President Obama's Record: Bigger Government, Less Economic Freedom & a Bad Economy

[KNB]

95% of the economic gains during the recovery went to the richest 1% of the population.
Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ

This means that the wealthy 1% "job creators" made 95% of the money during Obama's presidency while unemployment stayed basically at the same level. So where are those jobs that the job creators are supposed to create? Is 95% of the economic gains not enough for the 1% job creators to create jobs and lower unemployment? Does anyone have any idea how much money that is? 95% of economic gains went to 1% of the population? Shouldn't some of that wealth be "trickling down" to the stupid lazy public? What happened to the GOP argument that the 1% are job creators and wealth trickles down from the rich to the poor?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The fed has been priming the pump, 85 billion a month. Take the smoke and mirrors away and you'll see our house of horror economy on display.

 

[SFC Ollie]

95% of the economic gains during the recovery went to the richest 1% of the population.
Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ

This means that the wealthy 1% "job creators" made 95% of the money during Obama's presidency while unemployment stayed basically at the same level. So where are those jobs that the job creators are supposed to create? Is 95% of the economic gains not enough for the 1% job creators to create jobs and lower unemployment? Does anyone have any idea how much money that is? 95% of economic gains went to 1% of the population? Shouldn't some of that wealth be "trickling down" to the stupid lazy public? What happened to the GOP argument that the 1% are job creators and wealth trickles down from the rich to the poor?

I've never met a person who received a paycheck from a poor man.

 

[KNB]

95% of the economic gains during the recovery went to the richest 1% of the population.
Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ

This means that the wealthy 1% "job creators" made 95% of the money during Obama's presidency while unemployment stayed basically at the same level. So where are those jobs that the job creators are supposed to create? Is 95% of the economic gains not enough for the 1% job creators to create jobs and lower unemployment? Does anyone have any idea how much money that is? 95% of economic gains went to 1% of the population? Shouldn't some of that wealth be "trickling down" to the stupid lazy public? What happened to the GOP argument that the 1% are job creators and wealth trickles down from the rich to the poor?

I've never met a person who received a paycheck from a poor man.

So if 95% of the gains were divided among 1% of the population, then do that 1% still not have enough money to give out larger paychecks? How much money do the "job creators" need before they create all of those jobs?

 

[driveby]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Is da mean brack girlie man with the ugly fat wife still ouwa pwesident?

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

A liberal moonbat immediately injecting race into an economic discussion, omgnoway........

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Is da mean brack girlie man with the ugly fat wife still ouwa pwesident?

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

A liberal moonbat immediately injecting race into an economic discussion, omgnoway........

Yeah. Liberals think any criticism of Obama's policies is just a reflection of underlying racism. A liberal I know said that the only reason someone could oppose Obamacare is racism. It's ridiculous.

 

[kiwiman127]

.

It has been during Obama's presidency that the Democrats have made their boldest and clearest case for a move to a more European-style social democracy. If that's the direction we indeed end up going, it won't be a simple and smooth process, nor will it happen overnight.

There is no doubt that American business - from the smallest to the biggest - sees what is being attempted and is hesitant to be too proactive in its approach to growth. The problem with that is that we are now in an intensely competitive global business environment, and hesitancy can kill.

The Democrats worked hard to downplay Obama's stunning, watershed "you didn't build that" statements. This was evident with their insultingly simplistic (and ongoing) "roads and bridges" defense. But any President, and any party, that truly feels this way about business is going to create uncertainty and distortions in a capitalistic economy. This ain't a good time for that, gang.

I deal with this stuff every day. Their denials will fall on deaf ears with me. If the Democrats want a European-style social democracy, fine, then admit to it and let's discuss it in the open air. This reminds me of Obamacare - what they really wanted was Single Payer but we ended up with a massive pig. Just be honest and let's debate what you actually want, maybe you'll even get your way.

.

Yep, but the majority of citizens in this country are too low information, not engaged or gets beat down if they even suggest something like this, with names like hostage takers, terrorist, deniers, etc etc

I don't know where it's going to end up

people better wake up

Americans seem to respond to the "vision thing". Paint us a verbal picture of where you want to go, what America would truly look like when we get there. The Republicans have, for better or worse, been happy to paint their picture while the Democrats don't seem to want to be honest about theirs (as illustrated above with Obamacare).

They use denial as a first line of defense, but the uncertainty is causing great damage. Just be honest, let's debate it, instead of this covert, inch by inch approach. Business is paralyzed by this right now, and it really doesn't need to be.

.

This paralysis thing obviously isn't fatal.

 

[bripat9643]

So the Heritage Foundation thinks we should be more like Denmark?

Government spending is part of that measure.

