Inheiriting Economic Crisis: Reagan and Obama

[Kathianne]

This is for RSR, without internet he must be going nuts. The way luck works it'll probably go back on tomorrow, then get knocked out by Irene Saturday or Sunday. In any case, those that've known me for awhile, know that Reagan isn't one of my favs for President, though I do admire what he accomplished on several fronts. Those who pick good advisers must have something 'up there.' Note that Obama.

In any case, I found this interesting and await to hear those that are educated in economics tear this apart.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904875404576530412322260784.html




OPINION (http://online.wsj.com/public/search?article-doc-type=%7BCommentary+%28U.S.%29%7D&HEADER_TEXT=commentary+%28u.s.)
<small>AUGUST 26, 2011</small>

Obamanonics vs. ReaganomicsOne program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't.

By STEPHEN MOORE (http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=STEPHEN+MOORE&bylinesearch=true)If you really want to light the fuse of a liberal Democrat, compare Barack Obama's economic performance after 30 months in office with that of Ronald Reagan. It's not at all flattering for Mr. Obama.


The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus.


By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would "overheat." In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a "double-dip" recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight.


My purpose here is not more Reagan idolatry, but to point out an incontrovertible truth: One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't...



I don't know about anyone else, but I could really go for some 'working recovery' right about now.

[logroller]

I expected it to be mundane after the first line ended
It's not at all flattering for Mr. Obama.

Well duh. I don't think you could write a piece titled with the words "Obama" and "economic" and have it be flattering, but it touched on some good points-- especially
From 1967 to 1982 stocks lost two-thirds of their value relative to inflation
current historic chart:
http://www.fintrend.com/inflation/images/charts/Stocks/Inflation_adjusted_NYSE_Stocks_sm.jpg
Does this indicate a recovery of the stock market under Obama's Admin???


Though I wish it were longer and more in depth, nonetheless an awesome post!:thumb:

[fj1200]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904875404576530412322260784.html


What more proof of Reagan genius and Keynesian failure do you need?

For you Kerb. ;)

[fj1200]

Krugman and Reich pwn Obama... but do they know it?

Robert Reich, now at the University of California, Berkeley, explained that "The recession of 1981-82 was so severe that the bounce back has been vigorous." Paul Krugman wrote in 2004 that the Reagan boom was really nothing special because: "You see, rapid growth is normal when an economy is bouncing back from a deep slump." Mr. Krugman was, for once, at least partly right. How could Reagan not look good after four years of Jimmy Carter's economic malpractice?


The Reagan philosophy was to incentivize production—i.e., the "supply side" of the economy—by lowering restraints on business expansion and investment. This was done by slashing marginal income tax rates, eliminating regulatory high hurdles, and reining in inflation with a tighter monetary policy.

To be fair Carter did sign much of the deregulation into law and also appointed Volcker who had a small hand ;) in monetary policy... Oops, I guess Carter pwned him too.

[KartRacerBoy]

What more proof of Reagan genius and Keynesian failure do you need?

For you Kerb. ;)

You're becoming a Supply-Side Stalker. Add that to your profile, King Quote F*cker! :laugh:

There's a lot different between the economic situation under Ronny and Barry.

Reagan had the benefit of the right monetary policy at the right time. The Federal Reserve went to a tight money policy and STUCK to it. You will recall that Mr Volcker was appointed by the evil President Carter, not Reagan, in 1979. So Reagan inherited the right man for the right time. Volcker stuck to his tight money policy to get stagflation under control despite 16% 30 yr mortgage rates and much political pressure (Hint: This is why the Fed is independent).

Reagan also was helped by the opening of consumer credit to the masses. IMO, this was the main cause of the economic expansion through the 90s and into the 21st century. When I got out of college in the early 80s, getting a credit card was not easy and credit limits were low. In the late 80s and onward, credit limits grew exponentially as did who got such cards. This is what drove the consumer demand.

Finally, Reagan's 2nd term coincided with the computer and electronic revolution. This was another factor that drove economic expansion. Just as consumer credit opened up, a whole new land of consumption opened up to use that credit on.

All of this coincided with Reagan's 2nd term.


