• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

At what point will the economy be Obama's fault?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,371
14
61
I'll take you up on that and say that fiscal conservatives really would be a huge step forward. Government keeps growing yet so many of our roads need repaving despite Obama's $1T stimulus WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO COVER THE ROADS.

Thing #1 that needs to happen is much smaller (less paperwork) government, so that more people can be employed in companies. This has to happen with fewer small business taxes so that new startups can flourish.

About the only parties that support this smaller government agenda are Libertarians and Conservatives, so yes, I'll say that one of those two are what we need for the economy.
Come to MI.

They are tearing up every major road around here. Even the ones they just did last year.

The new thing is they are putting up those steel roped guard rails all along the major highways. Its Michigan...people go in the ditch in the winter. Thankfully with those new guard rails up, they will bounce off of those and back into traffic where they can kill a few people.

Great way to spend my son's money that he hasn't even earned yet. Go get 'em tiger!
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
1
0
soccerball, roads are being fixed. And only 65% of the $800 billion stimulus was stuff other than tax cuts.
 

GuitarDaddy

Lifer
Nov 9, 2004
11,465
1
0
There is a 20yr lag, the financial collapse of 2007/2008 was set in motion by Nancy Reagan in 1987/1988

So the Obama affect will hit like a shockwave in 2029:)
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,212
126
It will be when Hayabusa Rider and friends build a time machine and go back in time and somehow make it so Obama was the one who enacted the policy changes that led to the financial crisis.
That would be awesome. What else is awesome is that nothing Obama does or doesn't do counts.

The actions that Presidents have is usually overestimated anyway. The bubble burst after Clinton, and that wasn't Bush's fault, nor Clinton for that matter. Bush spent a lot of money, but so did Obama. Who knows for sure.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,835
20,683
136
didn't Obama say in some interview that no one including him liked TARP?
I don't think anyone in their right mind was/is comfortable with the concept of TARP. But anyone in their right mind knows that it was the only option at the time. It simply had to be done. That's it.

Of course everyone hates it. That's what he's talking about. Of course it was absolutely essential.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,581
313
126
Here is how it will work:

The Democrats in congress will take the blame if the economy has not turned around by mid term election.

This will result in lots and lots of Republicans winning office in 2012. These Republicans, who seem to have re-found their fiscal conservative roots, will act like fiscal conservatives for a few years.

Then a Republican President will be elected and the Republicans in congress will turn into idiots again.

This will lead to Democrats regaining power again.

Repeat till the end of time.
Duuuuuude.

No offense, but uh, anyone can roll out a high limit credit card and make the folk happy at the club.

Let's face it, deficit spending has had a major impact on our quality of life for the last 30 years.

The 1 president who tried to preach the hard truth got destroyed.

C'est la vie.

Damn it, I quoted the wrong post, because I concur with this one. Oh well.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I figure it will be like it always is....

The moment the economy starts to improve and with his advisers concurrence that it will continue to improve it becomes his, Obama's, fault... errr... his economic savvy that enabled it... and, therefore, His!
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
I have preteen children....I don't think my kids will go to college, but special forces US Army instead. Much more applicable.

Y'all just don't understand we need 3T in new money each year to service 50T and that's not coming.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,009
14,176
136
I'll take you up on that and say that fiscal conservatives really would be a huge step forward. Government keeps growing yet so many of our roads need repaving despite Obama's $1T stimulus WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO COVER THE ROADS.

Thing #1 that needs to happen is much smaller (less paperwork) government, so that more people can be employed in companies. This has to happen with fewer small business taxes so that new startups can flourish.

About the only parties that support this smaller government agenda are Libertarians and Conservatives, so yes, I'll say that one of those two are what we need for the economy.
So that more people can be employed in companies, huh?

Doesn't mean they will be, now does it?

Apparently not, given the way business is dealing with and reaping profits from the current situation-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/04/corporate-profits_n_748889.html

Near record profits on reduced revenues, and they're waiting for demand to increase before they spend any money... as if it will with unemployment at >9%.

Obviously, both the Obama Admin and the FRB are powerless to prevent hoarding by those who can do so, so the only action available is direct stimulus, federal spending. Cutting top tier taxes won't accomplish a damned thing, other than allowing more hoarding...
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
Y'all just don't understand we need 3T in new money each year to service 50T and that's not coming.
Damn, how high do you think inflation aught to be? Are commodities not going high enough? Do you realize Nixon implemented wage and price controls, the inflation rate was 6%.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,554
2
76
So that more people can be employed in companies, huh?

