A vigorous political blog, not for the fainthearted.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
"As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America gave him the White House based on the same credentials." - - Newt Gingrich
He has prevented our economy from collapsing and begun to clean up the GOP mess. Soon, we'll have health care reform, then we'll have a bill to reduce greenhouse gases and imported energy.
He has a full plate.
He didn't get elected because his daddy was president. His story is far more compelling than either of the Bushes.
H.L. Mencken said "People deserve the government they get, and they deserve to get it good and hard." Unfortunately as Barry drives this country into the dirt those of us who didn't vote for him are getting the same treatment.
two years later, your comment on the economy has proven entirely wrong...reduction of importing energy is entirely dependent on utilizing what we have in north dakota, which obama is doing everything in his power to mess up...i hope we are entering his last year
Under Obama, the economy is growing. The deflationary near-depression inherited from Bush has been averted. The massive $1.4T deficit inherited from Bush has been arrested as well. Had Obama followed the pattern of Reagan and Bush, our deficits would be approximately $4T per year.
Baxter's justification for Obama's election was that his STORY was more COMPELLING? I'd like to think he brought more to the table than a good "Once Upon A Time".
Mr. Obama was given the American government on a silver plate and abused his mandate with wrongheaded decisions in his first 18 months ($1.2 trillion spent that affected the economy not a whit, and a government takeover of General Motors). Since then, he has apparently opened his "Economics for Dummies" book and tried to recover.
Bush's first term would have been mediocre but for the catalytic effect of 9/11 which, in my opinion, he handled well. His second was subpar. Mr. Obama began his administration with a 63% approval rate (20% disapproval). As of 12/2, his DISapproval rate was somewhat over 51% (43% approval). It would seem that the rest of America finally woke up (too late) and realized that Mr. Obama is not the Messiah they thought he was. Certainly, he is not worthy of a second term.
$1.2T spent that "affected the economy not a whit"? That is silly talk. Obama inherited an economy collapsing 9% per annum and shedding jobs over 700,000 per month. He quickly turned things around - due in great part to the spending - and we are now growing the GDP and jobs.
So, everything is rosy? Of course not. Just far better than they were or would be under Republican policies.
Obama, with his $1.2 trillion spending didn't affect the economy a whit, unless it was towards the negative side of things. The only statistic that matters for an economy in recession is GDP. GDP is the only business cycle indicator and is calculated as consumer spending+Business investment+Government Spending+Net Exports. Of those components, consumer spending accounts for over 50% of the calculation. Our economy is, and with the exception of WWII, always has been driven from the bottom up. How about giving that $1.2 trillion back to the taxpayers who earned? We will be better stewards of that money than the government. Except for the part that the government did not HAVE the money to spend in the first place and drove the deficit to unreal heights...and Congress still wants to raise the debt ceiling. Where are all those jobs that were supposed to be saved in April of 2009? According to the BLS, unemployment actually INCREASED and hit the 10% mark in October of that year and leveled off in 2010 in the high 9 range. Admittedly, the rate is shrinking, but only marginally. Not coincidentally, average hourly wages have also begun to decline while the consumer price index is actually rising.
To sum up, $1.2 trillion that we did not have was spent to "save jobs" that were still lost. Those dollars were spent trying to improve the segment of GDP that matters LEAST, rather than the oone that matters most. The national debt is spiraling out of control. People with jobs are earning lower wages but prices, on the whole are increasing which means those with jobs can buy less. The result? A decline in consumer spending and an economic recovery that will be measured in years, not months.
UGA - you are ignoring the obvious. Obama inherited an economy whose GDP was shrinking 9% per year (2.5 points worst than recognized at the time) and it is now growing at 2%+ per year. That is an 11 point swing ("huge").
Jobs were dropping over 700,000 per MONTH in early 2009 and last month, for example, they increased 120,000. That didn't just happen by accident. Job growth over eight Bush years was less than a million on net. Clinton, of course, grew jobs over 20 million in the same amount of time.
Why not just cut taxes more and repeat the failed policies if the last administration? Why not give $1.2 trillion in tax cuts? That's easy - the multiplier effect of direct spending was 1.7 where tax cuts were expected to return .3, a small fraction of direct spending. If the goal is economic stimulation, direct spending is obviously much more effective.
Thanks to his successful presidency to date and the woeful GOP field, Obama is a near certainty to enjoy four more years in the Oval Office.
12 comments:
Sometimes a guy throws a double bull's eye.
50 points for Newt!
Cheap shot, worthy of Newt. I hope he is the GOP standard bearer in 2012.