Obama on the other hand entered the presidency just as the financial collapse began, the complete opposite of what Reagan inherited. I don't know enough financial history to say if any financial reforms of the 80s caused or helped the expansion of consumer credit, but if Congress passed legislation that enabled it, it was a Democratic Congress that did it. That wouldn't be something attribuatable to Pres Ronny. Further, the financial collapse for Barry was near total. He hasn't had the benefit of credit expansion; in fact, his presidency has seen the opposite in consumer credit and it began before he got in office. We HAVE seen a change in techology with digital/wireless tech, but that seems sort of neutral right now to business. The music industry is struggling as they lose CD sales and everything is file shared. On the other hand, the phone industry in booming. Right now, it seems tech is changing so fast that no one can get a good handle on how to get profits from it, so it seems to me the jury is out on the tech side.

So all in all, I think it's way to facile to say that Reagan had great economic policies and Obama had poor ones. That may end up to be the case, but also remember that Obama hasn't had the ability to put the policies he wants in place because of pretty instense Congressional opposition (even when Dems held the House but Repubs could wield the veto in the Senate).

The world is an awful shade of gray where politics are involved.

[ConHog]

You're becoming a Supply-Side Stalker. Add that to your profile, King Quote F*cker! :laugh:

There's a lot different between the economic situation under Ronny and Barry.

Reagan had the benefit of the right monetary policy at the right time. The Federal Reserve went to a tight money policy and STUCK to it. You will recall that Mr Volcker was appointed by the evil President Carter, not Reagan, in 1979. So Reagan inherited the right man for the right time. Volcker stuck to his tight money policy to get stagflation under control despite 16% 30 yr mortgage rates and much political pressure (Hint: This is why the Fed is independent).

Reagan also was helped by the opening of consumer credit to the masses. IMO, this was the main cause of the economic expansion through the 90s and into the 21st century. When I got out of college in the early 80s, getting a credit card was not easy and credit limits were low. In the late 80s and onward, credit limits grew exponentially as did who got such cards. This is what drove the consumer demand.

Finally, Reagan's 2nd term coincided with the computer and electronic revolution. This was another factor that drove economic expansion. Just as consumer credit opened up, a whole new land of consumption opened up to use that credit on.

All of this coincided with Reagan's 2nd term.


Obama on the other hand entered the presidency just as the financial collapse began, the complete opposite of what Reagan inherited. I don't know enough financial history to say if any financial reforms of the 80s caused or helped the expansion of consumer credit, but if Congress passed legislation that enabled it, it was a Democratic Congress that did it. That wouldn't be something attribuatable to Pres Ronny. Further, the financial collapse for Barry was near total. He hasn't had the benefit of credit expansion; in fact, his presidency has seen the opposite in consumer credit and it began before he got in office. We HAVE seen a change in techology with digital/wireless tech, but that seems sort of neutral right now to business. The music industry is struggling as they lose CD sales and everything is file shared. On the other hand, the phone industry in booming. Right now, it seems tech is changing so fast that no one can get a good handle on how to get profits from it, so it seems to me the jury is out on the tech side.

So all in all, I think it's way to facile to say that Reagan had great economic policies and Obama had poor ones. That may end up to be the case, but also remember that Obama hasn't had the ability to put the policies he wants in place because of pretty instense Congressional opposition (even when Dems held the House but Repubs could wield the veto in the Senate).

The world is an awful shade of gray where politics are involved.



So to sum:

Nothing is Obama's fault?

[J.T]

We need more deficit spending.

That's how Ronnie fixed everything.

Maybe Iran and N. Korea can be our new Red Menace *DUN!DUN!DUN!*

[KartRacerBoy]

So to sum:

Nothing is Obama's fault?

So to sum:

You're a little eager to blame everything on Obama becz you dislike his politics so much. Try reading without so much bias. I explained my position. It's up to you to try to understand it.

If you've read my posts elsewhere on this forum, you'd understand my thoughts on govt and the economy. Sorry if I don't go all partisan and blame whoever is in office for all our economic ills.

[red states rule]

So to sum:

You're a little eager to blame everything on Obama becz you dislike his politics so much. Try reading without so much bias. I explained my position. It's up to you to try to understand it.

If you've read my posts elsewhere on this forum, you'd understand my thoughts on govt and the economy. Sorry if I don't go all partisan and blame whoever is in office for all our economic ills.