Doesn't mean they will be, now does it?

Apparently not, given the way business is dealing with and reaping profits from the current situation-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/04/corporate-profits_n_748889.html

Near record profits on reduced revenues, and they're waiting for demand to increase before they spend any money... as if it will with unemployment at >9%.

Obviously, both the Obama Admin and the FRB are powerless to prevent hoarding by those who can do so, so the only action available is direct stimulus, federal spending. Cutting top tier taxes won't accomplish a damned thing, other than allowing more hoarding...
Demand won't increase until the political landscape is stable. Same reason companies will build offices in Taiwan but not in Africa.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
12,120
3,405
136
Well, as some would like to imply that Bush's policies were not the cause of the ruined economy that existed as he left office, and that as a Senator at the time, Obama could have prevented this whole disaster from happening, there are only a few logical conclusions I can arrive at: Some people are in denial, some others have selective memory syndrome and some others' ideologies have them believing as gospel for-profit blatant propaganda custom-made for them to hide their bigotry and ignorance behind and believing anything else that isn't the inconvenient truth.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Damn, how high do you think inflation aught to be? Are commodities not going high enough? Do you realize Nixon implemented wage and price controls, the inflation rate was 6%.
I think you're in agreement with Zebo and not seeing it. He's saying that we're going to need that new money just to keep the current broken system going, and he's right. Your point is the affect of that new money.
 

animekenji

Member
Aug 12, 2004
85
0
0
So that more people can be employed in companies, huh?

Doesn't mean they will be, now does it?

Apparently not, given the way business is dealing with and reaping profits from the current situation-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/04/corporate-profits_n_748889.html

Near record profits on reduced revenues, and they're waiting for demand to increase before they spend any money... as if it will with unemployment at >9%.

Obviously, both the Obama Admin and the FRB are powerless to prevent hoarding by those who can do so, so the only action available is direct stimulus, federal spending. Cutting top tier taxes won't accomplish a damned thing, other than allowing more hoarding...
It's called self preservation. The future economic outlook is too uncertain under Obama's wealth confiscating agenda. Do you expect them to continue on as normal in these times so they go belly up in 5 years? Companies make their decisions based on projections 5 or more years into the future. 1 year tax breaks or tax write offs of dubious value at best aren't going to stimulate the economy.
 
Last edited:

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
is it his responsibility yet?
It was his responsibility to fix when he got elected. That's a separate question of who's to blame for fucking it up in the first place, which is not a simple answer either.

As to whether he's fixed it to anyone's satisfaction will be a pretty simple question to answer. If he wins in Nov 2012, then people are happy enough with his actions.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
It was his responsibility to fix when he got elected. That's a separate question of who's to blame for fucking it up in the first place, which is not a simple answer either.

As to whether he's fixed it to anyone's satisfaction will be a pretty simple question to answer. If he wins in Nov 2012, then people are happy enough with his actions.
You know well enough, just because a D or R gets elected doesn't mean they did a bang up job or anyone thought so. It just means they were better able to market their shit than the next guy. Which really isn't that hard to do when there's only two teams on the field and both are full of idiots.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,212
126
As to whether he's fixed it to anyone's satisfaction will be a pretty simple question to answer. If he wins in Nov 2012, then people are happy enough with his actions.
The other possibility to this outcome is that people might be unhappy with Obama, but not given a better choice. We've been voting against people more than for them. In fact the last time I saw people excited about a candidate was the last election because people were looking for hope, perhaps unreasonably by some, but not all. I'd be reluctant to say I was "happy" with someone who wants to strengthen egregious wrongs of the past even if his opposition was worse. All that means is choosing the lesser of evils. Happy wouldn't seem to apply in that case.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,835
20,683
136
is it his responsibility yet?

Are we finally done blaming Bush?
I sitll don't know why something that happened half a year-1 year before he was elected should be his fault.

please explain this to me.

I think this isn't entirely Bush's fault, either.

It is Obama's fault that things aren't as dire as they were predicted to be.We didn't, and will not suffer the dreaded depression that we were heading to.

It is also his fault that things aren't as good as they could be....but how good could they be? really? Can any of you even imagine how good, or bad, the economy is supposed to be?

don't b e so daft. lulz.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY