What Has Obama Done to Help the Economy?

[dayman]

The thread's premise is flawed. It assumes the President can do whatever he wants policy wise. The fact is that the last year and a half, Congress was completely useless.

 

I believe the stimulus had a positive effect on the economy. It slowed the downturn and reversed some economic indicators. The problems was that it contained a lot of tax cuts which aren't as stimulative as direct spending by the government. It should of been bigger or more focused on spending in the right areas.

 

Dodd-Frank should have been a better bill. They dropped the ball there and the banking sector is still running amok.

 

For the last 2 years, the President should've really been pushing Congress harder to do more for the economy. I know the Republicans made it their goal to not do anything that could benefit the President, but he still has to put on the pressure. He ran on big ideas, he should have proposed more.

 

Another stimulative bill with long term reforms to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid would be so politically popular. Just do it! It wouldn't be just politically popular either - it would benefit the economy greatly!

 

Stop attempting to give an actual response indicating how you feel to a flawed question by writing a poli-sci thesis .

 

In any event, I agree with most (but not all) of what you have said in this post

[Doc]

The thread's premise is flawed. It assumes the President can do whatever he wants policy wise. The fact is that the last year and a half, Congress was completely useless.

 

I believe the stimulus had a positive effect on the economy. It slowed the downturn and reversed some economic indicators. The problems was that it contained a lot of tax cuts which aren't as stimulative as direct spending by the government. It should of been bigger or more focused on spending in the right areas.

 

Dodd-Frank should have been a better bill. They dropped the ball there and the banking sector is still running amok.

 

For the last 2 years, the President should've really been pushing Congress harder to do more for the economy. I know the Republicans made it their goal to not do anything that could benefit the President, but he still has to put on the pressure. He ran on big ideas, he should have proposed more.

 

Another stimulative bill with long term reforms to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid would be so politically popular. Just do it! It wouldn't be just politically popular either - it would benefit the economy greatly!

I liken Barry's presidency to a "name" coach taking-over a top, but troubled, football program. The key is in the first few years, when he has total control and the trust of the administration, and only after a few years do we see the fruits of those early years as the younger players begin to emerge. In Barry's case, he fumbled the football in those critical first few years, spending lots of money on failed programs he thought would help the players and racking up debt the school can't pay, and now his boosters and the admin are blocking his attempts to drag the program down further. Time for a new coach.

[Juror#8]

Obama supporters persist in claiming Obama "brought us back from the brink." As far as I can see, after 3 1/2 years we're no better off and we'd be better off had he done absolutely nothing. Can anyone point to what he's done to help the economy?

 

It's difficult to prove a negative - either way. Some say that the economy was headed towards absolute crises. That was curtailed. The deeply sinking trend coming out of the Bush Administration plateaued. Was that because of BO or something else?

 

Who knows? But it is nearly impossible to prove a negative. So I give him the benefit of the doubt. My economic calculation is a simple one - but it make sense to me:

 

The last year under Bush, the economy, the indicators, and almost everything else domestically, was tanking BADLY. Within a year under BO, many of those economic issues had leveled off and, at least, stopped getting worse.

 

I think the auto rescue was a good idea. I also think it had a good impact on the economy. I also think that the stimulus was a good idea. I understand that some money was irrationally spent, but much was infused into a struggling economy and put ____ back to work.

[Jauronimo]

It's difficult to prove a negative - either way. Some say that the economy was headed towards absolute crises. That was curtailed. The deeply sinking trend coming out of the Bush Administration plateaued. Was that because of BO or something else?

 

Who knows? But it is nearly impossible to prove a negative. So I give him the benefit of the doubt. My economic calculation is a simple one - but it make sense to me:

 

The last year under Bush, the economy, the indicators, and almost everything else domestically, was tanking BADLY. Within a year under BO, many of those economic issues had leveled off and, at least, stopped getting worse.

