Obama +6 million jobs vs Bush -600,000 jobs

[Engineer]

1: You want to talk about trickle down economics, I present you the Wall Street bailout.

2: I thought inflation would be nuts by now. I was clearly wrong and do not fully understand inflationary dynamics. The Feds are obviously playing a very careful game of loaning out money.

3: Our economy is still going to hell. Its trends do not look good.

1. and 2....look no further than commodities and the stock market. The money is staying at the top and being invested into the market (buy backs, large corporate bank accounts, etc) and speculative buying of commodities (look at oil with largest ever supplies and decades low US usage but with prices still very high). Money chasing high end money, definitely not trickling into the general economy (just look at wages and wage pressure over the last decade to figure that one out).

 

[Jhhnn]

1: You want to talk about trickle down economics, I present you the Wall Street bailout.

That or economic collapse were the inevitable choices. It's what happens when Wall St Free Marketeers are allowed to become too big to fail- they take the economy hostage. If they fail, we fail. That's what happened in 1929, and what New Deal banking policy was specifically designed to prevent.

2: I thought inflation would be nuts by now. I was clearly wrong and do not fully understand inflationary dynamics. The Feds are obviously playing a very careful game of loaning out money.

Inflation is demand driven. Income distribution is now so skewed that the govt has to supplement low income families to maintain demand, let alone grow it. Those who have money haven't been spending it, either, but rather paying off debt & driving up asset prices through investment. Market recovery is now largely disconnected from economic recovery except for market participants.

3: Our economy is still going to hell. Its trends do not look good.

It won't get any better until we abandon the trickle down Reaganomics that brought us here.

 

[Matt1970]

Then that would explain the slow trickle that you mentioned. Maybe it should have been more spending and less tax cut, eh? You know...just to get the money into the economy more quickly and directly to those that needed it the most, no? :biggrin:

Yep. If the economy so badly needed the money, you don't leave it waiting years to get it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yep. If the economy so badly needed the money, you don't leave it waiting years to get it.

So now right wingers argue that the stimulus should have been bigger & sooner even though they prevented it at the time? Really? Even after they held extended UI benefits hostage to trickle down tax breaks? Held the full faith & credit of the govt hostage to job killing spending cuts?

Were you born fucking yesterday?

And, uhh, Hate-Um Obama! Of course. It must be his fault- everything else is.

 

[fskimospy]

So now right wingers argue that the stimulus should have been bigger & sooner even though they prevented it at the time? Really? Even after they held extended UI benefits hostage to trickle down tax breaks? Held the full faith & credit of the govt hostage to job killing spending cuts?

Were you born fucking yesterday?

And, uhh, Hate-Um Obama! Of course. It must be his fault- everything else is.

That is pretty hilarious.

It reminds me of the story of the two people at the restaurant:

One says "this food is terrible!"

The other says "and such small portions!"

 

[Matt1970]

So now right wingers argue that the stimulus should have been bigger & sooner even though they prevented it at the time? Really? Even after they held extended UI benefits hostage to trickle down tax breaks? Held the full faith & credit of the govt hostage to job killing spending cuts?

Were you born fucking yesterday?

And, uhh, Hate-Um Obama! Of course. It must be his fault- everything else is.

Wow, I don't remember saying it was too big or too small but you are going to hear exactly what you want to hear. And also the whole US credit rating fiasco was a full two years after the stimulus was passed.

 

[Jhhnn]

Wow, I don't remember saying it was too big or too small but you are going to hear exactly what you want to hear. And also the whole US credit rating fiasco was a full two years after the stimulus was passed.

Yeh, Reagan used that "I don't recall" thing, too. If the stimulus was too dragged out, that means it was too small at the time. Sheesh.

Yep, two years into the worst economic depression since the 30's & Repubs demanded cuts! Cuts! cuts! & got 'em, too. It's not like it was over then, or even now.

Has it occurred to you that you might be a chump for the outrage invoking right wing talking point du jour? That you're being played like Eric Clapton's guitar?

 

[shady28]

1. and 2....look no further than commodities and the stock market. The money is staying at the top and being invested into the market (buy backs, large corporate bank accounts, etc) and speculative buying of commodities (look at oil with largest ever supplies and decades low US usage but with prices still very high). Money chasing high end money, definitely not trickling into the general economy (just look at wages and wage pressure over the last decade to figure that one out).

Commodities and stocks are entirely different.

Commodities are still down about 40-50% from their 2008 peak. In most economic books, this spells deflation :

(click the 10 year chart)
https://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX:DJUBS

The bailout money does not for the most part flow into commodities. It flows into big banks and Wall Street, where much of it then flows into stocks. I say flows because the Fed is still throwing ~$85B / month at it.

In reality all that these trillions of dollars - $4T by the Federal Reserve, and 2 or 3 trillion by the Treasury - all it has done is tread water.

