the ACA that need to get fixed but it took a big step in getting a lot of people insured, which is better than those people not being insured.

Economically speaking it was a bump, but also a step towards providing a better system to take care of our citizens, still many more steps to go before it's right, but at least it's a step

Is it a "step" or a "misstep", Slade? Once again...let's be honest here! When you have to lie to the American people about how a program will work and what it's costs will be...have you really fixed anything? Or have you simply conned the voters into letting you pass something that you knew all along would collapse under it's own weight, need to be completely replaced and did so knowing that by giving millions subsidized healthcare it would make it politically hard for your opponents to take that away?

I'm curious as to how you propose to "fix" the costs of the ACA?

 

[Slade3200]

I agree with what you are saying. So it sounds like you support some stimulus spending and some regulations on our banks as a course of action but feel that Obama did too much of both, and poor direction for both. But what specifically? How much wasted stimulus did he direct to which agencies? How much did the extra bank regulations contribute to the debt/slow economy, and which Regs were to blame for that.

I'm open minded to your claims as I have critiques of my own... I just don't see the magnitude of fault that you are placing on Obama. I think his actions could have been smarter but they helped things get better, which is much better then getting worse. Slow growth is a mild critique and is much better than causing a catostrophic crash

Here's my problem with the "Obama Recovery", Slade. If you were to examine the history of recessions you'd see that they are a natural part of economic cycles and have been occurring regularly for hundreds of years. You'd also notice that recessions historically rebound as sharply as they occur and that the more pronounced the economic slowdown the more pronounced the bounce when the rebound takes place. There are however two glaring exceptions to that behavior...the recovery from the Great Depression and the recovery from the Great Recession. Both utilized almost unprecedented spending by Government and both saw the recessions they were trying to alleviate drag on and on. For Barack Obama to have spent the money that he has...and for the Fed to keep interest rates as low as it has for as long as it has...and only achieve around an average of 2% growth is abysmal!

As for what regulations the Obama Administration imposed that slowed the economy? The uncertainty of the Affordable Care Act...it's costs and it's mandates to businesses put an incredible damper on economic growth at the very time when growing the economy should have been the number one priority for Barack Obama's new Presidency. To go after THAT before putting people back to work was the epitome of ideologically driven politics. Rearranging how creditors were in line to be paid in GM's bailout was great for the auto industry unions but awful precedent for how investors viewed the US. We have always been a desirable place for the rest of the world to invest because we are a country of laws and not some Banana Republic that seizes property that rightfully belongs to someone else. What the Obama Administration did when it arbitrarily decided who should get paid first sent a signal to potential investors in US businesses that their interests would NOT be protected under our laws if someone sitting in the Oval Office decided THEY would be making that call.

Kind of similar to what Trump just did with carrier right? I imagine you object to that as well?

As for the recovery, I don't think it is fair to compare to historical recessions and recovery's as conditions are different and new factors are in play. We are now more of a world economy than an isolated national economy and I believe our trade deals were a major factor in the stagnant wage growth and economic growth in our country. The Great Depression was followed by an industrial boom in our country... conditions are completely different in modern times so I don't like the comparison. If you compare our recovery with others around the world we did as good or better than most.

I do agree that the ACA didn't help. It was an anchor to our growth that hurt small business which I did not like. I do like the initiative to reform a broken system and I like the fact that millions got insurance that didn't have it. But the roll out was messy, expensive, and inefficient. That is the fault of both Obama and Congress. Repeal and Replace is BS rhetoric and a waste of time. Our leaders should just focus on improving the system, change what doesn't work and keep what does. Unfortunately, the partisan divide puts so many on the side of wanted to slap obama in the face by taking it away, instead of giving him credit for starting a worthy initiative and working to make it better.