We spend 4.4% of GDP on defense. Denmark spends 1.4%.

Let's start by fixing that.

Let's get all the ticks off the welfare tit first. Defense spending is only 18% of our budget.

 

[bripat9643]

95% of the economic gains during the recovery went to the richest 1% of the population.
Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ

This means that the wealthy 1% "job creators" made 95% of the money during Obama's presidency while unemployment stayed basically at the same level. So where are those jobs that the job creators are supposed to create? Is 95% of the economic gains not enough for the 1% job creators to create jobs and lower unemployment? Does anyone have any idea how much money that is? 95% of economic gains went to 1% of the population? Shouldn't some of that wealth be "trickling down" to the stupid lazy public? What happened to the GOP argument that the 1% are job creators and wealth trickles down from the rich to the poor?

I've never met a person who received a paycheck from a poor man.

So if 95% of the gains were divided among 1% of the population, then do that 1% still not have enough money to give out larger paychecks? How much money do the "job creators" need before they create all of those jobs?

95% of the gains don't go to 1%, nimrod.

 

[bripat9643]

95% of the economic gains during the recovery went to the richest 1% of the population.
Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ

This means that the wealthy 1% "job creators" made 95% of the money during Obama's presidency while unemployment stayed basically at the same level. So where are those jobs that the job creators are supposed to create? Is 95% of the economic gains not enough for the 1% job creators to create jobs and lower unemployment? Does anyone have any idea how much money that is? 95% of economic gains went to 1% of the population? Shouldn't some of that wealth be "trickling down" to the stupid lazy public? What happened to the GOP argument that the 1% are job creators and wealth trickles down from the rich to the poor?

That's based on family income. Which means it's utterly bogus. The size of the average family has been steadily decreasing over the years, so it's hardly surprising that the amount of family income hasn't been increasing. Futhermore, the reason for the decrease in the average size of families is the vast increase in the number of single parent households - that's unwed mothers for those of you in Rio Linda. You don't find many unwed mothers in the in the top 20% of family income. They are invariably in the bottom quintile.

Liberals trot out this statistic at every opportunity, and it's entirely bogus. If anything is responsible for the failure of family income to increase, it's liberal policies.

 

[bripat9643]

Admin's economic recovery efforts not good, but part of that is based on the GOP's setting the conditions for the Great Recession from 1994 to 2006.

The government's reach is longer while the civil service number is lowest in twenty years.

Why do you always blame the right? You always leave out the things like the Dems had control of congress when everything went to shit.

Jake is a communist masquerading as a Republican

 

[Mac1958]

Yep, but the majority of citizens in this country are too low information, not engaged or gets beat down if they even suggest something like this, with names like hostage takers, terrorist, deniers, etc etc

I don't know where it's going to end up

people better wake up

Americans seem to respond to the "vision thing". Paint us a verbal picture of where you want to go, what America would truly look like when we get there. The Republicans have, for better or worse, been happy to paint their picture while the Democrats don't seem to want to be honest about theirs (as illustrated above with Obamacare).

They use denial as a first line of defense, but the uncertainty is causing great damage. Just be honest, let's debate it, instead of this covert, inch by inch approach. Business is paralyzed by this right now, and it really doesn't need to be.

.

This paralysis thing obviously isn't fatal.

Yes, the chart makes my point.

Profits have been relatively strong (if uneven) and balance sheets are bloated. In a normal business environment, corporations would be investing and we'd see clear capital expansion across the board. Instead companies are hesitant/afraid to invest in infrastructure and people as much as they would normally, and they know that it's going hurt them long term in a global economy. They're still in a defensive posture and the reason is obvious.

The economy is obviously no longer in abject collapse, but it's not expanding at nearly the rate it would be in a business-friendly environment. Not even close. Look at the bond markets - the long-anticipated crash isn't happening and it won't be any time soon, because there is clearly no momentum in the economy.

.

 

[SFC Ollie]

95% of the economic gains during the recovery went to the richest 1% of the population.
Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ

This means that the wealthy 1% "job creators" made 95% of the money during Obama's presidency while unemployment stayed basically at the same level. So where are those jobs that the job creators are supposed to create? Is 95% of the economic gains not enough for the 1% job creators to create jobs and lower unemployment? Does anyone have any idea how much money that is? 95% of economic gains went to 1% of the population? Shouldn't some of that wealth be "trickling down" to the stupid lazy public? What happened to the GOP argument that the 1% are job creators and wealth trickles down from the rich to the poor?

I've never met a person who received a paycheck from a poor man.

So if 95% of the gains were divided among 1% of the population, then do that 1% still not have enough money to give out larger paychecks? How much money do the "job creators" need before they create all of those jobs?