Most like to put it in perspective vs GDP. So vs GDP in the USA, it looks like this (1989- June 2014) :

My take on the above two charts is :

1 - Commodities collapsed and haven't recovered

2 - Stocks are in an artificially created bubble (thanks to trillions in bail-outs aimed at wall street that continue to this day) that will likely end in another collapse.

There is definitely a wealth effect to stocks in that people feel wealthier and hence spend more - which should in turn increase GDP. But ultimately the stock prices have to be backed up by actual "production" in the form of that GDP.

If stock prices aren't backed up by growing GDP (something real and not funny money from an electronic print press) - and it doesn't look like they are - then it will correct to whatever actual production can support.

 

[sportage]

You know...
We can show graphs, data, stats, etc etc and no republican will ever admit to the obvious. So whats the point?

The real story here is WHAT would have happened under an Mitt Romney administration?
And how would republicans defend the loss of even more jobs under Mitt?
How would Fox News, Karl Rove, and the rest of the usual suspects spin-defend a double digit national unemployment rate skyrocketing into double digits?

Well... they'd had blamed Obama's first administration, blamed current wages then probably done away entirely with the minimum wage, furthered lowered taxes for the top 1%, eliminated social assistance programs, privatized social security, and the final act with continuing and starting new wars.
Yes, under an Romney administration we'd have seen massive debt from never ending war.
Where the country gains nothing for that cost.
Maybe Obama has increased the national debt, but at least we got something for it.
Millions more of US citizens now with healthcare.

As we approach another national election where republicans hope to take the senate, or should I say overtake the senate, we should remember how every dooms day scenario that republicans had predicted under a second Obama administration, how none of that has come true.
Especially with their predicting double digit unemployment should Obama have a second term.

Re-electing democrats come this November should be a no brainer.
Democrats taking back the house should be a no brainer.
Democrats gaining seats in the senate should be a no brainer.
Republican governors getting kicked out of office should be a no brainer.
Especially republican governors that refused to expand medicaid.

Republicans candidates should be shaking in their boots about this November.
And democrats should be set for smooth sailing.
But most of all, ever registered voter should remember what happened when republicans controlled the congress AND the presidency.
And should remember what has not happened while republicans have controlled the house.

We all should remember never take the good times for granted.
It only takes one election cycle to turn all the advances upside down.
It took Bill Clinton eight long years to give the country back low unemployment and a booming economy.
Then it took republicans only four short years to exterminate every single achievement.
It took republicans only eight short years to bring the entire US economy to the brink of disaster.
And now, another hard long eight years under Obama to get us back on track with consistent job growth.
Along with our robust stock market, less war, better national security, a promising future ahead once again.

November could eliminate all of that, everything, all the advances, all of the gains, if voters should forget the past.
And our track record with remembering the past, then doing the smart thing for the future, has not been one of our better qualities.

 

[BoberFett]

Not sure what the partisan support would have done to create better jobs Dave. Obama supports more and more (so called) 'Free Trade' agreements, which are undermining middle class jobs and replacing them with the McService jobs that are the only ones growing right now.

McService jobs and minimum wage hikes are not a good way to grow our economy. Maybe a good way to grow government (welfare).

Oh, and for the record, this isn't all on Obama. It's on politicians for the last 30 years for undermining the middle class with one side free trade agreements. Both sides are destroying the middle class but we keep voting the assholes back in.

:thumbsup:

 

[BoberFett]

Pretty much this, and trips to Disneyland and Huge Weddings and variable things I just read here daily, and with no interest on regular banking accounts these days.

Once upon a time you could be young and put money in a bank in a savings account and get at least 5% interest on it, those days are long gone.

People use credit to do crazy things non stop rather than even bothering to try saving much, the banks seem to have made sure of that these days.

They whole economy is even weirder than it used to be, due to many things.

The fact that the little people aren't allowed to earn interest on savings is thanks to economic policy brought to us by the minds that are responsible for both causing and "fixing" the problem.

But they're Ivy League economists! They know more than you do! Bow to your masters!

 

[BoberFett]

God I hope we don't get into that stupid Reagan trickle down crap again.

It never works.

Country would go deeper in the hole.

You mean like when you spend trillions of dollars at the top and hope some crumbs make it down the little people? Yeah, I hope we never try that again... *cough* stimulus *cough*

 

[hans030390]

Because the US has a different economy than other countries.

I hope you remember your post I quoted the next time you try to support or deny certain social and economic policies in the USA based on X, Y, Z reasons from outside countries 1, 2, and 3.

 

[Matt1970]

You know...
We can show graphs, data, stats, etc etc and no republican will ever admit to the obvious. So whats the point?