Let's be honest here, Slade...the biggest problem with the ACA is cost...something that is "baked in" because the people who wrote the legislation didn't care if it was workable from a cost standpoint! Yes, millions got insured through the ACA but millions of Middle Class Americans are being forced to pick up the tab for the cost of that and they've got sticker shock at the levels their health care premiums are now going to. Why are they now going up by 30 or 40%? It's because someone has to pay for those millions of people who didn't have insurance before and now do! Take having young people stay on their parent's plan until well into adulthood. Why are we as a country doing this? Since when do we need to subsidize that cost for young people to have healthcare when we've never done so before? Because it's a "vote getter" for Democrats as a throw in for part of their base? Because it's one step closer to government run healthcare from the cradle to the grave? To some extent the same problem exists for "pre-existing conditions". In theory telling insurance companies they can't charge a different rate to someone who is obese and a smoker with diabetes and at risk for lung cancer sounds commendable but in essence what you're telling people is that you can make all the bad choices you want in life but the cost of those bad choices will now be absorbed by society with people who didn't overeat and smoke paying for you. I'm sorry but that's inherently unfair. It's one of the reasons why we as a nation are in trouble right now. We've taken personal responsibility and substituted a government "nanny state" that will look after us. Don't feel like working to improve yourself? Ask your politicians for a "living wage" so that your minimum wage job pays more and you don't need to learn new job skills! Want to overeat and not work out? Smoke like a chimney? No problem! When you get sick because of that behavior...and you will...your fellow citizens will pick up the tab for your massive health care costs!

You make some good points that I agree with. It also over exaggerate a lot. Many many preexisting conditions are not from lifestyle choices. And people who do make unhealthy choices don't do it because they have confidence that the state will take care of them when they get sick and suffer.

The fact is, many feel that in our rich civilized society we have a responsibility to care for each other. These people don't feel it is right to leave people to die on the street. So when somebody is sick we treat them. even before ACA healthcare premiums were skyrocketing and insurance companies were out of control, there have been problems for a long time. Costs are an issue with the ACA that need to get fixed but it took a big step in getting a lot of people insured, which is better than those people not being insured.

Economically speaking it was a bump, but also a step towards providing a better system to take care of our citizens, still many more steps to go before it's right, but at least it's a step

Is it a "step" or a "misstep", Slade? Once again...let's be honest here! When you have to lie to the American people about how a program will work and what it's costs will be...have you really fixed anything? Or have you simply conned the voters into letting you pass something that you knew all along would collapse under it's own weight, need to be completely replaced and did so knowing that by giving millions subsidized healthcare it would make it politically hard for your opponents to take that away?

I'm curious as to how you propose to "fix" the costs of the ACA?

That's rediculous to claim that Obama could predict how this thing would roll out and that he lied about it. He had a plan that he campaigned on. The reality of the roll out deviated from that plan. That doesn't make him a liar, every business plan and law deviates to some degree from plan to implementation.

I think to fix the costs we need to do something about the inflated costs for healthcare. Deregulation can help with this and also controling medical costs... I'm not an expert in the field so I don't have the answers. I'd love to see our law makers, medical professionals, and economists come together to work on solutions without all the partisan fighting.

The fact that Carson didn't want to touch this and went to HUD instead is a bit unsettling.

 

[Oldstyle]

Here's my problem with the "Obama Recovery", Slade. If you were to examine the history of recessions you'd see that they are a natural part of economic cycles and have been occurring regularly for hundreds of years. You'd also notice that recessions historically rebound as sharply as they occur and that the more pronounced the economic slowdown the more pronounced the bounce when the rebound takes place. There are however two glaring exceptions to that behavior...the recovery from the Great Depression and the recovery from the Great Recession. Both utilized almost unprecedented spending by Government and both saw the recessions they were trying to alleviate drag on and on. For Barack Obama to have spent the money that he has...and for the Fed to keep interest rates as low as it has for as long as it has...and only achieve around an average of 2% growth is abysmal!

As for what regulations the Obama Administration imposed that slowed the economy? The uncertainty of the Affordable Care Act...it's costs and it's mandates to businesses put an incredible damper on economic growth at the very time when growing the economy should have been the number one priority for Barack Obama's new Presidency. To go after THAT before putting people back to work was the epitome of ideologically driven politics. Rearranging how creditors were in line to be paid in GM's bailout was great for the auto industry unions but awful precedent for how investors viewed the US. We have always been a desirable place for the rest of the world to invest because we are a country of laws and not some Banana Republic that seizes property that rightfully belongs to someone else. What the Obama Administration did when it arbitrarily decided who should get paid first sent a signal to potential investors in US businesses that their interests would NOT be protected under our laws if someone sitting in the Oval Office decided THEY would be making that call.

Kind of similar to what Trump just did with carrier right? I imagine you object to that as well?

