Why Haven't Obama's Policies Helped The Economy?

[boedicca]

Hiring Tax Accountants to reduce a company's tax burden is a form of of thinking digging a hole and filling it up again is productivity.

Yes, the Tax Accountants have jobs, but they are "transfer payment" as opposed to increased production ones.

 

[HCE]

Hiring Tax Accountants to reduce a company's tax burden is a form of of thinking digging a hole and filling it up again is productivity.

Yes, the Tax Accountants have jobs, but they are "transfer payment" as opposed to increased production ones.

I'd love to know what these accountants are making....must be a lot. I mean heck, they crippled GE to the point that they where unable to create any jobs here.

 

[Oldstyle]

Hmm. Well, pre-Obama we were losing 700,000 jobs per month.

By my calculation, had we continued losing that many, we'd have lost another 25,000,000 by now. With a labor force of, lets say 150M, and UE of 7% at that time, that would make UE about 23% by now.

As with all economic theory of course, you can't 'Prove' with any certainty what caused the change in trend, but it sure feng shuied nice with Obama's tenure.

And if we had done no stimulus at all it's your contention that jobs would have continued to be lost at a rate of 700,000 per month? I think you know as well as I do that isn't the case, Cuyo.

Or if we'd spent that trillion in stimulus solely on the private sector would we have created "real" jobs two years ago that would have us coming out of this recession now instead of looking like we're headed back into a double dip?

No, of course I'm aware that would not have been the case.

Any insinuation that the recession has become 'worse' since Obama has become President, however, is intellectually bankrupt for those reasons.

I have no problem debating when somebody says the improvement is in spite of Obama and not because of Obama, but screeching that he made it worse is ridiculous.

Here's my problem then, Cuyo. The number of jobs being lost each month before Barack Obama took office keeps getting brought up by this White House and people like yourself as "proof" that Obama's policies somehow stopped further massive job losses. I think you know as well as I do that's a deeply flawed argument. All one has to do is look at the behavior of past recessions to know that after a steep downturn such as we had in 2008, the economy always levels off and then usually rebounds. We have leveled off but we haven't rebounded and now it looks quite likely that we're about to slide into a double dip recession.

Quite frankly, this President has had everything he needed to preside over a robust recovery but with his legislative agenda he has consistently done things to dampen any potential rebound. ObamaCare was a jobs killer. The Stimulus kept people working in the Public Sector but didn't create any jobs in the Private Sector. The moratorium on all off shore drilling caused job losses on the Gulf Coast. Letting the EPA threaten massive increases in energy costs had a huge dampening effect on job creation. You see the Justice Department going after companies like Gibson guitars that DID hire employees for allegedly violating some obscure Indian law designed to keep Americans from being able to work on wood. You see Boeing being sued for building a factory and hiring a thousand people, simply because they chose to do so in a right to work State. Then we had the credit rating downgrade because we didn't come close to cutting the deficit enough to satisfy the rating agencies.

At some point this becomes Barack Obama's problem. He's tried to make it the fault of everyone else since he took office but the fact of the matter is..."his" policies have done little to help an economic rebound and in many cases they were directly responsible for that rebound not happening.

 

[daveman]

Nobody questions that gas was low...

So was the dow and about any other tradeable commodity... We were in the middle of an economic meltdown...

And surely you're not advocating that the government should manipulate the price of gas, are you?

The government shouldn't directly manipulate the market. But as numerous business owners have said, the government's policies and regulations can have a detrimental effect on the market.

But I suppose it's easier to just blame Bush, huh?

Oh, and why do you think Firehorse's post was retarded? Because it doesn't kiss Obama's ass?

Because Obama doesn't control the price of gas...

I expect better from you. Firehose or whatever is entitled to his opinion, but in this case it is worthless.

I guess you missed this part:

"But as numerous business owners have said, the government's policies and regulations can have a detrimental effect on the market."

 

[Cuyo]

The government shouldn't directly manipulate the market. But as numerous business owners have said, the government's policies and regulations can have a detrimental effect on the market.

But I suppose it's easier to just blame Bush, huh?

Oh, and why do you think Firehorse's post was retarded? Because it doesn't kiss Obama's ass?

Because Obama doesn't control the price of gas...

I expect better from you. Firehose or whatever is entitled to his opinion, but in this case it is worthless.

