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

[expat_panama]

...The difference between the tax and regulatory policies under Bush and Obama are quite trivial...

Sorry I missed your post, you responded clearly and politely and it was all lost in the flood.

You're absolutely correct in considering the differences small viewed on a world scale, or in comparison to say, those of the Roman empire or Stalin's USSR. Let's also note that the differences become huge in terms of the enormous human suffering we've seen since '08 that directly results from those very differences as subtle as they may appear.

 

[The Rabbi]

I guess you missed my post that shows Obama enacting regulations that will cost US businesses billions trying to obey.

Are you talking about the ACA? If so, those regulations aren't in effect yet and therefore can't be causing any difference of outcomes observed.

(Remainder of your post, consisting of empty rhetoric and ad homs, snipped as unworthy of a reply.)

First off some of the regs are in place and they are causing differences.
Secondly the anticipation of changes will lead to changes in response, even before the changes go into effect.
Third, you obviously missed both mine and Daveman's posts where we laid out very distinct differences in policy.
Are you reading impaired or just dumb?

 

[Dragon]

You're absolutely correct in considering the differences small viewed on a world scale, or in comparison to say, those of the Roman empire or Stalin's USSR.

More to the point, they're also very small viewed in comparison with U.S. economic policy in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

Let's also note that the differences become huge in terms of the enormous human suffering we've seen since '08 that directly results from those very differences as subtle as they may appear.

I'm still waiting for you to tell us what those differences are. So far, Daveman made a rather vague reference to "regulations" and to what he says is an "anti-business attitude" but has not pointed to any specific regulations (I acknowledged that the ACA is indeed a difference but pointed out that most of it is not yet in effect).

Post hoc propter hoc is in any case not valid reasoning as regards government policy effect on the economy. The economy went into a steep recession in Bush's final year in office and Obama inherited this situation. Blaming Obama for this is ridiculous; it didn't even occur on his watch. As for the current situation, and the limp recovery, that might be better attributed to Obama's policies (and in part I do), but to get specific, it's important to identify exactly what policies you are talking about.

The policies he's following that are not allowing for a full recovery are, in my opinion, Bush policies that he is failing to reverse to an adequate degree. But feel free to point out why you think otherwise, with specifics.

 

[The Rabbi]

Post hoc propter hoc is in any case not valid reasoning as regards government policy effect on the economy. The economy went into a steep recession in Bush's final year in office and Obama inherited this situation. Blaming Obama for this is ridiculous; it didn't even occur on his watch. As for the current situation, and the limp recovery, that might be better attributed to Obama's policies (and in part I do), but to get specific, it's important to identify exactly what policies you are talking about.

So you are maintaining that gov't policies have no effect on the economy? Or they do have an effect, but only if George W Bush implements them?

You are skating towards iggy here. The answers to your questions have been spelled out several times.

 

[Dragon]

First off some of the regs are in place and they are causing differences.

Which ones exactly? What differences? Why do you think those are causative of the slow recovery?

Secondly the anticipation of changes will lead to changes in response, even before the changes go into effect.

Same questions as above. I can tell you exactly what government policies I think are responsible for the entire mess, with specifics and mechanisms explaining why, together with historical examples of similar things in the past. Can you do something similar here, or are you just going on the assumption that economic regulations are bad, or that investment depends on how much capital is available rather than on consumer demand?

Third, you obviously missed both mine and Daveman's posts where we laid out very distinct differences in policy.

I haven't read through this entire thread nor do I intend to. If you would like to link specific posts or at least provide post numbers I'll check it out.

 

[Dragon]

So you are maintaining that gov't policies have no effect on the economy? Or they do have an effect, but only if George W Bush implements them?

I am claiming, of course, that government policies are not the only thing that impacts an economy and that an economy can change without any change in government policies, or in spite of such changes, or because of them in part. Because of this, it follows that you CANNOT merely point to a before-and-after and say that A caused B. The economy is far more complicated than that.

Also, it's necessary to point to actual policy changes, not merely to a change in who's butt sits in the Oval Office chair. And some logic as to why the policy changes caused the observed economic change would also be good.

 

[The Rabbi]

First off some of the regs are in place and they are causing differences.

Which ones exactly? What differences? Why do you think those are causative of the slow recovery?

Secondly the anticipation of changes will lead to changes in response, even before the changes go into effect.

Same questions as above. I can tell you exactly what government policies I think are responsible for the entire mess, with specifics and mechanisms explaining why, together with historical examples of similar things in the past. Can you do something similar here, or are you just going on the assumption that economic regulations are bad, or that investment depends on how much capital is available rather than on consumer demand?

Third, you obviously missed both mine and Daveman's posts where we laid out very distinct differences in policy.