As for the recovery, I don't think it is fair to compare to historical recessions and recovery's as conditions are different and new factors are in play. We are now more of a world economy than an isolated national economy and I believe our trade deals were a major factor in the stagnant wage growth and economic growth in our country. The Great Depression was followed by an industrial boom in our country... conditions are completely different in modern times so I don't like the comparison. If you compare our recovery with others around the world we did as good or better than most.

I do agree that the ACA didn't help. It was an anchor to our growth that hurt small business which I did not like. I do like the initiative to reform a broken system and I like the fact that millions got insurance that didn't have it. But the roll out was messy, expensive, and inefficient. That is the fault of both Obama and Congress. Repeal and Replace is BS rhetoric and a waste of time. Our leaders should just focus on improving the system, change what doesn't work and keep what does. Unfortunately, the partisan divide puts so many on the side of wanted to slap obama in the face by taking it away, instead of giving him credit for starting a worthy initiative and working to make it better.

Let's be honest here, Slade...the biggest problem with the ACA is cost...something that is "baked in" because the people who wrote the legislation didn't care if it was workable from a cost standpoint! Yes, millions got insured through the ACA but millions of Middle Class Americans are being forced to pick up the tab for the cost of that and they've got sticker shock at the levels their health care premiums are now going to. Why are they now going up by 30 or 40%? It's because someone has to pay for those millions of people who didn't have insurance before and now do! Take having young people stay on their parent's plan until well into adulthood. Why are we as a country doing this? Since when do we need to subsidize that cost for young people to have healthcare when we've never done so before? Because it's a "vote getter" for Democrats as a throw in for part of their base? Because it's one step closer to government run healthcare from the cradle to the grave? To some extent the same problem exists for "pre-existing conditions". In theory telling insurance companies they can't charge a different rate to someone who is obese and a smoker with diabetes and at risk for lung cancer sounds commendable but in essence what you're telling people is that you can make all the bad choices you want in life but the cost of those bad choices will now be absorbed by society with people who didn't overeat and smoke paying for you. I'm sorry but that's inherently unfair. It's one of the reasons why we as a nation are in trouble right now. We've taken personal responsibility and substituted a government "nanny state" that will look after us. Don't feel like working to improve yourself? Ask your politicians for a "living wage" so that your minimum wage job pays more and you don't need to learn new job skills! Want to overeat and not work out? Smoke like a chimney? No problem! When you get sick because of that behavior...and you will...your fellow citizens will pick up the tab for your massive health care costs!

You make some good points that I agree with. It also over exaggerate a lot. Many many preexisting conditions are not from lifestyle choices. And people who do make unhealthy choices don't do it because they have confidence that the state will take care of them when they get sick and suffer.

The fact is, many feel that in our rich civilized society we have a responsibility to care for each other. These people don't feel it is right to leave people to die on the street. So when somebody is sick we treat them. even before ACA healthcare premiums were skyrocketing and insurance companies were out of control, there have been problems for a long time. Costs are an issue with the ACA that need to get fixed but it took a big step in getting a lot of people insured, which is better than those people not being insured.

Economically speaking it was a bump, but also a step towards providing a better system to take care of our citizens, still many more steps to go before it's right, but at least it's a step

Is it a "step" or a "misstep", Slade? Once again...let's be honest here! When you have to lie to the American people about how a program will work and what it's costs will be...have you really fixed anything? Or have you simply conned the voters into letting you pass something that you knew all along would collapse under it's own weight, need to be completely replaced and did so knowing that by giving millions subsidized healthcare it would make it politically hard for your opponents to take that away?

I'm curious as to how you propose to "fix" the costs of the ACA?

That's rediculous to claim that Obama could predict how this thing would roll out and that he lied about it. He had a plan that he campaigned on. The reality of the roll out deviated from that plan. That doesn't make him a liar, every business plan and law deviates to some degree from plan to implementation.

I think to fix the costs we need to do something about the inflated costs for healthcare. Deregulation can help with this and also controling medical costs... I'm not an expert in the field so I don't have the answers. I'd love to see our law makers, medical professionals, and economists come together to work on solutions without all the partisan fighting.

The fact that Carson didn't want to touch this and went to HUD instead is a bit unsettling.

Did you just claim that Obama didn't lie about the ACA, Slade? Come on...be serious.