I guess you missed this part:

"But as numerous business owners have said, the government's policies and regulations can have a detrimental effect on the market."

I guess you missed this part:

"OBAMA. DOESN'T. CONTROL. THE. PRICE. OF GAS."

 

[Foxfyre]

And if we had done no stimulus at all it's your contention that jobs would have continued to be lost at a rate of 700,000 per month? I think you know as well as I do that isn't the case, Cuyo.

Or if we'd spent that trillion in stimulus solely on the private sector would we have created "real" jobs two years ago that would have us coming out of this recession now instead of looking like we're headed back into a double dip?

No, of course I'm aware that would not have been the case.

Any insinuation that the recession has become 'worse' since Obama has become President, however, is intellectually bankrupt for those reasons.

I have no problem debating when somebody says the improvement is in spite of Obama and not because of Obama, but screeching that he made it worse is ridiculous.

Here's my problem then, Cuyo. The number of jobs being lost each month before Barack Obama took office keeps getting brought up by this White House and people like yourself as "proof" that Obama's policies somehow stopped further massive job losses. I think you know as well as I do that's a deeply flawed argument. All one has to do is look at the behavior of past recessions to know that after a steep downturn such as we had in 2008, the economy always levels off and then usually rebounds. We have leveled off but we haven't rebounded and now it looks quite likely that we're about to slide into a double dip recession.

Quite frankly, this President has had everything he needed to preside over a robust recovery but with his legislative agenda he has consistently done things to dampen any potential rebound. ObamaCare was a jobs killer. The Stimulus kept people working in the Public Sector but didn't create any jobs in the Private Sector. The moratorium on all off shore drilling caused job losses on the Gulf Coast. Letting the EPA threaten massive increases in energy costs had a huge dampening effect on job creation. You see the Justice Department going after companies like Gibson guitars that DID hire employees for allegedly violating some obscure Indian law designed to keep Americans from being able to work on wood. You see Boeing being sued for building a factory and hiring a thousand people, simply because they chose to do so in a right to work State. Then we had the credit rating downgrade because we didn't come close to cutting the deficit enough to satisfy the rating agencies.

At some point this becomes Barack Obama's problem. He's tried to make it the fault of everyone else since he took office but the fact of the matter is..."his" policies have done little to help an economic rebound and in many cases they were directly responsible for that rebound not happening.

Excellent summary of the problem!

The only thing I would add to it is that the semi-Kenysian madness of trying to spend ourselves rich is also sucking the lifeblood out of the economy. We see spending speeding up, not slowing down, while the debt clock continues to fast forward at a blur speed.

On another thread I pointed to trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, but they want us to believe that cutting spending by one or two trillion--not right away of course but spread over the next ten years--will have any significant impact on that.

You owe $10 and earn $10 a year but spend $11.

If that rate continues, at the end of the ten years you will still owe the $10 plus $1 each year or $20.

So you assure your creditors you will cut spending by $1 spread over the next 10 years.

So now you still have the original $10 debt and are spending only 90 cents more than you earn every year so at the end of the 10 years you will owe $19 instead of $20.

And they want you to believe that is responsible.

 

[The Rabbi]

Because Obama doesn't control the price of gas...

I expect better from you. Firehose or whatever is entitled to his opinion, but in this case it is worthless.

I guess you missed this part:

"But as numerous business owners have said, the government's policies and regulations can have a detrimental effect on the market."

I guess you missed this part:

"OBAMA. DOESN'T. CONTROL. THE. PRICE. OF GAS."

Are you obtuse or merely stupid?

 

[boedicca]

I guess you missed this part:

"But as numerous business owners have said, the government's policies and regulations can have a detrimental effect on the market."

I guess you missed this part:

"OBAMA. DOESN'T. CONTROL. THE. PRICE. OF GAS."

Are you obtuse or merely stupid?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Just sayin'.

 

[daveman]

Because Obama doesn't control the price of gas...

I expect better from you. Firehose or whatever is entitled to his opinion, but in this case it is worthless.

I guess you missed this part:

"But as numerous business owners have said, the government's policies and regulations can have a detrimental effect on the market."

I guess you missed this part:

"OBAMA. DOESN'T. CONTROL. THE. PRICE. OF GAS."