According to Obama, the Dems, the liberal media NOTHING is his fault. Remember all the people, and things Obama has blamed for his epic failure as President?

Allow me to remind you Obama supporters. Now this is the libs version of "leadership"





Obama Blames Politics for S&P; Cut

But this is hardly the first time that President Obama has blamed others for things that happen on his watch.

What else does Obama blame others for?

Here’s a short list of just a few examples that I found on the internet.

Truly, Obama has become a master of the blame game.

1. Obama Blames Arab Springs And Tsunami In Japan For Lack Of Jobs, www.realclearpolitics.com (http://www.realclearpolitics.com) 3 days ago

2. OBAMA BLAMES 'DEMOCRACY' FOR HIS FAILURES - nation.foxnews.com 4 days ago

3. Obama Blames ATMs for High Unemployment nation.foxnews.com Jun 14, 2011

4. Obama Blames Republicans, Mongers Fear sweetness-light.com Jul 26, 2011

5. Obama blames debt impasse on House Republicans; www.postonpolitics.com (http://www.postonpolitics.com) Jul 25, 2011

6. Obama Blames Broken Immigration Promises on GOP ... www.commentarymagazine.com (http://www.commentarymagazine.com) Jul 25, 2011

7. Obama Blames 'Splintered' News Media for Lack of Compromise in Washington www.cnsnews.com (http://www.cnsnews.com) July 22, 2011.

8. Obama Blames Insufficient Stimulus on Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe ... firedoglake.com Oct 28, 2010

9. Obama Blames <NOBR>Oil Companies (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#)</NOBR> For Lack Of Drilling blogs.investors.com March 11, 2011

10. Obama blames speculators for oil price rises www.ft.com (http://www.ft.com) April 19 2011

11. President Obama Blames You for High Gas Prices blog.heritage.org Apr 7, 2011
12. Obama Blames "Network of Misinformation" for Rumors About His <NOBR>Birth Certificate (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#)</NOBR> www.cbsnews.com (http://www.cbsnews.com) Aug 30, 2010

13. Obama blames growing demand in India, China for rising gas prices www.deccanherald.com (http://www.deccanherald.com) Jul 30, 2011

14. Obama Blames Reagan for Massive Federal Deficit redstatevirginia.com April 13, 2011

15. Obama Blames Millionaires and Billionaires for Budget Problems arc-tv.com April 25, 2011

16. Obama blames election rout on economy newsinfo.inquirer.net 11/04/2010.

17. Obama Blames Economy and Spending on Congress; Corporate Jets habledash.com Jun 29, 2011

18. Obama blames oil execs and feds for spill. But what about the rest ... blogs.ajc.com May 14, 2010

19. Obama Blames Intel Agencies For Plane Plot : NPR www.npr.org (http://www.npr.org) Jan 5, 2010

20. Obama Blames Katrina Survivors for Shattered Faith www.scrappleface.com (http://www.scrappleface.com) Aug 29, 2007


http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/who-will-obama-blame-next/question-2061237/






Bottom line is, Obama and the left were all over Pres Bush for adding $4 trillion to the nations debt, 6% unemployment, and an annual budget deficit of $500 billion

Now, these same libs and Obama try to spin when they have added $4 trillion to the nations debt in only 2 1/2 years; 9.1% unemployment, and an annual budget deficit of $1,4 TRILLION

Again, this is the lefts version of "leadership"

[KartRacerBoy]

Well, RSR, you do quote a broken clock in your signature. Congratulations on your latest rant! :clap:

[red states rule]

Well, RSR, you do quote a broken clock in your signature. Congratulations on your latest rant! :clap:

So it is a "rant" to repeat the partial list of Obama's excuses?

I did not expect a serious reply from you Kart so I am not disappointed

[KartRacerBoy]

That's fine, RSR. I've come to never expect a rational post from you. You are the RW equivalent of JT, although I do think JT is smarter than you.

[red states rule]

That's fine, RSR. I've come to never expect a rational post from you. You are the RW equivalent of JT, although I do think JT is smarter than you.