The real story here is WHAT would have happened under an Mitt Romney administration?
And how would republicans defend the loss of even more jobs under Mitt?
How would Fox News, Karl Rove, and the rest of the usual suspects spin-defend a double digit national unemployment rate skyrocketing into double digits?

Well... they'd had blamed Obama's first administration, blamed current wages then probably done away entirely with the minimum wage, furthered lowered taxes for the top 1%, eliminated social assistance programs, privatized social security, and the final act with continuing and starting new wars.
Yes, under an Romney administration we'd have seen massive debt from never ending war.
Where the country gains nothing for that cost.
Maybe Obama has increased the national debt, but at least we got something for it.
Millions more of US citizens now with healthcare.

As we approach another national election where republicans hope to take the senate, or should I say overtake the senate, we should remember how every dooms day scenario that republicans had predicted under a second Obama administration, how none of that has come true.
Especially with their predicting double digit unemployment should Obama have a second term.

Re-electing democrats come this November should be a no brainer.
Democrats taking back the house should be a no brainer.
Democrats gaining seats in the senate should be a no brainer.
Republican governors getting kicked out of office should be a no brainer.
Especially republican governors that refused to expand medicaid.

Republicans candidates should be shaking in their boots about this November.
And democrats should be set for smooth sailing.
But most of all, ever registered voter should remember what happened when republicans controlled the congress AND the presidency.
And should remember what has not happened while republicans have controlled the house.

We all should remember never take the good times for granted.
It only takes one election cycle to turn all the advances upside down.
It took Bill Clinton eight long years to give the country back low unemployment and a booming economy.
Then it took republicans only four short years to exterminate every single achievement.
It took republicans only eight short years to bring the entire US economy to the brink of disaster.
And now, another hard long eight years under Obama to get us back on track with consistent job growth.
Along with our robust stock market, less war, better national security, a promising future ahead once again.

November could eliminate all of that, everything, all the advances, all of the gains, if voters should forget the past.
And our track record with remembering the past, then doing the smart thing for the future, has not been one of our better qualities.

I expected no less from you.

 

[Matt1970]

I hope you remember your post I quoted the next time you try to support or deny certain social and economic policies in the USA based on X, Y, Z reasons from outside countries 1, 2, and 3.

Oh I will.

 

[Jhhnn]

The fact that the little people aren't allowed to earn interest on savings is thanks to economic policy brought to us by the minds that are responsible for both causing and "fixing" the problem.

But they're Ivy League economists! They know more than you do! Bow to your masters!

Puh-leeze. Low interest rates on savings are a function of supply & demand. Savings are up, borrowing is down, therefore low interest rates on savings. Savings only earn interest because banks act as brokers between savers & borrowers. Corporate interests have simply parked enormous liquidity in bank accounts, eschewing both investment & disbursement as dividends.

As business suffers from lack of demand, the FRB holds interbank rates low to encourage borrowing & expansion, but it's like pushing on a string.

 

[cabri]

And now, another hard long eight years under Obama to get us back on track with consistent job growth.

https://www.linkedin.com/today/post...12107355-the-jobs-recovery-remains-incomplete

The U.S. has added 6 million working-age adults since 2007. Adjust for population growth and we've seen hardly any recovery at all. And while employment may be back to prerecession levels, unemployment isn't even close.

 

[Matt1970]

^^^^ Oh damn.

 

[Jhhnn]

https://www.linkedin.com/today/post...12107355-the-jobs-recovery-remains-incomplete

Well, yeh, but Cut, Cut, CUT! govt spending!

having left the recovery almost entirely to the private sector, this is what we get.

Which is all Obama's fault, obviously. If we just had more trickle down, less govt interference, why, it'd all be coming up roses! Worship the Jerb Creators! Beg for their indulgence!

How did we get here? I seem to recall some gigantic speculative bubble of a financial flimflam preached from the bully pulpit & every right wing mouthpiece in America... something about an "Ownership Society"...

And it turned out to be everything that the top down class warfare perps intended- we got owned. Cornholio! And middle class Righties are begging for more, harder & deeper.

 

[Matt1970]

Well, I think you almost got everything in your little tirade there didn't you? I think the only thing you left out was Reagan himself, but you did get trickle down in there.

 

[cabri]

Well, yeh, but Cut, Cut, CUT! govt spending!

having left the recovery almost entirely to the private sector, this is what we get.

Which is all Obama's fault, obviously. If we just had more trickle down, less govt interference, why, it'd all be coming up roses! Worship the Jerb Creators! Beg for their indulgence!

How did we get here? I seem to recall some gigantic speculative bubble of a financial flimflam preached from the bully pulpit & every right wing mouthpiece in America... something about an "Ownership Society"...

And it turned out to be everything that the top down class warfare perps intended- we got owned. Cornholio! And middle class Righties are begging for more, harder & deeper.

I seem to recall that Congress and the White House covers both major parties. Both were responsible for digging the hole. Clinton was in charge when one bubble popped. Bush was in charge when a second bubble popped.

