Obama's recovery more impressive than Reagan's

[abrogate]

The article is a bit one sided in its approach to the facts they choose. The bias of the author comes through in the tone. With that being said, I happen to agree with what I read and think it is valid.

I'm not a Kool Aid drinker and tend to think those too far to the left or right are just lazy thinkers IMO.

We do have a recovery and as another member who like to post how great Obama was doing against Reagan's number would point out you can't compare one partial term to two full terms. The judge is still out. I'm optimistic though.

There are some warning signs:

I agree with the article and have been saying for a while that Bush needlessly took the tax cut bat out of the president's hand when their was a crisis. I'm of the opinion that Obama should not have continued the cuts and that there has been little return on it. He has kept interest rates low to stimulate and avoid inflation. There are people who loose on low interest rates and they are some of the most vulnerable (not a very nice social liberal thing to do). There is also danger in keeping them low for too long. It has been the only option though.

http://www.news.com.au/money/intere...december-minutes/story-e6frfmn0-1225810543089

Also Obama has the debt against him. It isn't only % of GDP, but it is with lower revenues he had to contend with. With a higher $ debt, it isn't about growing out of it (like we were able to do with the WWII debt). There are those who say "meh" to the debt, but it is obviously a factor. Reagan cut and spent on the military like a drunken sailor - otherwise we could have had a different situation.

Seems to me a few lost opportunities that would have made the stage very different.

Still, not a good time for Obama to not be funding his expenses.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

 

[abrogate]

In fairness the mods should ban themselves.

Wow, two mods weigh in on how much one of the shittier members is going to react to this news. Thanks be praised we're keeping said shitty member around.

Also, for anyone who is sad about this because they don't want President Obama re-elected: Shame on you. This is good news for the nation. If your blind, partisan, poorly founded hatred of the person will not allow you to look at some pretty positive facts, you should never be allowed to vote. Or procreate, really.

...and just because I hate not to balance things out. It makes me scratch my head when people think they have this all figured out.

http://news.investors.com/Article/5...omy-continues-to-underperform-under-obama.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...h-slump-proves-no-morning-in-america-yet.html

 

[Facetious]

“Since the Recession ended, Obama has maintained growth in private investment.

.. Wait! I thought that the left wing constituency in this country were opposed to anything and everything associated with private investment? How can you let your president get away with this?
I'm sure the occupiers will have something to say about Obama's assistance in this alleged steady growth of private investment. :1orglaugh: (I wonder how much of this so called steady private investment is going to the fraudulent zero sum game of renewable resource energy?)

Seriously, come to your senses, democrats, the only good investment is the investment in government! (or so I thought).

Oh, of course, it's an election year... never mind... nothing to see here.

 

[ralph furley]

.. Wait! I thought that the left wing constituency in this country were opposed to anything and everything associated with private investment? How can you let your president get away with this?
I'm sure the occupiers will have something to say about Obama's assistance in this alleged steady growth of private investment. :1orglaugh: (I wonder how much of this so called steady private investment is going to the fraudulent zero sum game of renewable resource energy?)

Seriously, come to your senses, democrats, the only good investment is the investment in government! (or so I thought).

Oh, of course, it's an election year... never mind... nothing to see here.

your a retard

 

[TheSpokenWheel]

I provided a link with lots of cool charts and graphs that indicate otherwise. Your forceful rhetoric is compelling, but not quite enough.

careful, now. shapes and colors might be a bit much for him to process at once.

 

[pool_hustler]

.. Wait! I thought that the left wing constituency in this country were opposed to anything and everything associated with private investment?

You thought wrong.
And why would you think something that outrageous?
Perhaps your sources for "news" are the usual ignorance inducing suspects.

 

[xfire]

In fairness the mods should ban themselves. ...and just because I hate not to balance things out. It makes me scratch my head when people think they have this all figured out.

http://news.investors.com/Article/5...omy-continues-to-underperform-under-obama.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...h-slump-proves-no-morning-in-america-yet.html

From the first link- "So what's different? The presidents' policies. Reagan enacted sweeping and permanent tax cuts, aggressively eliminated or reduced regulations, reined in domestic spending, and championed the private sector."

Taxes are lower now than they were under Reagan and Obama regulation isn't any greater than Bush regulation. I direct you here- http://factcheck.org/2011/09/cherry-picking-on-regulation/ and here- http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/03/red-tape-rising-regulation-in-the-obama-era

As for the second link, my contention is that Obama's recovery is more impressive than Reagan's, not "faster". And I maintain that assertion, my first link proves it, your two links nay say but don't refute that contention.

The point isn't that I've "got everything figured out", rather the point is that right-wing hate spewers don't.

 

[Master Roshi]

that national debt clock did not stop under Reagan's terms and it has not stopped under Obama's unfortunately for the people

 

[webjules]

What's sad is most economists are advising the same strategies to fix the economy, yet Dems and Reps take tiny parts of that and mix it with a ton of ideology and screw everything up.

 

[xfire]

Wait! I thought that the left wing constituency in this country were opposed to anything and everything associated with private investment? How can you let your president get away with this? I'm sure the occupiers will have something to say about Obama's assistance in this alleged steady growth of private investment. (I wonder how much of this so called steady private investment is going to the fraudulent zero sum game of renewable resource energy. Seriously, come to your senses, democrats, the only good investment is the investment in government! (or so I thought). Oh, of course, it's an election year... never mind... nothing to see here.