I can understand why yoiu would think the psot was irrational considering it was all Obama's excuses for the poor Obama economy

I find most of what Obama says irrational so we finally agree on something

and keep dismissing folks like me Kart. 2012 is loking more and more like 1980 when another failed tax and spend lib drove the US economy into the gropund and the voters had a gut full of the lefts arrogance and tax/spend policies

[ConHog]

So to sum:

You're a little eager to blame everything on Obama becz you dislike his politics so much. Try reading without so much bias. I explained my position. It's up to you to try to understand it.

If you've read my posts elsewhere on this forum, you'd understand my thoughts on govt and the economy. Sorry if I don't go all partisan and blame whoever is in office for all our economic ills.



You were so close. I blame Obama b/c he's BLACK. Yep, that's exactly it. :cuckoo:



JT I know you're in the thread, and I know you have a stick in your ass, but relax, I was only kidding.

[red states rule]

You were so close. I blame Obama b/c he's BLACK. Yep, that's exactly it. :cuckoo:



JT I know you're in the thread, and I know you have a stick in your ass, but relax, I was only kidding.

Libs refuse to hold Obama accountble for anything - whule during the Bush years the Dems even tried to blame Pres Bush for the bridge collapse in MN

I told a co-woker who is a BIG liberal the Dems would blame Bush for it within 24 hours. He said no way. And damn before the bodies were recovered Harry Reid came out and told the liberal media that due to the money spent on the Iraq war that bridge ws not properly maintained. The liberal media reported it as "news"

What a difference that "D" at the end of Obama's name makes

[KartRacerBoy]

You were so close. I blame Obama b/c he's BLACK. Yep, that's exactly it. :cuckoo:



JT I know you're in the thread, and I know you have a stick in your ass, but relax, I was only kidding.

Icons, baby. Icons. Use 'em.

[red states rule]

You were so close. I blame Obama b/c he's BLACK. Yep, that's exactly it. :cuckoo:



JT I know you're in the thread, and I know you have a stick in your ass, but relax, I was only kidding.


Bottom line is, if in 2008 you voted for Obama to prove you were not a racist; then in 2012 you must vote for Obama's opponent to prove you are not an idiot

[fj1200]

You're becoming a Supply-Side Stalker. Add that to your profile, King Quote F*cker! :laugh:

Say's Law b!tches!!!! :coffee:


There's a lot different between the economic situation under Ronny and Barry.

Reagan had the benefit of the right monetary policy at the right time. The Federal Reserve went to a tight money policy and STUCK to it. You will recall that Mr Volcker was appointed by the evil President Carter, not Reagan, in 1979. So Reagan inherited the right man for the right time. Volcker stuck to his tight money policy to get stagflation under control despite 16% 30 yr mortgage rates and much political pressure (Hint: This is why the Fed is independent).

Reagan also was helped by the opening of consumer credit to the masses. IMO, this was the main cause of the economic expansion through the 90s and into the 21st century. When I got out of college in the early 80s, getting a credit card was not easy and credit limits were low. In the late 80s and onward, credit limits grew exponentially as did who got such cards. This is what drove the consumer demand.

Finally, Reagan's 2nd term coincided with the computer and electronic revolution. This was another factor that drove economic expansion. Just as consumer credit opened up, a whole new land of consumption opened up to use that credit on.

All of this coincided with Reagan's 2nd term.

Yes, yes, it's always different... except when it's the same. If you had bothered to look up one post you will note that I gave credit to JCar (that's what I call him when we hang out after church) for signing the Dem deregulation bills (thank you Alfred Kahn, a Dem RSR ;) ) and appointing Volcker. Do you remember G. Wm. Miller and the absolute disaster that he was before Volcker? So please don't tell me Carter's genius extended to economics because Volcker only raised his low batting average.

You must admit Kerb that Volcker could do nothing about the "stag" in stagflation, he could only bring about a tight money policy which I credit him for without getting into the argument of whether he could have done it without jacking interest rates so high. What Reagan did was tackle the "stag" side by removing burdensome tax levels. I can make a credible argument that inflation was not tackled only by the Fed's monetary policy but also by Reagan's fiscal policy which gave incentive for production. You see without production any amount of credit expansion would have had nowhere to go except into higher inflation figures.

When Reagan entered office Volcker at the Fed was fighting inflation by raising the rates and stunting economic growth which is...