I haven't read through this entire thread nor do I intend to. If you would like to link specific posts or at least provide post numbers I'll check it out.

Never mind. Have fun, skippy.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Why? My Opinion is that he hired a bunch of academics to get ideas from instead of listening to people who work in business. In theory (get it ) this is a fine idea and could work but in reality it didn't work.

On top of this, after these advisors' ideas have been showed to fail in other countries and are now failing in our country Obama, through his new jobs plan, wants to double down on the same "solutions" we have been using for over 2 years now with no success.

This video explains it so perfectly.

]

1. What you describe is what every president does. Then they pick what they think will help the country. Obama is obviously a VERY bad picker!
2. Obama's entire domestic agenda has been a disaster.
3. This Jobs Bill is very, very different than anything he's proposed before. It actually contains some of the things I've b1tched about not being in his previous bullsh1t attempts. It is the first time I've seen strong incentives for the REAL job creators in America (as opposed to the bullsh1t the GOP tells us).

We'll see what happens.

 

[daveman]

I guess you missed my post that shows Obama enacting regulations that will cost US businesses billions trying to obey.

Are you talking about the ACA?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4162194-post246.html

If so, those regulations aren't in effect yet and therefore can't be causing any difference of outcomes observed.

Nonsense. Business owners can see what's coming and take steps to mitigate the damage the government is going to cause...such as not hiring. Such as not investing in expansion. You know, exactly what they've been doing, and for exactly that reason.

They've been telling us that. Obamabots refuse to accept it.

(Remainder of your post, consisting of empty rhetoric and ad homs, snipped as unworthy of a reply.)

Awww...I went and hurt the pwecious snowfwake's widdle feewings.

 

[daveman]

So far, Daveman made a rather vague reference to "regulations" and to what he says is an "anti-business attitude" but has not pointed to any specific regulations (I acknowledged that the ACA is indeed a difference but pointed out that most of it is not yet in effect).

You can pretend Post #246 doesn't exist, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why? My Opinion is that he hired a bunch of academics to get ideas from instead of listening to people who work in business. In theory (get it ) this is a fine idea and could work but in reality it didn't work.

On top of this, after these advisors' ideas have been showed to fail in other countries and are now failing in our country Obama, through his new jobs plan, wants to double down on the same "solutions" we have been using for over 2 years now with no success.

This video explains it so perfectly.

]

1. What you describe is what every president does. Then they pick what they think will help the country. Obama is obviously a VERY bad picker!
2. Obama's entire domestic agenda has been a disaster.
3. This Jobs Bill is very, very different than anything he's proposed before. It actually contains some of the things I've b1tched about not being in his previous bullsh1t attempts. It is the first time I've seen strong incentives for the REAL job creators in America (as opposed to the bullsh1t the GOP tells us).

We'll see what happens.

This jobs bill is different? Really? How's that?

 

[Dragon]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4162194-post246.html

Thanks for the link. From that post:

The picture is clear. Businesses in America can’t afford to expand AND pay for the new regulations about to hit them.

And yet the total burden you cited from these regulations amounts to only $100 billion in an economy that is nearly $15 trillion in size. The assumption behind this is that businesses are having trouble investing due to a shortage of capital, so that any further burden (from either regulations or taxes) will make the problem worse. In fact, however, there is no capital shortage at all:

U.S. Firms Build Up Record Cash Piles - WSJ.com

With businesses sitting on record piles of cash, something else is preventing them from investing, not costs from regulations or anything else. What is causing them not to invest? Lack of customers:

Small Business Recession | Small business sidelined in slow recovery from recession - Los Angeles Times

There is plenty of money to invest, and $100 billion is a drop in the ocean. But there is no reason to invest in producing goods or services that will not be bought. The problem is that too many people are out of work, and those that are working aren't being paid enough, and they're not making up the gap by using plastic the way they did in the 1990s.

Is Obama at fault for this? In part, yes, but not through pursuing policies that differ significantly from those of Bush.

Awww...I went and hurt the pwecious snowfwake's widdle feewings.

My girlfriend can hurt my feelings; you cannot. What you can do, is to post content-free drivel that does not deserve a reply. You're smarter than that. Quit posting as if you were an idiot.

 

[IndependntLogic]

]

.

This jobs bill is different? Really? How's that?

