Obama's solution to the failing economy:

[MooseNSquirrel]

Ah boomerang, What have the Romans ever done for us eh?

 

[Anarchist420]

It wouldn't work because there is no fucking way to pay for it. There should be less govt employees than there are.

The only way out of this is a massive depression without the government intervening. Ben Bernanke's incompetent ass needs to be fired and replaced with Volcker or Hoenig.

I can't believe GM was bailed out and that the banks were bailed out. What that did was make it so we'd have a terrible depression later instead of having a short depression earlier.

 

[Incorruptible]

barack oboma has no solution, the solution could have been enacted earlier but now it will only get worse

 

[glenn1]

That's actually a great idea, I see absolutely nothing wrong with his solution.

It's a great idea if you want to lose elections. The voting public is looking for governments at every level to reduce headcount and excessive benefits (see recent votes in Wisconsin, San Jose and San Diego), not increase them. And even fewer are in support of giving bailouts - people would likely take up torches and pitchforks if the feds bailed out California or Illinois.

 

[FoBoT]

Obama is Keynesian, so the answer is always, spend more money
spend as much money as possible, the more you put into the economy , the more it floats around to all the people
spend money for people not to work , spend people for people to work for the govt , it all helps, spend spend spend spend spend spend $ $ $ $

 

[Jhhnn]

By that metric we've be doing stimulus for the last sixty-odd years at an ever-increasing rate. I'm sure we've all noticed the steady improvement.

Scheiderguy is correct; if your theory is correct, the best thing to do is to take every unemployed person and give them a government job paying $100,000 per year. It doesn't matter what they do, or if they do anything at all, because we're stimulating demand. And of course, people who earn less than $100,000 per year in the private sector would certainly quit those jobs to get those good, secure $100,000 per year government jobs, so the system would be sustainable - AND those people with poorly paying private sector jobs would now have well-paying government jobs. We would have excellent growth not only in employment, but also in GDP. And of course, those government jobs are secure and more lucrative than the vast majority of private sector jobs, so since we've eliminated the threat of being fired or laid off and we've eliminated the need to change jobs, we've also eliminated the boom-bust cycle. In fact, things would only get better and better as more and more people got the secure, well-paying government jobs to which they are entitled.

There is nothing you can say to refute that scenario without refuting the whole of progressive economic dogma.

Now with new & improved strawman! Bravo!

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Obama is Keynesian, so the answer is always, spend more money
spend as much money as possible, the more you put into the economy , the more it floats around to all the people
spend money for people not to work , spend people for people to work for the govt , it all helps, spend spend spend spend spend spend $ $ $ $

You are mixing your metaphors there Fobot...as it were.

 

[dank69]

Just Saying. Private sector jobs are even with Jan 2009, but we're 600,000 in the hole in the public sector.

And that's exactly what Republicans and Libertarians want. Too bad they don't realize that it stifles demand, which creates more unemployment because less people are buying privately made products.

And they will hang on to those delusions until this country is finished. Because they are true Mericans.

 

[sportage]

Obama is Keynesian, so the answer is always, spend more money
spend as much money as possible, the more you put into the economy , the more it floats around to all the people
spend money for people not to work , spend people for people to work for the govt , it all helps, spend spend spend spend spend spend $ $ $ $

You confuse spending under Bush and republicans with Obama's administration.
Easy mistake. Faux and Rush make this same mistake.... on a daily basis.

 

[dank69]

Me neither. IMO the government should just give everyone a job that pays $100k a year, that way we will have 0% unemployment and no poverty or inequality.

Why bother have a private sector that comprises the working class?

Relocate the inner cities out to the fields and pay them the 100K.
Manual labor works; it may also reduce the growth rate
Now how many will run back to the city for the 10K that they get?

Argumentum ad Absurdum

 

[chucky2]

Nothing in what he posted supports that conclusion.

Oh no, that was to you.

 

[FoBoT]

You confuse spending under Bush and republicans with Obama's administration.
Easy mistake. Faux and Rush make this same mistake.... on a daily basis.

really? w0w, do you just make this stuff up or do you copy/paste it?
read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier

The existence of a multiplier effect was initially proposed by Richard Kahn in 1930 and published in 1931.[1] It is particularly associated with Keynesian economics[citation needed]. Some other schools of economic thought reject or downplay the importance of multiplier effects, particularly in terms of the long run. The multiplier effect has been used as an argument for the efficacy of government spending or taxation relief to stimulate aggregate demand.