And you base that absurd response on what, exactly? What Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the right-wing echo-chamber told you to think? That's relevant how? Because you want to tie the occupiers around the neck of Obama? I think you miss the point of the movement, as do most of the other ill-informed posters about the occupy movement. Is it your contention that only republicans believe in private investment? Would you care to source something, anything, that backs up such a ridiculous and far-fetched belief? Come to our senses? And do what, return power to the same cadre of idiots that drove the economy off a cliff? No thanks. If you decide to start posting something other than your ridiculous and baseless opinions perhaps we can have a discussion. Until then, how am I suppose to respond to your flippant ideas?

 

[lurkingdirk]

your a retard

*you're

 

[Rey C.]

Add to this, the S&P 500 had its best January in 15 years. So not since Reagan was President have we seen this type of performance from equities.

 

[lurkingdirk]

Add to this, the S&P 500 had its best January in 15 years. So not since Reagan was President have we seen this type of performance from equities.

The Dow, too.

Also, Chrysler has it's first profit since 2005 or 2006.
Consistent, if slow, job growth (170,000 jobs added in January).
And the list can go on. But let's hope that it all crumbles, and Americans have to be subjected to an even more terrible economy, just so President Obama will be defeated.

 

[georges]

your a retard

moderate your tone immediately pal. If you can't disagree politely with someone else by explaining and exposing concrete facts, then don't bother to reply but don't start insulting other people because they share different point of views than yours. Hope amI enough clear.

 

[georges]

I don't see how Dady O has fixed the economy, more poor people, near 9.5% of unemployment, more crime and more delocalizations. Obama loves marketing but I don't really see something positive over the long run with this irrealistic and reckless president.

 

[xfire]

I don't see how Dady O has fixed the economy, more poor people, near 9.5% of unemployment, more crime and more delocalizations. Obama loves marketing but I don't really see something positive over the long run with this irrealistic and reckless president.

All you have to do is open your eyes.

http://zfacts.com/sites/all/files/image/econ/job-loss-gain-recessions.png

 

[adeptblue]

Good posts in here. I have to admit...I learned a couple of things.

 

[abrogate]

From the first link- "So what's different? The presidents' policies. Reagan enacted sweeping and permanent tax cuts, aggressively eliminated or reduced regulations, reined in domestic spending, and championed the private sector."

Taxes are lower now than they were under Reagan and Obama regulation isn't any greater than Bush regulation. I direct you here- http://factcheck.org/2011/09/cherry-picking-on-regulation/ and here- http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/03/red-tape-rising-regulation-in-the-obama-era

As for the second link, my contention is that Obama's recovery is more impressive than Reagan's, not "faster". And I maintain that assertion, my first link proves it, your two links nay say but don't refute that contention.

The point isn't that I've "got everything figured out", rather the point is that right-wing hate spewers don't.

I was mostly agreeing with the original article and offering some other considerations.

I'm not sure where "right-wing hate spewers" came in as a response to my note. Seems needlessly negative.

The Dow, too.

Also, Chrysler has it's first profit since 2005 or 2006.
Consistent, if slow, job growth (170,000 jobs added in January).
And the list can go on. But let's hope that it all crumbles, and Americans have to be subjected to an even more terrible economy, just so President Obama will be defeated.

True, true, true. The auto buyouts bother me. I'm not sure if I would have another solution or would have done it differently, however, it seems like they punished the investors and creditors and gave a good portion of the company to the unions.

 

[Rey C.]

The auto buyouts bother me. I'm not sure if I would have another solution or would have done it differently, however, it seems like they punished the investors and creditors and gave a good portion of the company to the unions.

We have to remember that the situation with GM and Chrysler involved both a bailout (which began under the Bush Administration) and a continuation of the bailout, followed by a pre-packaged Chapter 11 bankruptcy (under Obama). Without the debtor-in-possession financing that the government provided, any Chapter 11 filing by GM would have quickly become a Chapter 7 liquidation. Remember that the credit markets were almost completely frozen at the time that GM and Chrysler were running out of cash to operate. And because of the size of the bankruptcy and GM's own immense size, combined with a total lack of debtor-in-possession financiers, a GM in liquidation would likely have drug down any and all suppliers that had any meaningful connection to the company. And most of these were not unionized companies. Many were medium and smaller businesses, that were themselves under the gun because banks had already stopped lending money against GM (Chrysler and even Ford) invoices.

But you do make a good point in regard to the leg-up that the UAW got in negotiations. As for equity investors, in any bankruptcy filing, common share holders are typically wiped out totally. And even preferred holders typically lose most of their money. Only bond holders are able to protect their interests in bankruptcy court. But they have to take a haircut too.

One could argue about the "moral hazard" of how all of this went down, and I appreciate that. But given the incredible long term risk that a GM liquidation would have posed to our economy (and our nation), this is certainly one thing that Obama championed (and more than a few in the GOP opposed :nono that I have to give him very high marks for.

People often forget that no automaker produces all of the components necessary to build a car. And all it takes to create a yard full of unsaleable cars is a missing mirror, a missing set of lugnuts, a missing grill, a missing wiring harness, etc. And the massive failure of these component suppliers would have crippled not just the entire auto industry in the U.S., but it would have likely sent the overall unemployment rate to somewhere near 20%. I bet there are people on this board who have a connection to the automotive sector who don't even realize that their jobs are affected by the ups & downs of automotive.

To your point... could it have been better "tweaked"? Probably. But given the circumstances and time constraints... I'd have to give the involved parties at least an A- for this one. The bank bailouts, not so much. But the automotive bailout was a winner.

 

[tynar]

True, true, true. The auto buyouts bother me. I'm not sure if I would have another solution or would have done it differently, however, it seems like they punished the investors and creditors and gave a good portion of the company to the unions.

I agree with you that is was really the only solution and it is one I would have done as well. It was a good job, but one that needs to be understood with caution. I think Rey C makes your point as well.