Obama on the other hand entered the presidency just as the financial collapse began, the complete opposite of what Reagan inherited. I don't know enough financial history to say if any financial reforms of the 80s caused or helped the expansion of consumer credit, but if Congress passed legislation that enabled it, it was a Democratic Congress that did it. That wouldn't be something attribuatable to Pres Ronny. Further, the financial collapse for Barry was near total. He hasn't had the benefit of credit expansion; in fact, his presidency has seen the opposite in consumer credit and it began before he got in office. We HAVE seen a change in techology with digital/wireless tech, but that seems sort of neutral right now to business. The music industry is struggling as they lose CD sales and everything is file shared. On the other hand, the phone industry in booming. Right now, it seems tech is changing so fast that no one can get a good handle on how to get profits from it, so it seems to me the jury is out on the tech side.

So all in all, I think it's way to facile to say that Reagan had great economic policies and Obama had poor ones. That may end up to be the case, but also remember that Obama hasn't had the ability to put the policies he wants in place because of pretty instense Congressional opposition (even when Dems held the House but Repubs could wield the veto in the Senate).

The world is an awful shade of gray where politics are involved.

... contrary to Bernanke at the Fed who is all to eager to ease our way out of this. BO was in the perfect spot to preside over the next great expansion but his prescriptions have been exactly the opposite of what Reagan proposed. He wants to raise taxes, he wants to increase regulation, he wants to force new mandates on business... and as a result his results have been exactly the opposite of what Reagan achieved.

BTW, the collapse for Barry was NOT near total, the government's response WAS near total failure. Did you read the Taylor piece I posted in Kathianne's SEC thread? You're also in denial about what BO was able to get through, it may not have been what he wanted to get through but can you imagine how much worse things would be if he was more successful? You are right, as I acknowledged, Reagan didn't sign most? of the deregulation bills but do you deny that he wouldn't have or that they don't fit with his views on government intervention?

[Gunny]

You're becoming a Supply-Side Stalker. Add that to your profile, King Quote F*cker! :laugh:

There's a lot different between the economic situation under Ronny and Barry.

Reagan had the benefit of the right monetary policy at the right time. The Federal Reserve went to a tight money policy and STUCK to it. You will recall that Mr Volcker was appointed by the evil President Carter, not Reagan, in 1979. So Reagan inherited the right man for the right time. Volcker stuck to his tight money policy to get stagflation under control despite 16% 30 yr mortgage rates and much political pressure (Hint: This is why the Fed is independent).

Reagan also was helped by the opening of consumer credit to the masses. IMO, this was the main cause of the economic expansion through the 90s and into the 21st century. When I got out of college in the early 80s, getting a credit card was not easy and credit limits were low. In the late 80s and onward, credit limits grew exponentially as did who got such cards. This is what drove the consumer demand.

Finally, Reagan's 2nd term coincided with the computer and electronic revolution. This was another factor that drove economic expansion. Just as consumer credit opened up, a whole new land of consumption opened up to use that credit on.

All of this coincided with Reagan's 2nd term.


Obama on the other hand entered the presidency just as the financial collapse began, the complete opposite of what Reagan inherited. I don't know enough financial history to say if any financial reforms of the 80s caused or helped the expansion of consumer credit, but if Congress passed legislation that enabled it, it was a Democratic Congress that did it. That wouldn't be something attribuatable to Pres Ronny. Further, the financial collapse for Barry was near total. He hasn't had the benefit of credit expansion; in fact, his presidency has seen the opposite in consumer credit and it began before he got in office. We HAVE seen a change in techology with digital/wireless tech, but that seems sort of neutral right now to business. The music industry is struggling as they lose CD sales and everything is file shared. On the other hand, the phone industry in booming. Right now, it seems tech is changing so fast that no one can get a good handle on how to get profits from it, so it seems to me the jury is out on the tech side.

So all in all, I think it's way to facile to say that Reagan had great economic policies and Obama had poor ones. That may end up to be the case, but also remember that Obama hasn't had the ability to put the policies he wants in place because of pretty instense Congressional opposition (even when Dems held the House but Repubs could wield the veto in the Senate).

The world is an awful shade of gray where politics are involved.

I love the way lefties flip flop on inherited problems. Apparently, only Democrats inherit problems from Republicans. On the other hand, Republicans are responsible the second they're elected.

[Gunny]

We need more deficit spending.

That's how Ronnie fixed everything.