The multiplier effect is a tool used by governments to attempt to stimulate aggregate demand. This can be done in a period of recession or economic uncertainty. The money invested by a government creates more jobs, which in turn will mean more spending and so on.
The idea is that the net increase in disposable income by all parties throughout the economy will be greater than the original investment. When that is the case, the government can increase the gross domestic product by an amount that is greater than an increase in the amount it spends relative to the amount it collects in taxes.
The difference is the fiscal stimulus. The net fiscal stimulus may be increased by raising spending above the level of tax revenues, reducing taxes below the level of government spending, or any combination of the two that results in the government taxing less than it spends.
The resulting deficit spending must be financed from government reserves (if any) or net borrowing from private or foreign investors. If the money is borrowed, it must eventually be paid back with interest, such that the long term effect on the economy depends on the trade off between the immediate increase to the GDP and the long term cost of servicing the resulting government debt.

and Progressive Republicans are also big govt spenders, yes, but that is off topic

 

[UberNeuman]

If that's his strategy for this election, because this election will be about the economy and nothing else, then there is hope for Romney after all.

And the Romney plan for job growth is what exactly - I've yet to hear it...

 

[FoBoT]

You are mixing your metaphors there Fobot...as it were.

yeah, i dunno what you mean

 

[1prophet]

And the Romney plan for job growth is what exactly - I've yet to hear it...

I have heard it and it's all the same, short term thinking for elections sake, no long term planning for the country's sake,

just like all career politicians out there.

 

[trenchfoot]

The Repubs had 6/8 years under Bush/Cheney to prove their ideology would create prosperity for ALL Americans. The undeniable factual real life proof of the abject failure of that ideology is there for all of us to see, hear and live through: The rich got richer off the backs of the middle class and the poor and the economy crashed as a consequence related to the pursuit of that utter failure of an ideology. Romney is a proponent and symbolic figurehead of that failed ideology and he's going to push that exact same failed ideology under the guise of, of all things, "balancing the budget". When was the last time a Repub president actually left office with a balanced budget and a surplus in the coffers? Never going to happen.

The only problem is he wants to "balance the budget" (lol) by effectively taking away control of the government from the majority of the population and handing it and the taxes they pay over to the very rich, which is the exact same thing Bush and Cheney were doing right up to the last second of their leadership and the financial disaster that followed.

So now we have Obama trying to clean up that disasterous mess that got gleefully dumped in his lap, and gee whiz, the Repubs now want to get back control of the gov't by claiming what a lousy job Obama is doing cleaning up the very mess THEIR ideology in large part contributed to, and it looks like there are enough idiots out and about that can actually make the 2000-2008 nightmare reoccur.

The recovery is happening no matter how the Repubs try to disparage and trivialize it. Sure, it's a clever ploy to gain back power, but at what expense to the "peasants" like me who had to suffer the concequences of the Repubs executing their ideology through the effects and especially the AFTEREFFECTS of their grand grab at the treasury of which they now lay at Obama's feet? How is it that the Repubs can block and obstruct to their heart's content any and all legislation that Obama and the Dems propose and introduce then turn right around and claim that Obama is a "do nothing" president when these very Repubs had everything to do with stymying the recovery process?

Pathetic, yet it works, regrettably.

Failing economy you say? With an ongoing recovery now in process despite the efforts of the Repubs to make every single effort to keep it from happening?

Duplicity and pursuing a proven failed ideology is the preferred modus operandi for creating a healthy and wealthy nation for ALL?

Yeah.......right. lol

 

[dmcowen674]

The Repubs had 6/8 years under Bush/Cheney to prove their ideology would create prosperity for ALL Americans. The undeniable factual real life proof of the abject failure of that ideology is there for all of us to see, hear and live through: The rich got richer off the backs of the middle class and the poor and the economy crashed as a consequence related to the pursuit of that utter failure of an ideology. Romney is a proponent and symbolic figurehead of that failed ideology and he's going to push that exact same failed ideology under the guise of, of all things, "balancing the budget". When was the last time a Repub president actually left office with a balanced budget and a surplus in the coffers? Never going to happen.

The only problem is he wants to "balance the budget" (lol) by effectively taking away control of the government from the majority of the population and handing it and the taxes they pay over to the very rich, which is the exact same thing Bush and Cheney were doing right up to the last second of their leadership and the financial disaster that followed.