Even if you screech it annoyingly, it still doesn't mean I said he does.

Do you deny that government policies and regulations can have a detrimental effect on the market?

 

[The Rabbi]

I guess you missed this part:

"But as numerous business owners have said, the government's policies and regulations can have a detrimental effect on the market."

I guess you missed this part:

"OBAMA. DOESN'T. CONTROL. THE. PRICE. OF GAS."

Even if you screech it annoyingly, it still doesn't mean I said he does.

Do you deny that government policies and regulations can have a detrimental effect on the market?

But Obama doesn't control the price of gas. Don't you get that, Daveman? He doesn't control the price. Therefore Cuyo must be right and you're wrong.
I don't know how you could think Obama controls the price of gas. Because he doesn't. It's pretty simple.
Obama does not control the price of gas. Get it now?

 

[expat_panama]

..."OBAMA. DOESN'T. CONTROL. THE. PRICE. OF GAS."

...you deny that government policies and regulations can have a detrimental effect on the market?

Congress could try to lower gas prices by 18¢ per gallon just by cutting the gas tax. Democrats in the Senate would have to go along, but ultimately Obama would probably not sign it considering how he's promised to "keep a boot on the throat" of the oil companies by banning drilling.

 

[editec]

One of the things about the economy is that it is NOT a science experiment.

One cannot TEST the effecacy of a policy before one implements it.

One cannot isolate one aspect of economic policy to determine what effect it has.

We never have the same economy two days in a row, folks.

All of us, from the most highly qualified economist to to most clueless among us cannot speak with absolutely authority about what the economy might have done, or what it will do, either.

Economics is an ART, not a science.

All the econommetics in the world doesn't change that fact.

 

[uscitizen]

Why Haven't Obama's Policies Helped The Economy?

Because his finincial policies have been third Bush term policies.

 

[Dragon]

All one has to do is look at the behavior of past recessions to know that after a steep downturn such as we had in 2008, the economy always levels off and then usually rebounds.

That's what happened this time as well. The problem is that, although economic growth has been restored, the economy continues to underperform and unemployment remains high.

That this is unique, though, is untrue.

Here is a chart of recessions/depressions suffered by the U.S. economy since 1900 and their durations:

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2007/9/17/recessions.png

Note that most recessions in the early 20th century were longer than the one we just went through. The really anomalous one was the recession of 1929, which began the Great Depression. That lasted more than three years, with growth finally being restored the year that FDR took office. The recent recession lasted less than a year.

Now as for depressions, which I believe we're in, that's different from a recession. A recession is a period of negative growth at least two quarters long, by definition. The Great Depression started with a recession and suffered a double-dip in 1937, but most of the Depression years the economy was growing. It's just that, as at present, it seemed to have reset around a lower level of performance and productivity. The New Deal programs helped to ease the suffering of the unemployed, but were not sufficient to push the economy out of that lower-performing groove. Economists, including John Maynard Keynes, told Roosevelt that he needed to spend money on a much larger scale, but he was not a believer in Keynesian economics and so did not take that advice until some Japanese airplanes made it unavoidable.

What finally did so was the immense federal spending necessary to fight World War II. What FDR was unwilling to do for economic reasons he did to defeat the enemy, and that had the predicted economic effect as well. Together with the reforms of the New Deal era that rewrote the rules of the game and narrowed income gaps (labor-friendly government policies and a steeply graduated income tax with an effective cap on personal incomes, most importantly), this government spending jump-started the economy and gave us four decades of unprecedented prosperity.

Currently, Obama seems like FDR redux. Like his predecessor, he's unwilling to invest the necessary funds to move the economy out of its lower setpoint; also, he's unwilling to rewrite the rules of the game so as to restore the narrow income gaps that made the postwar prosperity decades possible. He's too conservative to solve this problem, even if Congress would go along.

If we really want to learn the lessons of history, we should make sure we're learning the right ones.

 

[Cuyo]

I guess you missed this part:

"But as numerous business owners have said, the government's policies and regulations can have a detrimental effect on the market."

I guess you missed this part:

"OBAMA. DOESN'T. CONTROL. THE. PRICE. OF GAS."

Even if you screech it annoyingly, it still doesn't mean I said he does.

Do you deny that government policies and regulations can have a detrimental effect on the market?