Maybe Iran and N. Korea can be our new Red Menace *DUN!DUN!DUN!*

Nothing new about either one being a menace.

[ConHog]

Nothing new about either one being a menace.

I would be willing to bet that Junior Turd actually believes that the Soviet Union posed no real threat to us during the cold war.

[KartRacerBoy]

I love the way lefties flip flop on inherited problems. Apparently, only Democrats inherit problems from Republicans. On the other hand, Republicans are responsible the second they're elected.

Too complex a conversation for you again?

[red states rule]

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/ramirez-faultlines.jpg

[Gunny]

Too complex a conversation for you again?

The only thing complex here is your dancing around trying to wordsmith yet another excuse and/or blame-shifting in favor of the left.

Fact: Reagan inherited an existing mess that we'd been suffering under for 4 years and straightened it out. Obama inherited a possible mess and has done his damnedest to make it more of one. Nothing complex about that.

[ConHog]

The only thing complex here is your dancing around trying to wordsmith yet another excuse and/or blame-shifting in favor of the left.

Fact: Reagan inherited an existing mess that we'd been suffering under for 4 years and straightened it out. Obama inherited a possible mess and has done his damnedest to make it more of one. Nothing complex about that.

Am I insane or is the Army the only part of the government that teaches its leaders to ALWAYS take responsibility when something goes wrong under their command? I assume the Marines teach the same lesson? Air Force? Navy? Hell, I'm sure the Coasties even learn that one.

So then, why is the POTUS such a pussy when it comes to owning up to mistakes?

[red states rule]

Am I insane or is the Army the only part of the government that teaches its leaders to ALWAYS take responsibility when something goes wrong under their command? I assume the Marines teach the same lesson? Air Force? Navy? Hell, I'm sure the Coasties even learn that one.

So then, why is the POTUS such a pussy when it comes to owning up to mistakes?

I believe he spent his entire life surrounded by family that told him how great he was. Then his inner circle (the Rev Wright's) also told him how smart he was

People like that actually think they are flawless and if something goes wrong, the fault MUST lie elsewhere and not with him

The liberal media has "reported" how Obama is smartest guy in the room the moment he walks in it

[Gunny]

Am I insane or is the Army the only part of the government that teaches its leaders to ALWAYS take responsibility when something goes wrong under their command? I assume the Marines teach the same lesson? Air Force? Navy? Hell, I'm sure the Coasties even learn that one.

So then, why is the POTUS such a pussy when it comes to owning up to mistakes?

The most glaringly obvious: Obama was never in ANY branch of service.

Two, Democrats don't accept blame for anything. They either deflect, blame it on a Republican, or start up yet another witch hunt against some Republican who allegedly did whatever. Anything to keep eyes off them while they just keep on keepin' on screwing up.

[fj1200]

We need more deficit spending.

That's how Ronnie fixed everything.

No, the initial deficits were a result of a recession the remainder due to congressional spending and fighting a (cold) war.

[KartRacerBoy]

At least fj can have an intelligent conversation on the merits of this subject (even if he's wrong).

The rest? Not so much.

[ConHog]

At least fj can have an intelligent conversation on the merits of this subject (even if he's wrong).

The rest? Not so much.

Pardon moi?

[KartRacerBoy]

The only thing complex here is your dancing around trying to wordsmith yet another excuse and/or blame-shifting in favor of the left.

Fact: Reagan inherited an existing mess that we'd been suffering under for 4 years and straightened it out. Obama inherited a possible mess and has done his damnedest to make it more of one. Nothing complex about that.

Your economic analysis skills are just AWESOME. :sarcasm:

[ConHog]

Your economic analysis skills are just AWESOME. :sarcasm:

Are things better or worse than they were in 2007? A yes or no will do.

[KartRacerBoy]

Are things better or worse than they were in 2007? A yes or no will do.


No.

[fj1200]

Are things better or worse than they were in 2007? A yes or no will do.

That wasn't a yes or no question. :slap:

:laugh:

[fj1200]

At least fj can have an intelligent conversation on the merits of this subject (even if he's wrong).

Maybe someday we'll test that proviso. ;)

[ConHog]

That wasn't a yes or no question. :slap:

:laugh:

LOL I feel like a horse's JT now. I of course just meant are things better than they were in 2007?