He won't be.
The truth is cheap.
What had he done? What has he accomplished?
He has prevented our economy from collapsing and begun to clean up the GOP mess. Soon, we'll have health care reform, then we'll have a bill to reduce greenhouse gases and imported energy.
He has a full plate.
He didn't get elected because his daddy was president. His story is far more compelling than either of the Bushes.
H.L. Mencken said "People deserve the government they get, and they deserve to get it good and hard."
Unfortunately as Barry drives this country into the dirt those of us who didn't vote for him are getting the same treatment.
I love the HL Mencken quote and it is true. Of course, I'm quite happy these days after feleing rather bent over the previous eight years...
two years later, your comment on the economy has proven entirely wrong...reduction of importing energy is entirely dependent on utilizing what we have in north dakota, which obama is doing everything in his power to mess up...i hope we are entering his last year
Under Obama, the economy is growing. The deflationary near-depression inherited from Bush has been averted. The massive $1.4T deficit inherited from Bush has been arrested as well. Had Obama followed the pattern of Reagan and Bush, our deficits would be approximately $4T per year.
Four more years!
Baxter's justification for Obama's election was that his STORY was more COMPELLING? I'd like to think he brought more to the table than a good "Once Upon A Time".
Mr. Obama was given the American government on a silver plate and abused his mandate with wrongheaded decisions in his first 18 months ($1.2 trillion spent that affected the economy not a whit, and a government takeover of General Motors). Since then, he has apparently opened his "Economics for Dummies" book and tried to recover.
Bush's first term would have been mediocre but for the catalytic effect of 9/11 which, in my opinion, he handled well. His second was subpar. Mr. Obama began his administration with a 63% approval rate (20% disapproval). As of 12/2, his DISapproval rate was somewhat over 51% (43% approval). It would seem that the rest of America finally woke up (too late) and realized that Mr. Obama is not the Messiah they thought he was. Certainly, he is not worthy of a second term.
$1.2T spent that "affected the economy not a whit"? That is silly talk. Obama inherited an economy collapsing 9% per annum and shedding jobs over 700,000 per month. He quickly turned things around - due in great part to the spending - and we are now growing the GDP and jobs.
So, everything is rosy? Of course not. Just far better than they were or would be under Republican policies.
Obama, with his $1.2 trillion spending didn't affect the economy a whit, unless it was towards the negative side of things. The only statistic that matters for an economy in recession is GDP. GDP is the only business cycle indicator and is calculated as consumer spending+Business investment+Government Spending+Net Exports. Of those components, consumer spending accounts for over 50% of the calculation. Our economy is, and with the exception of WWII, always has been driven from the bottom up. How about giving that $1.2 trillion back to the taxpayers who earned? We will be better stewards of that money than the government. Except for the part that the government did not HAVE the money to spend in the first place and drove the deficit to unreal heights...and Congress still wants to raise the debt ceiling. Where are all those jobs that were supposed to be saved in April of 2009? According to the BLS, unemployment actually INCREASED and hit the 10% mark in October of that year and leveled off in 2010 in the high 9 range. Admittedly, the rate is shrinking, but only marginally. Not coincidentally, average hourly wages have also begun to decline while the consumer price index is actually rising.
To sum up, $1.2 trillion that we did not have was spent to "save jobs" that were still lost. Those dollars were spent trying to improve the segment of GDP that matters LEAST, rather than the oone that matters most. The national debt is spiraling out of control. People with jobs are earning lower wages but prices, on the whole are increasing which means those with jobs can buy less. The result? A decline in consumer spending and an economic recovery that will be measured in years, not months.
UGA - you are ignoring the obvious. Obama inherited an economy whose GDP was shrinking 9% per year (2.5 points worst than recognized at the time) and it is now growing at 2%+ per year. That is an 11 point swing ("huge").
Jobs were dropping over 700,000 per MONTH in early 2009 and last month, for example, they increased 120,000. That didn't just happen by accident. Job growth over eight Bush years was less than a million on net. Clinton, of course, grew jobs over 20 million in the same amount of time.
Why not just cut taxes more and repeat the failed policies if the last administration? Why not give $1.2 trillion in tax cuts? That's easy - the multiplier effect of direct spending was 1.7 where tax cuts were expected to return .3, a small fraction of direct spending. If the goal is economic stimulation, direct spending is obviously much more effective.
Thanks to his successful presidency to date and the woeful GOP field, Obama is a near certainty to enjoy four more years in the Oval Office.
Post a Comment