...by borrowing hundreds of billions from the Chinese and giving it to the auto workers' and government workers' unions didn't work so well. That's OK. He has seen what he did wrong, and learned from the experience. The problem is that there just aren't enough Americans in unions for his policies to work. That's why the NLRB, stacked with pro-labor appointees, is making new labor organizing rules. It will be easier for employees to form unions now. Couple of thoughts- 1. The best investment anybody has made this decade was towards Obama's 2008 campaign. In a horrible economy, unionized workers are prospering due the hundreds of millions they contributed to Obama. He outspent McCain 3:1, and is grateful. In return, they have avoided the job losses and wage erosion the rest of America has been exposed to. 2. You know how we talk about "right to work" states? I think globalization is all about jobs going to "right to work" countries. I think reactionary policies preserving collective bargaining are a long term anti-growth impulse.
need to change out the lot of them. They cannot see what we see and are so disconnected from reality. They have no idea that spending/printing money has not helped and will only hurt in the long run. This admin is full of fail! Things are going to get worse before they get better. WASHINGTON (AP) - The economy's continuing struggles aren't just confounding ordinary Americans. They've also stumped the head of the Federal Reserve. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told reporters Wednesday that the central bank had been caught off guard by recent signs of deterioration in the economy. And he said the troubles could continue into next year. "We don't have a precise read on why this slower pace of growth is persisting," Bernanke said. He said the weak housing market and problems in the banking system might be "more persistent than we thought." It was the Fed chief's most explicit warning yet that the economy will face serious challenges next year. For several months, he had said the factors working against economic growth appeared to be "transitory." The Fed cut its forecast for economic growth this year to a range of 2.7 percent to 2.9 percent from an April forecast of 3.1 percent to 3.3 percent. It also cut its forecast for next year to a range of 3.3 percent to 3.7 percent from an earlier 3.5 percent to 4.2 percent. The Fed also said unemployment would stay higher than it had expected earlier. The Link
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told reporters Wednesday that the central bank had been caught off guard by recent signs of deterioration in the economy. And he said the troubles could continue into next year. "We don't have a precise read on why this slower pace of growth is persisting," Bernanke said. He said the weak housing market and problems in the banking system might be "more persistent than we thought." __________________________________________________ This is a bunch of horse dung. Nobody knows the economic factors facing this country better than this guy. He is full of it. More failed Keynesian economic policies.
His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office. __________________________________________________ The job of any president is to keep the country's economic climate healthy by not instituting legislation that harms the business climate or industries. The Bill Clinton v. Bush economies need to be taken into context because economies are cyclical. What should be looked at are unemployment rates. During the Bush administration, it hovered around 5% and I believe at one time reached 3.7%, a historical low. 5% unemployment is considered full employment for a population and those that want to work. The internet bubble was created during the Clinton Presidency. Bush stepped into that, then 9/11 occurred. The united states stock market lost 1.4 Trillion during that one week and the market was closed for a week. The market lost closed to 1500 points down to around 8500. During the remainder of his presidency, the market surged to over 14,000 before it crashed again and it doesnt really matter who was president, it would have crashed nomatter who was in office as it was the result of economic policies that had continued and grown since the carter years but the key deregulation occured in the clinton years.
BO is in a tough spot. There are no more levers to pull, Bernanke pretty much admitted that, and the business community has decided en masse to wait out his first term and see who's next. All he has left is to scare the dependent class by demonizing his opponents. This is why I now actually agree with Trump on something......the timing of the announcement of the Ryan plan was ill-conceived.
It was wrong when Bush increased gov't jobs so much BUT there were also private sector jobs being created. . How many private ssector jobs are being created now? Yo do you have stats on how many gov't jos Obama has created?