[Kathianne]

LOL I feel like a horse's JT now. I of course just meant are things better than they were in 2007?

Good ownership of mis-worded post, with a little flame thrown in.

[KartRacerBoy]

LOL I feel like a horse's JT now. I of course just meant are things better than they were in 2007?

I know what you meant, but you demanded a yes or no answer and I couldn't resist. :laugh:

Obviously worse, but as I've said elsewhere on this forum, I don't mcuh attribute economic performance to presidents. There is too much intervening crap. For example, would you praise Clinton for the USAs robust economic performance in the 90s?

[KartRacerBoy]

Maybe someday we'll test that proviso. ;)


Unless you and I become econometricians, I doubt it. And even then you know what they say about statistics.

Or were you asking to reenact the Keynes v Hayek fight? :laugh:.

I think my lack of reach is gonna hurt me. Plus you're in better condition cz you have 3 kids and I only have bred one. :spin:

[ConHog]

I know what you meant, but you demanded a yes or no answer and I couldn't resist. :laugh:

Obviously worse, but as I've said elsewhere on this forum, I don't mcuh attribute economic performance to presidents. There is too much intervening crap. For example, would you praise Clinton for the USAs robust economic performance in the 90s?

I actually agree with you that there are many things about an economy that the President can't control. However, Obama ran on a platform of being able to fix the economy, so in that sense you have to admit he's failed. Correct?

[KartRacerBoy]

I actually agree with you that there are many things about an economy that the President can't control. However, Obama ran on a platform of being able to fix the economy, so in that sense you have to admit he's failed. Correct?

He's certainly failed to fulfill that political goal. Going into 2012 election, he's a lot like GHWB in 1992 election. The economy is down and he will be blamed for it even though he can only marginally affect it. And if the economy recovers somewhere between 2012 and 2016, whoever is president will get credit they don't deserve.

[Gaffer]

It's all about who the president brings to office with him. The current one brought buffoons and radicals that had no clue of what they are doing and our economy is the proof. It's too late in his presidency to change to more qualified people to even begin to correct the economy. The next president will look good even if he brings in only moderately qualified people.

I have said for years, look at the people around the candidate and who he's associated with. They are the ones that will be running things. The president just signs the paperwork.

[ConHog]

It's all about who the president brings to office with him. The current one brought buffoons and radicals that had no clue of what they are doing and our economy is the proof. It's too late in his presidency to change to more qualified people to even begin to correct the economy. The next president will look good even if he brings in only moderately qualified people.

I have said for years, look at the people around the candidate and who he's associated with. They are the ones that will be running things. The president just signs the paperwork.

Which of course in another lesson that anyone who has ever had any sort of leadership position learns. Surround yourself with smart people and actually listen to them. Only a fool surrounds himself with nothing but yes men.

[fj1200]

Unless you and I become econometricians, I doubt it. And even then you know what they say about statistics.

Or were you asking to reenact the Keynes v Hayek fight? :laugh:.

I think my lack of reach is gonna hurt me. Plus you're in better condition cz you have 3 kids and I only have bred one. :spin:

You and I should collaborate on a paper; we could do some damage. :laugh: I could take you though, I have much anger building inside. :blowup:


He's certainly failed to fulfill that political goal. Going into 2012 election, he's a lot like GHWB in 1992 election. The economy is down and he will be blamed for it even though he can only marginally affect it. And if the economy recovers somewhere between 2012 and 2016, whoever is president will get credit they don't deserve.

But that's the point, DC affects the economy at the margins, that's where the growth is. Reagan, and deregulation and monetary, affected positively at the margins while BO is affecting negatively at the margins.

[logroller]

The only thing complex here is your dancing around trying to wordsmith yet another excuse and/or blame-shifting in favor of the left.

Fact: Reagan inherited an existing mess that we'd been suffering under for 4 years and straightened it out. Obama inherited a possible mess and has done his damnedest to make it more of one. Nothing complex about that.


Let's just a take a minute to remember the financial crisis was in full swing when Obama came into office. KRB's first post quoted an article which said the rebound of markets following a long fiasco will occur regardless of the actions of govt. That's not to imply they can't prolong a market's problems(which is a fair argument), but the market's swings are natural and solely attributable to any one person or policy.

[red states rule]

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/178061.jpg