Obama committed large amounts of money as a temporary feel good bandaid - had not real solid long term footing - ensuring that someone else would have to foot the bill down the road;

We have the health insurance bubble that may exist; presently Obama has been trying to keep the balloon from leaking air for political gain; not public benefits.
The government (not Republican or Democrat) takes money from someone and spends it on someone. Most of that spending recently has not been to improve the long term, but to cover the short term flaws.



So you can be another Democrat brown nosed follower or look at the fact that politicians of every stripe pay only lip service to the middle class.

 

[Jhhnn]

I seem to recall that Congress and the White House covers both major parties. Both were responsible for digging the hole. Clinton was in charge when one bubble popped. Bush was in charge when a second bubble popped.

Obama committed large amounts of money as a temporary feel good bandaid - had not real solid long term footing - ensuring that someone else would have to foot the bill down the road;

We have the health insurance bubble that may exist; presently Obama has been trying to keep the balloon from leaking air for political gain; not public benefits.
The government (not Republican or Democrat) takes money from someone and spends it on someone. Most of that spending recently has not been to improve the long term, but to cover the short term flaws.

So you can be another Democrat brown nosed follower or look at the fact that politicians of every stripe pay only lip service to the middle class.

Extended UI & all sorts of assistance for families are not lip service. And yeh, more of the usual "They're Just As Bad!" song & dance routine.

Long term? Puh-leeze. The bleeding had to be stopped before reconstructive surgery was even possible. And what do Repubs want in that? More trickle down, right back onto the path we traveled to arrive at catastrophe.

You conveniently forgot to mention that Repubs held Congress through Clinton's term, from 1994, and that Repubs held Congress & the Executive from Jan 2003 until Jan 2007, the time frame when they enabled & cheered on the looting, when the worst damage occurred.

What's next? Blame Barney Frank, or what?

 

[Engineer]

https://www.linkedin.com/today/post...12107355-the-jobs-recovery-remains-incomplete

Damn, that really makes the guy before Obama look even more shitty! :biggrin:

 

[Matt1970]

I seem to recall that Congress and the White House covers both major parties. Both were responsible for digging the hole. Clinton was in charge when one bubble popped. Bush was in charge when a second bubble popped.

Obama committed large amounts of money as a temporary feel good bandaid - had not real solid long term footing - ensuring that someone else would have to foot the bill down the road;

We have the health insurance bubble that may exist; presently Obama has been trying to keep the balloon from leaking air for political gain; not public benefits.
The government (not Republican or Democrat) takes money from someone and spends it on someone. Most of that spending recently has not been to improve the long term, but to cover the short term flaws.



So you can be another Democrat brown nosed follower or look at the fact that politicians of every stripe pay only lip service to the middle class.

It's been proven to him time and time again. It will always come back to Bush or Reagan or the Repubs in Congress. To him the Dems are knights in shining armor and everything they touch turns to gold, Government is our only salvation and every business owner and corporation is out to stick to to their workers.

More trickle down, right back onto the path we traveled to arrive at catastrophe.

See? Trickle-down caused the housing bubble and market crash.

 

[First]

Life is a matter of (alternative) choices, assuming more than one choice even truly exists. Knowing the alternatives, Obama's record on the economy is unassailably stellar given the shit sandwich he inherited, no matter what talking points you'll hear about 8% unemployment predictions (which quite literally matters not at all as it has no impact on anyone's lives other than as partisan talking points). We saw the direct results of the alternatives (Repubs running the shop) which more or less can be summed up with horrid oversight of brokers/TPO's/lenders that ignored federal underwriting standards between 2004-2007, oversaw the weakening of securities regs in the form of weakened SEC rules and a diminished budget for oversight, we saw insanely irresponsible (budget-wise) tax cuts (especially on capital gains) and of course disastrous foreign policy if we're talking purely in terms of dollars and cents (to say nothing of the worldwide damage it did).

So indeed, knowing the alternatives, which is Repubs running the place, (or worse, Tea Partiers) it's simply common sense that Obama's record is the best you can pretty much hope for given the economic circumstances inherited and the political realities of record filibusters in the Senate or basically nutters in the House. On substance, certainly the CFPB, Dodd-Frank and ACA go a hell of a long way toward preventing further hollowing out of the middle class, as without these reforms consumers have far fewer protections and recourse when unfair and/or fraudulent practices are committed. Banks are far less able to run wild with the reserve requirements that are now a prerequisite for banks large enough to qualify for in the stress tests.

Basically, Repubs don't stand as a reasonable alternative given their most recent record of rule (2001-2009), and certainly they'd done absolutely zero positive, noteworthy things since taking the House in 2010. Not one thing that the Obama administration didn't bless, that is, given the veto.

EDIT: syntax