 

I think the auto rescue was a good idea. I also think it had a good impact on the economy. I also think that the stimulus was a good idea. I understand that some money was irrationally spent, but much was infused into a struggling economy and put ____ back to work.

The problem with your economic calculation is that all leading indicators would have leveled off under any president. Assigning credit or blame to a President based on the timing of natural economic cycles is like crediting Obama or Bush with the sun rising this morning.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Jauronimo

[DC Tom]

The problem with your economic calculation is that all leading indicators would have leveled off under any president. Assigning credit or blame to a President based on the timing of natural economic cycles is like crediting Obama or Bush with the sun rising this morning.

 

While I'm sure Obama would LIKE to take credit for the sunrise, he didn't do it alone. Somebody else made it happen.

[WorldTraveller]

The problem with your economic calculation is that all leading indicators would have leveled off under any president. Assigning credit or blame to a President based on the timing of natural economic cycles is like crediting Obama or Bush with the sun rising this morning.

Come on now, he was dealt a bad hand, the president possibly couldn't be to blame for our anemic "recovery"

[truth on hold]

Obama supporters persist in claiming Obama "brought us back from the brink." As far as I can see, after 3 1/2 years we're no better off and we'd be better off had he done absolutely nothing. Can anyone point to what he's done to help the economy?

Here http://m.quickmeme.com/meme/3q6288/

[Rob's House]

The thread's premise is flawed. It assumes the President can do whatever he wants policy wise. The fact is that the last year and a half, Congress was completely useless.

 

I believe the stimulus had a positive effect on the economy. It slowed the downturn and reversed some economic indicators. The problems was that it contained a lot of tax cuts which aren't as stimulative as direct spending by the government. It should of been bigger or more focused on spending in the right areas.

 

Dodd-Frank should have been a better bill. They dropped the ball there and the banking sector is still running amok.

 

For the last 2 years, the President should've really been pushing Congress harder to do more for the economy. I know the Republicans made it their goal to not do anything that could benefit the President, but he still has to put on the pressure. He ran on big ideas, he should have proposed more.

 

Another stimulative bill with long term reforms to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid would be so politically popular. Just do it! It wouldn't be just politically popular either - it would benefit the economy greatly!

The premise (it's actually a question) is a direct response to those who credit Obama with helping the economy. So far, other than the auto fiasco (Ford somehow managed on its own) the only other answer given is that the stimulus might have helped. Of course the projections of how bad it would have been are brought to you bybthe same geniuses that said the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8%, so forgive me if I give that all the weight of a fart in the ocean.

 

And if you guys knew how pathetic it sounds whining about the obstructionist congress you'd stop. Stimulus spending takes money out of the economy, not the other way around. That you've somehow "earned" a B.S. in Econ & don't understand that is sad.

 

Hint: Money =/= currency

[WorldTraveller]

The stimulus plan was flawed to begin with, all it was, was a bunch of short-term tax breaks and spending that created temporary demand that did nothing to fundamentally solve our structural issues. So what did we get out of it? We got a temporary boost that was short-lived, a few happy public sector workers that were able to keep their jobs a little longer, and here we are 3 years later, with those same temporary public sector workers now losing those very same jobs due to stressed state/local budgets, with an economy heading back down, a lost AAA credit rating and over a trillion dollars of added debt to show for it.

 

And we still didn't address our structural labor market woes.

[fjl2nd]

The premise (it's actually a question) is a direct response to those who credit Obama with helping the economy. So far, other than the auto fiasco (Ford somehow managed on its own) the only other answer given is that the stimulus might have helped. Of course the projections of how bad it would have been are brought to you bybthe same geniuses that said the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8%, so forgive me if I give that all the weight of a fart in the ocean.

 

And if you guys knew how pathetic it sounds whining about the obstructionist congress you'd stop. Stimulus spending takes money out of the economy, not the other way around. That you've somehow "earned" a B.S. in Econ & don't understand that is sad.