Ok, I realize this is probably not going anywhere, but I'll give it another shot.

Firehose's claim was that Obama's policies MUST have hurt the economy, because gas is up. Stupid on a number of levels, but let's analyze.

Needless to say, there's a number of factors that influence the price of gas - Perhaps too many to list. None of them are a president's magic wand, or a president's sheer will - I think we all agree on that.

The biggest influence is the price of crude - Which was $46 in early '09, and now is hovering around $88. I think we can all agree on that as well.

The DJIA was hovering around 8000 at that time, and is now at around 11500 - Do we agree on that as well?

So we agree that a number of factors impact gas prices, and I think we agree that crude is the biggest contributing factor.

So the question is: Is a rising gas price axiomatic with a declining economy? Or an improving economy?

That's why I said the original post in question was (and is) retarded. Shame on you for trying to frame it otherwise.

 

[expat_panama]

Why Haven't Obama's Policies Helped The Economy? Because his finincial policies have been third Bush term policies.

Please help me with this.

With GW Bush, unemployment averaged 5.3% and annualized gdp growth was 3.5%. With Obama unemployment's been 9.3% and gdp growth is 1.6%. How can you say Obama is copying Bush?

 

[Dragon]

Please help me with this.

With GW Bush, unemployment averaged 5.3% and annualized gdp growth was 3.5%. With Obama unemployment's been 9.3% and gdp growth is 1.6%. How can you say Obama is copying Bush?

Let me help you with an analogy.

A man walks out to the end of a pier and steps off the edge, carrying another man on his shoulders. As he sinks below the waves, he boosts the other man off his shoulders and into the water. The other man sinks to the bottom and begins to walk in the same direction, away from the pier.

Does that clarify matters, or do I need to explain the analogy?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The stimulus worked

It kept unemployment below 8%, as promised.

 

[daveman]

I guess you missed this part:

"OBAMA. DOESN'T. CONTROL. THE. PRICE. OF GAS."

Even if you screech it annoyingly, it still doesn't mean I said he does.

Do you deny that government policies and regulations can have a detrimental effect on the market?

Ok, I realize this is probably not going anywhere, but I'll give it another shot.

Firehose's claim was that Obama's policies MUST have hurt the economy, because gas is up. Stupid on a number of levels, but let's analyze.

Needless to say, there's a number of factors that influence the price of gas - Perhaps too many to list. None of them are a president's magic wand, or a president's sheer will - I think we all agree on that.

The biggest influence is the price of crude - Which was $46 in early '09, and now is hovering around $88. I think we can all agree on that as well.

The DJIA was hovering around 8000 at that time, and is now at around 11500 - Do we agree on that as well?

So we agree that a number of factors impact gas prices, and I think we agree that crude is the biggest contributing factor.

So the question is: Is a rising gas price axiomatic with a declining economy? Or an improving economy?

That's why I said the original post in question was (and is) retarded. Shame on you for trying to frame it otherwise.

So...you're not going to answer my question. Why is that?

 

[Cuyo]

Even if you screech it annoyingly, it still doesn't mean I said he does.

Do you deny that government policies and regulations can have a detrimental effect on the market?

Ok, I realize this is probably not going anywhere, but I'll give it another shot.

Firehose's claim was that Obama's policies MUST have hurt the economy, because gas is up. Stupid on a number of levels, but let's analyze.

Needless to say, there's a number of factors that influence the price of gas - Perhaps too many to list. None of them are a president's magic wand, or a president's sheer will - I think we all agree on that.

The biggest influence is the price of crude - Which was $46 in early '09, and now is hovering around $88. I think we can all agree on that as well.

The DJIA was hovering around 8000 at that time, and is now at around 11500 - Do we agree on that as well?

So we agree that a number of factors impact gas prices, and I think we agree that crude is the biggest contributing factor.

So the question is: Is a rising gas price axiomatic with a declining economy? Or an improving economy?

That's why I said the original post in question was (and is) retarded. Shame on you for trying to frame it otherwise.

So...you're not going to answer my question. Why is that?

You haven't exactly addressed mine, but sure government policy can impact the market... But we're not talking about a market that's down compared to early 2009, we're talking about one that's up.

Now me. Outside influences (which I think we agree exist) aside, is higher gas axiomatic to a better economy? Or a worse economy?