 

[Oldstyle]

Anyone with 8th grade math skills could have predicted how the ACA would "roll out", Slade! The numbers never came close to working. What Obama, Reid and Pelosi did was simply delay the real costs from being revealed for as long as they could so as to hide from the voters what the ACA really consisted of and what it's real cost would be to Middle Class Americans. They lied. They lied BIG TIME!

 

[Wuwei]

So now waiting a year to see if an incoming President is willing to compromise on legislation before vowing to fight his agenda is doing it "early", Wuwei? Here's a newsflash for you...if Obama had shown ANY inclination to work with the GOP during that first year then McConnell's attitude might have been completely different but when the Democrats controlled the House, Senate and the Oval Office...Obama essentially told Republicans to go pound sand if they didn't like the legislation that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were writing behind closed doors.

That is a matter of opinion. I disagree.

For God's sake...are you STILL trying to claim that Clinton had a surplus? Did you liberals all fail economics? Before you make a complete ass of yourself look into what intragovernmental holdings are and how they work.

Please reread. Look at the graph. I said,
I was referring to federal outlays, but worded it wrong.

 

[Oldstyle]

So now waiting a year to see if an incoming President is willing to compromise on legislation before vowing to fight his agenda is doing it "early", Wuwei? Here's a newsflash for you...if Obama had shown ANY inclination to work with the GOP during that first year then McConnell's attitude might have been completely different but when the Democrats controlled the House, Senate and the Oval Office...Obama essentially told Republicans to go pound sand if they didn't like the legislation that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were writing behind closed doors.

That is a matter of opinion. I disagree.

For God's sake...are you STILL trying to claim that Clinton had a surplus? Did you liberals all fail economics? Before you make a complete ass of yourself look into what intragovernmental holdings are and how they work.

Please reread. Look at the graph. I said,
I was referring to federal outlays, but worded it wrong.

So are you claiming that Clinton had a surplus or not? I would hope that you've looked into what intragovernmental holdings are by now so that you don't continue to make an ass of yourself on this topic.

As for you claiming my points are a "matter of opinion"...you'd actually have some credence if you provided something besides that you disagree with me! On what point?

 

[Wuwei]

So are you claiming that Clinton had a surplus or not? I would hope that you've looked into what intragovernmental holdings are by now so that you don't continue to make an ass of yourself on this topic.

As for you claiming my points are a "matter of opinion"...you'd actually have some credence if you provided something besides that you disagree with me! On what point?

I already said twice that he did not have a surplus.
I have little patience with someone who resorts to name calling. When it comes to dogmatic discourse between two people with different ideologies there is little point in trying convince each other of the other side. You hate Obama. I get it.

 

[Oldstyle]

So are you claiming that Clinton had a surplus or not? I would hope that you've looked into what intragovernmental holdings are by now so that you don't continue to make an ass of yourself on this topic.

As for you claiming my points are a "matter of opinion"...you'd actually have some credence if you provided something besides that you disagree with me! On what point?

I already said twice that he did not have a surplus.
I have little patience with someone who resorts to name calling. When it comes to dogmatic discourse between two people with different ideologies there is little point in trying convince each other of the other side. You hate Obama. I get it.

Actually you posted that Clinton did have a surplus...then cited a CNN fact check that ALSO claimed Clinton was the last President to have a surplus while trying your best to confuse the issue by referring to "federal outlays"! What do Federal outlays have to do with the discussion at hand?

I hate Obama? Why...because I point out his bad economic numbers? I suppose I hate him because he's black? You on the left are so predictable it's pathetic!

 

[Wuwei]

Actually you posted that Clinton did have a surplus...then cited a CNN fact check that ALSO claimed Clinton was the last President to have a surplus while trying your best to confuse the issue by referring to "federal outlays"! What do Federal outlays have to do with the discussion at hand?

I hate Obama? Why...because I point out his bad economic numbers? I suppose I hate him because he's black? You on the left are so predictable it's pathetic!

This is the fourth time I told you that I misspoke and told you that I agreed with you that Clinton did not have a surplus. He simply did not increase (over)spending.
Obama along with others championed a means to keep a major recession from turning into a major depression. Was it an ideal solution? No, there were mistakes, and the country of course went into more debt to do so.

All people, all corporations, and all government administrations seem to have a philosophy of ignoring future prosperity for short term gains. So don't obsess about your hatred for Obama. It will destroy you. The past is gone. It's time to look for what can be done in the future.