 

Hint: Money =/= currency

 

It's pathetic to ignore that it exists.

 

I understand money =/= currency. I don't agree with you that stimulus spending takes money out of the economy.

 

For 3 years now, I've seen people complain about the initial stimulus bill. Some, like myself have pointed out what we have done different. I've said it should have been larger with more spending and less tax cuts. What do you who oppose the bill and the President have as an alternative? Is it really "just sit on our hands, the economy always turns around"?

 

Some claim the stimulus hampered growth. Show me some evidence. There are definitely some studies that have shown the opposite.

[WorldTraveller]

It's pathetic to ignore that it exists.

 

I understand money =/= currency. I don't agree with you that stimulus spending takes money out of the economy.

 

For 3 years now, I've seen people complain about the initial stimulus bill. Some, like myself have pointed out what we have done different. I've said it should have been larger with more spending and less tax cuts. What do you who oppose the bill and the President have as an alternative? Is it really "just sit on our hands, the economy always turns around"?

 

Some claim the stimulus hampered growth. Show me some evidence. There are definitely some studies that have shown the opposite.

It didn't hamper growth, and yes there were some jobs created as a result of it, and yes it did add demand to the economy. But you miss the point, the point is was it worth it? Did it create the jobs that a trillion dollar stimulus should have? Did it do anything to solve our structural labor problems?

 

And the answer is a resounding no.

 

You say that there should have been less tax cuts and more stimulus. Well, we know that the stimulus funds, which was in the hundreds of billions went towards ailing state/local budgets, so that there would be less public sector layoffs. We also know that it did save public sector jobs (which benefited public sector union employees, and to believe there wasn't a political payback would be naive) from being layed off that year. We also know that those very same public sector jobs that were bailed out, have and still are being axed today, because state/local tax collections are still down, forcing cuts.

 

So this solution didn't and still doesn't make sense.

 

Then they introduced a bunch of short-term gimmicky tax cuts, which is nothing but a keynesian tax cut. Why do I say that? Because it's short-term, it's not a permanent solution.

 

We also know that adding more infrastructure projects is a good idea, but does nothing to solve our structural issues.

 

So you ask what solutions do we have? Well, you look to solve the issue from a structural view point. Such as rehauling the US tax code. Lower corporate tax rates (which we are the highest in the world), decreasing burdensome regulations that impact small businesses (Gallup poll has two polls that have come out in which in both small business polls that were surveyed, both polls mentioned regulations as there number 1 impediment for job hiring), we could make more trade deals with growing foreign nations, we could open up for more energy drilling, we could invest more in trade/specialty school training.

 

These are structural solutions, I'm not saying not to add any keynesian demand side solutions, sure giving a little jump start such as infrastructure spending is never a bad idea, but these demand side solutions are just meant to supplement a recovery program.

Edited July 20, 2012 by WorldTraveller

[Rob's House]

It's pathetic to ignore that it exists.

 

I understand money =/= currency. I don't agree with you that stimulus spending takes money out of the economy.

 

For 3 years now, I've seen people complain about the initial stimulus bill. Some, like myself have pointed out what we have done different. I've said it should have been larger with more spending and less tax cuts. What do you who oppose the bill and the President have as an alternative? Is it really "just sit on our hands, the economy always turns around"?

 

Some claim the stimulus hampered growth. Show me some evidence. There are definitely some studies that have shown the opposite.

No one's claiming it doesn't exist. I'm thankful for it. It's prevented us from some truly disastrous legislation, like Cap & Trade.

 

The reason it sounds like a bunch of whiny little bitches throwing a temper tantrum is largely due to the context. Beloved Leader didn't come into office with a message of restoring the American system & working together for shared goals. He said he wanted to "fundamentally transform" the country, which is by definition radical. He then, in an unprecedented display of political class reminded the Republicans "but I won" and let them know they could come along for the ride, but they were riding "in the back".