Mary Kate Cary, On Thursday June 23, 2011, 10:25 am EDT On the day that President Obama was sworn into office, the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent. Today it stands at 9.1 percent, an increase of 25 percent. Back on Inauguration Day, a gallon of gas was averaging $1.83, while today it stands at $3.74. In the last few months, we've seen declines in real wages, in manufacturing production and orders, in existing home sales, and in chain-store sales, and a sharp drop in consumer confidence. I think we all know the answer to President Reagan's question during the Carter years: Are you better off than you were four years ago? The national debt was "only" $10.6 trillion when Obama took office; it's now $14.3 trillion. The Link
I really think Obama is a product of 1980's left wing academia. Like most of them I encountered in that era, he honestly believes that Reagan's economic policies (cutting tax rates, simplifying the tax code, and shoring up SS) had nothing to do with the economic recovery and expansion of that decade, except to the extent that they damaged it. You could read in the Daily Texan of that time regularly how the recovery and expansion were happening in spite of Reagan. I think Obama believes that, believed in 2008 that the US was coming out of the recession no matter what he did, and was therefore free to nationalize healthcare, shelter unions, and spend trillions on "stimulus" (what actually turned out to be jobs programs for government workers unions, teachers unions, and favored interests). Just another example of how intelligence is not as highly correlated to being right as people would like to think.
He was intelligent enough to get elected. So, you have to give him that. Of course, GWB was supposedly a moron, and he got elected twice. Go figure.
Seems to me that Obama's economic stewardship is out of the Reagan playbook, not contrary to it: lower taxes and massive spending. While deregulation and a lower tax burden (initially too low to balance the budget, which Reagan and Bush I conceded through their actions) likely did contribute to economic expansion, we can now see that increased productivity from technological innovation played the greatest role. Let’s not overestimate, though, the impact of the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush policies on the “expansion” (bubble) by promoting consumer spending fueled by low interest rates, easy mortgages, and deregulated speculative financial instruments. You also only got half the equation right when you blame Obama for catering to the unions and public sector. He did this while simultaneously indulging the financial sector and other business interests. It’s amusing the venom directed at Obama by many on this thread for his ostensible socialism, when he basically has pursued policies remarkably like George W on both foreign and domestic fronts. Lastly, he did not “nationalize” the health care industry, or anything close. He further (and incrementally) socialized it thus continuing a process that began after WWII, ramped up significantly under LBJ, and flourished under both Bushes (especially W with Medicare Part D). As far as Obama being the one to rely on Chinese markets for T Bills, this is hardly a new tactic for Presidents or Congress. At least in Obama’s case, he can at least partially defend this action because a constriction of spending in 2009-2011 would likely have exacerbated economic conditions. Bush also has this excuse for 2008, but I think he just liked spending money before this time.
i enjoyed reading both of the last two posts above. Definitely made me look at things a bit differently. much appreciated.
At this point, the blame is irrelevant and what is needed is change. The blame is very relevant. If a voter blames Obama for all or most of our spending problems, then that voter will be satisfied with Obama's defeat. If that's what most of the fiscally conservative voters believe (which I think it is), then you won't see any change. We'll elect a Mitt Romney, who will tinker on the edges but largely continue Obama's policies (which largely continued Bush's policies). Some Tea Partiers will be dissatisfied but not enough to raise hell like they do with Obama, so they'll become as relevant as Cindy Sheehan is today. (Remember that dumb, whiny *****? Once Bush was out of office, nobody gave a damn what she thought.) To really have change, two things need to happen. Voters need to understand that both parties are to blame for our fiscal problems. Is one to blame more than the other? Sure. The Democrats are worse, but the difference isn't big enough for the Republicans to show any self-righteousness on the issue. Second, voters need to realize that the parties largely follow them. Both parties spend like there's no tomorrow, because there is a large constituency that with their votes, resoundingly endorses that. Millions of old people will kneejerk vote against anyone who doesn't support the current Social Security and Medicare systems. Millions of dumbass soccer moms will vote for any politician who wants to spend more on education and health care. So what happens? The political parties enact policies that promote these spending priorities and then they bid against each other to see who can spend more. Do that for 80 years, and eventually you've got a big mess on your hands like we do now. That cycle needs to change. It needs to become politically unpopular to expand Medicare, Social Security, education, and health care. In other words, the voters need a change of heart and philosophy. (And I'm not just picking on old people and dumbass soccer moms. These are just examples, and there are many more. For the sake of brevity I can't name them all here.)
Despite everything I hear from both Democrats and the Republicans who are running for President, it is not the role of government to "create" jobs.