I own a small business, which means I hire 100% American and pay my taxes to our country only.
One of the thing's I've complained about is that there have been no real incentives for small business to hire people in anythig offered by Obama or Bush before him. This is different. How: None of was in any previous bills:

1. Cut payroll tax in half on 1st $5M in wages. This is great. Big Corps who ship their jobs and tax renenues overseas won't even notice it. Who will? American small businesses like mine. Which of course is why the GOP is already fighting this clause. WTF?
2. Cut payroll tax completely on new hires & raises, up to the first $50M. This is good too! This could help the economy! Which again, is why I'm sure it will be attacked by those who normally fight for tax cuts and say they are the answer to everything.
3. 100% write-offs for new locations and equipment. This eliminates depreciating stuff over years so basically, you get like, 5 times the normal deduction. In other words, if I hire a new recruiter for my firm, I can write off the new computer I buy for them. If I open a new office, same thing on a bigger scale. I really don't see how anyone could argue against this but I'm sure I know who will...
4. Obama's talking about cutting the payout time to American small businesses to 90 days - which would give 100% American companies a chance at billions we pay to foreign or not-totally US companies. How's he going to do it? Um yeah. Good luck with that. I'm doubtful. But if he could, what would be the problem with it?
5. One thing I like is that he's talking about helping people who have been out of work, start their own business. I used to volunteer in Texas, teaching people how to do exactly that. They were often surprised how easy it could be. The key was always capitalization. If someone could keep their unemployment while starting a new business, this would solve that problem. If only one out of hundred were successful, that would be huge.

That's what's different.

Now none of this is a magic wand or even rocket science. If you make hiring people and the cost of materials they need to work and the cost of opening locations here in America cheaper, that's an incentive. It may not be a big deal to Conoco Philips, who could give a f*ck about the U.S. economy or hiring Ameicans, but it will make a difference to Fred, who just got some new contracts and has been wrestling with the idea of hiring someone.

What I find interesting, is that the same GOP who has been screaming at the top of their lungs, that all of our problems would be solved by lowering taxes, have already come out against a couple of the above incentives. Why? They don't help their Big Business donors and worse, could end up creating real competition for them. So when it comes to what's best for Americans or what's best for Big Business, their priorities are clear.

 

[The Rabbi]

You realize all of those breaks are limited to like 1 year, right?
Do you hire people with the expectation they will stay for only one year? Probably not.

 

[daveman]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4162194-post246.html

Thanks for the link. From that post:

The picture is clear. Businesses in America can’t afford to expand AND pay for the new regulations about to hit them.

And yet the total burden you cited from these regulations amounts to only $100 billion in an economy that is nearly $15 trillion in size. The assumption behind this is that businesses are having trouble investing due to a shortage of capital, so that any further burden (from either regulations or taxes) will make the problem worse. In fact, however, there is no capital shortage at all:

U.S. Firms Build Up Record Cash Piles - WSJ.com

With businesses sitting on record piles of cash, something else is preventing them from investing, not costs from regulations or anything else. What is causing them not to invest? Lack of customers:

Small Business Recession | Small business sidelined in slow recovery from recession - Los Angeles Times

There is plenty of money to invest, and $100 billion is a drop in the ocean. But there is no reason to invest in producing goods or services that will not be bought. The problem is that too many people are out of work, and those that are working aren't being paid enough, and they're not making up the gap by using plastic the way they did in the 1990s.

Is Obama at fault for this? In part, yes, but not through pursuing policies that differ significantly from those of Bush.

Awww...I went and hurt the pwecious snowfwake's widdle feewings.

My girlfriend can hurt my feelings; you cannot. What you can do, is to post content-free drivel that does not deserve a reply. You're smarter than that. Quit posting as if you were an idiot.

Quit pretending you're not an idiot.

 

[The Rabbi]

Daveman, Dragon's highest and most noble purpose is to go on ignore.

 

[daveman]

Daveman, Dragon's highest and most noble purpose is to go on ignore.

He's working diligently towards that end.

 

[expat_panama]

...small viewed on a world scale, or in comparison to say, those of the Roman empire or Stalin's USSR.

...very small viewed in comparison with U.S. economic policy in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s...

That's where you view and mine diverge.

Truman, Kennedy, and Clinton tried and failed to nationalize the health-care third of the economy. Obama's pulling it off was accompanied by three million workers leaving the labor-force. His takeover of GM, his constant unapologetic fight for tax hikes, along with a consistent call for class hatred have no precedent in American history.

 

[uscitizen]

You don't get to decide what cards are in the deck, kid.

The stats show Obama has royally screwed the economy. There is no credible way to deny this.

But that won't stop you.

Yep Obama screwed the economy by continuing Bush policies.

But you still refuse to hold Obama accountable.

Good sheep.

You have read all that I post on here about Obama and you still say that?

You are either dishonest or not too bright, neither one is a good thing.

 

[Brutus]

But you still refuse to hold Obama accountable.

the electorate held Obama accountable last november after less than 2 years!! Now that it is even clearer what a liberal screw up he is he will get clobbered even worse in next election, and rightly so!

BO did for this recession what FDR did for the Great Depression. No doubt both will be great liberal heros!!