 

So after telling the Republicans that he could do whatever he wants because he has the power & they can't stop him, they do the one & only thing they can to block his radical agenda and you guy cry foul. Give me a !@#$ing break.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Rob's House

[fjl2nd]

It didn't hamper growth, and yes there were some jobs created as a result of it, and yes it did add demand to the economy. But you miss the point, the point is was it worth it? Did it create the jobs that a trillion dollar stimulus should have? Did it do anything to solve our structural labor problems?

 

And the answer is a resounding no.

 

You say that there should have been less tax cuts and more stimulus. Well, we know that the stimulus funds, which was in the hundreds of billions went towards ailing state/local budgets, so that there would be less public sector layoffs. We also know that it did save public sector jobs (which benefited public sector union employees, and to believe there wasn't a political payback would be naive) from being layed off that year. We also know that those very same public sector jobs that were bailed out, have and still are being axed today, because state/local tax collections are still down, forcing cuts.

 

So this solution didn't and still doesn't make sense.

 

Then they introduced a bunch of short-term gimmicky tax cuts, which is nothing but a keynesian tax cut. Why do I say that? Because it's short-term, it's not a permanent solution.

 

We also know that adding more infrastructure projects is a good idea, but does nothing to solve our structural issues.

 

So you ask what solutions do we have? Well, you look to solve the issue from a structural view point. Such as rehauling the US tax code. Lower corporate tax rates (which we are the highest in the world), decreasing burdensome regulations that impact small businesses (Gallup poll has two polls that have come out in which in both small business polls that were surveyed, both polls mentioned regulations as there number 1 impediment for job hiring), we could make more trade deals with growing foreign nations, we could open up for more energy drilling, we could invest more in trade/specialty school training.

 

These are structural solutions, I'm not saying not to add any keynesian demand side solutions, sure giving a little jump start such as infrastructure spending is never a bad idea, but these demand side solutions are just meant to supplement a recovery program.

 

Great response. Thank you!

 

I agree with most of what you said. Like I said before, the Recovery Act was "okay". It was meant to be a temporary jolt to the economy but it wasn't enough to fix the entire problem(s).

 

I agree that the tax code needs to be reformed. We probably disagree on certain rates on different taxes, but we still can agree that it can't remain the same. Regulation is a necessity, but it must be smarter and shorter (and actually enforced). We also can agree on trade deals for the most part. Drilling isn't a waste, but we need to start moving to other energy sources NOW.

 

Education is an area that I believe needs to be fixed from elementary all the way to the college levels. It's a mess. It's such a tough issue to tackle at a federal level however.

 

These are all issues that need to be addressed along with reform to our safety net programs. It's sad that neither candidate wants to talk about solutions though. Hopefully, the debates are more promising.

[Rob's House]

Great response. Thank you!

 

I agree with most of what you said. Like I said before, the Recovery Act was "okay". It was meant to be a temporary jolt to the economy but it wasn't enough to fix the entire problem(s).

 

I agree that the tax code needs to be reformed. We probably disagree on certain rates on different taxes, but we still can agree that it can't remain the same. Regulation is a necessity, but it must be smarter and shorter (and actually enforced). We also can agree on trade deals for the most part. Drilling isn't a waste, but we need to start moving to other energy sources NOW.

Education is an area that I believe needs to be fixed from elementary all the way to the college levels. It's a mess. It's such a tough issue to tackle at a federal level however.

 

These are all issues that need to be addressed along with reform to our safety net programs. It's sad that neither candidate wants to talk about solutions though. Hopefully, the debates are more promising.

Why do we need to do this NOW, and why do we need government, rather than markets, to facilitate it?

[fjl2nd]

Why do we need to do this NOW, and why do we need government, rather than markets, to facilitate it?

 

It would be nice to for the government AND the private sector to move on it. And I think there is progress being made on it. Oil is going to run out sooner than later.

 

Are you arguing we shouldn't be developing new energy sources now?