How much do you need? The answer is the same. It's none of my business.....And none of yours.

 

[Billy000]

1. When Obama entered office the US was considered "free" economically and was in the top 5. Now, we're down to #12, even below Canada and Estonia!
Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom
2. Under President Obama, government spending is at historic levels. With the exception of the brief ultra-surge in spending after the financial crisis, we spend more as a percent of GDP than at any time since World War II.
US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP - Charts Tables History
3. Under Obama, the labor force participation rate continues to decline, which is why the unemployment rate goes down even though we're barely creating enough jobs to account for population growth.
Black Labor Force Participation Rate Under Obama Hits Rock Bottom ? Lowest Level Ever Recorded | The Gateway Pundit
Obama's Unemployment 'New Normal' Foretells A 'Lost Decade' - Forbes

Liberals, these 3 facts will be your albatross in November. Your socialist ways are hurting America, and it's time for you to get out of our way so businesses can create jobs.
[*]skidaddle
[/LIST]!

1) Quoting Forbes is just as bad as quoting Fox News.

2) Obama sought to shrink the federal government. He tried to consolidate several departments which would have saved billions of dollars.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-seeks-power-to-shrink-the-federal-government/

3) I agree the unemployment rate is still too high, but it would be a hell of a lot worse if The Recovery Act hadn't been passed. It is the reason we are in a recovery and not a depression. The CBO, Moody, and JP Morgan all say the same thing: 2.5 million jobs created or saved. GDP increased by 2%. Its biggest flaw? TOO SMALL. Had it been bigger like it was meant to be, the unemployment rate would be lower. This is all proof DEMAND SIDE economic policies is what makes our economy thrive.

4) I agree Obama has spent a lot. Too much. However, not all of the debt under Obama is because of Obama. Obama has spent the most on DEFENSE. It is the biggest expenditure in terms of policy. The big spending under entitlements has been mandatory spending. It also needs to be said that there has been no spending growth under Obama. Spending has remained consistent since Bush left office.

5) It is not surprising the labor participation rate had dropped. We lost several millions of jobs from the 2008 crisis. It is the reason our recovery is as slow as it is.

6) Overall, 2.5x as many private sector jobs have been created in Obama's 5 years than in all of Bush's 8. Had we not lost so many millions jobs in the first place, this fact would be more apparent. Once again, it is a shame the Recovery Act wasn't bigger.

What's the bottom line? We need more demand side economic policies like the Recovery Act.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

So, no replicans voted to increase spending?

Just Obama?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Admin's economic recovery efforts not good, but part of that is based on the GOP's setting the conditions for the Great Recession from 1994 to 2006.

The government's reach is longer while the civil service number is lowest in twenty years.

Why do you always blame the right? You always leave out the things like the Dems had control of congress when everything went to shit.

We all know that Ollie. What so many of us want to ignore is that it was all sliding out of control when Obama took office. Our GOP has a great fault to atone for from what it did from 1994 to 2006. LBT and The Rabbi want to pretend nothing was wrong before 2009. Nonsense. And bripat is an anarchist pretending to be an American.

We can't trust the Dems, correct; neither can we allow the K Street thugs and the neo-cons to take control again.

 

[kiwiman127]

Americans seem to respond to the "vision thing". Paint us a verbal picture of where you want to go, what America would truly look like when we get there. The Republicans have, for better or worse, been happy to paint their picture while the Democrats don't seem to want to be honest about theirs (as illustrated above with Obamacare).

They use denial as a first line of defense, but the uncertainty is causing great damage. Just be honest, let's debate it, instead of this covert, inch by inch approach. Business is paralyzed by this right now, and it really doesn't need to be.

.

This paralysis thing obviously isn't fatal.

Yes, the chart makes my point.

Profits have been relatively strong (if uneven) and balance sheets are bloated. In a normal business environment, corporations would be investing and we'd see clear capital expansion across the board. Instead companies are hesitant/afraid to invest in infrastructure and people as much as they would normally, and they know that it's going hurt them long term in a global economy. They're still in a defensive posture and the reason is obvious.

The economy is obviously no longer in abject collapse, but it's not expanding at nearly the rate it would be in a business-friendly environment. Not even close. Look at the bond markets - the long-anticipated crash isn't happening and it won't be any time soon, because there is clearly no momentum in the economy.

.

Well this is nothing new. Capital Spending decreased after the small recession after 2001. People were asking why companies weren't reinvesting in themselves.
Well here are are again. But Capital Spending is looking like it's going to increase. This would be good for everyone and the economy.
I did a Google search using "US capital spending increases' and came up with positive results for recent spending and projected spending.
And the Bloomberg graph does reflect that Capital Spending rebounding.