[Rob's House]

It would be nice to for the government AND the private sector to move on it. And I think there is progress being made on it. Oil is going to run out sooner than later.

 

Are you arguing we shouldn't be developing new energy sources now?

I don't thing "we" should do anything, if by "we" you mean the government. Oil may well run out some day centuries down the road, but as an Econ majore you should already know how that plays out. As oil gets increasingly scarce the price will rise, making substitute goods more profitable and raise the incentive for the experts in the field motivated to efficiently develop alternatives. Giving some scientist a government grant to study alternatives is not an efficient way of developing alternatives.

 

I heard the CEO of Duke energy (who was introduced by and endorsed Tim Kaine) discuss the future of his company. They are invested in all forms of energy production and are constantly working to develop alternate and more efficient sources. Since they're using their own money they are very careful how it is spent. All these solar companies and the way the stimulus money was distributed gives you an idea of how carefully and efficiently government spends your money.

[fjl2nd]

I don't thing "we" should do anything, if by "we" you mean the government. Oil may well run out some day centuries down the road, but as an Econ majore you should already know how that plays out. As oil gets increasingly scarce the price will rise, making substitute goods more profitable and raise the incentive for the experts in the field motivated to efficiently develop alternatives. Giving some scientist a government grant to study alternatives is not an efficient way of developing alternatives.

 

I heard the CEO of Duke energy (who was introduced by and endorsed Tim Kaine) discuss the future of his company. They are invested in all forms of energy production and are constantly working to develop alternate and more efficient sources. Since they're using their own money they are very careful how it is spent. All these solar companies and the way the stimulus money was distributed gives you an idea of how carefully and efficiently government spends your money.

 

I was using "we" as in people. That would include the private sector and government.

 

Using government grants to fund research is definitely not always a bad thing. I'm not claiming government money is spent efficiently, especially nowadays. But, government can help push the private sector into developing new technology or in this case energy sources.

[Rob's House]

I was using "we" as in people. That would include the private sector and government.

 

Using government grants to fund research is definitely not always a bad thing. I'm not claiming government money is spent efficiently, especially nowadays. But, government can help push the private sector into developing new technology or in this case energy sources.

I won't go so far as to say categorically that all government grants to fund research are bad, but I'd say that they should be VERY conservatively handed out and even then are inherently inefficient. When in doubt we should err on the side of caution (caution being no grant). Especially with the current regime's track record on investing public funds.

[fjl2nd]

I won't go so far as to say categorically that all government grants to fund research are bad, but I'd say that they should be VERY conservatively handed out and even then are inherently inefficient. When in doubt we should err on the side of caution (caution being no grant). Especially with the current regime's track record on investing public funds.

 

I agree that the government should be very careful handing them out especially with our deficits the way they are. Any kind of reduced waste helps.

[TakeYouToTasker]

It's pathetic to ignore that it exists.

 

I understand money =/= currency. I don't agree with you that stimulus spending takes money out of the economy.

 

For 3 years now, I've seen people complain about the initial stimulus bill. Some, like myself have pointed out what we have done different. I've said it should have been larger with more spending and less tax cuts. What do you who oppose the bill and the President have as an alternative? Is it really "just sit on our hands, the economy always turns around"?

 

Some claim the stimulus hampered growth. Show me some evidence. There are definitely some studies that have shown the opposite.

Incorrect. Real economies dictate that stimulus spending only substitute current demand for future demand by substituting debt for real savings and investment. The savings and investment needed for future demand are all but completely eroded by paying back debt, and new demand can only be brought on by the creation of more debt. The only thing quantitative easing ever leads to is more quantitative easing.

 

Here's a list of all the countries who have attempted to remedy their economic situations with QE and failed: Zimbabwe, Japan, Post World War I Germany, New Zealand (Twice).

 

Here's a list of all the countries who have attempted to remedy their economic situations with QE and succeeded:...

 

There are none.