So now we have Obama trying to clean up that disasterous mess that got gleefully dumped in his lap, and gee whiz, the Repubs now want to get back control of the gov't by claiming what a lousy job Obama is doing cleaning up the very mess THEIR ideology in large part contributed to, and it looks like there are enough idiots out and about that can actually make the 2000-2008 nightmare reoccur.

The recovery is happening no matter how the Repubs try to disparage and trivialize it. Sure, it's a clever ploy to gain back power, but at what expense to the "peasants" like me who had to suffer the concequences of the Repubs executing their ideology through the effects and especially the AFTEREFFECTS of their grand grab at the treasury of which they now lay at Obama's feet? How is it that the Repubs can block and obstruct to their heart's content any and all legislation that Obama and the Dems propose and introduce then turn right around and claim that Obama is a "do nothing" president when these very Repubs had everything to do with stymying the recovery process?

Pathetic, yet it works, regrettably.

Failing economy you say? With an ongoing recovery now in process despite the efforts of the Repubs to make every single effort to keep it from happening?

Duplicity and pursuing a proven failed ideology is the preferred modus operandi for creating a healthy and wealthy nation for ALL?

Yeah.......right. lol

Excellent post sir :thumbsup:

 

[boomerang]

The Repubs had 6/8 years under Bush/Cheney to prove their ideology would create prosperity for ALL Americans. The undeniable factual real life proof of the abject failure of that ideology is there for all of us to see, hear and live through: The rich got richer off the backs of the middle class and the poor and the economy crashed as a consequence related to the pursuit of that utter failure of an ideology. Romney is a proponent and symbolic figurehead of that failed ideology and he's going to push that exact same failed ideology under the guise of, of all things, "balancing the budget". When was the last time a Repub president actually left office with a balanced budget and a surplus in the coffers? Never going to happen.

The only problem is he wants to "balance the budget" (lol) by effectively taking away control of the government from the majority of the population and handing it and the taxes they pay over to the very rich, which is the exact same thing Bush and Cheney were doing right up to the last second of their leadership and the financial disaster that followed.

So now we have Obama trying to clean up that disasterous mess that got gleefully dumped in his lap, and gee whiz, the Repubs now want to get back control of the gov't by claiming what a lousy job Obama is doing cleaning up the very mess THEIR ideology in large part contributed to, and it looks like there are enough idiots out and about that can actually make the 2000-2008 nightmare reoccur.

The recovery is happening no matter how the Repubs try to disparage and trivialize it. Sure, it's a clever ploy to gain back power, but at what expense to the "peasants" like me who had to suffer the concequences of the Repubs executing their ideology through the effects and especially the AFTEREFFECTS of their grand grab at the treasury of which they now lay at Obama's feet? How is it that the Repubs can block and obstruct to their heart's content any and all legislation that Obama and the Dems propose and introduce then turn right around and claim that Obama is a "do nothing" president when these very Repubs had everything to do with stymying the recovery process?

Pathetic, yet it works, regrettably.

Failing economy you say? With an ongoing recovery now in process despite the efforts of the Repubs to make every single effort to keep it from happening?

Duplicity and pursuing a proven failed ideology is the preferred modus operandi for creating a healthy and wealthy nation for ALL?

Yeah.......right. lol

In the 2008 election, there were two candidates. One Democrat and one Republican. So when you say this situation got dumped in Obama's lap, well frankly it's bullshit. He ran for the office, he got what he got and he wanted the job. If the Republican had won he'd have inherited it. Your point is foolish and not even remotely valid.

Which makes the talking point you've repeated about Obama trying to clean up the mess worthless. Once again, it's his job and he wanted the job.

Obama told us if he failed that he would be a one term President. Most of us took that at face value and are not even remotely shocked that he's going to lose in November. But because the maturity level of the typical progressive is still rooted in adolescence, the reason Obama is going to lose, is of course not the fault of Obama, it's the fault of evil Republicans. We typically don't respond to wailing and lamenting of this nature because it's just so damned ridiculous, but it's time you knew that we just shake our heads in disbelief that adults can walk around thinking like this.

"but at what expense to the "peasants" like me who had to suffer the consequences of the Repubs" And now we're at the heart of the matter. It's really all about you. It's time you knew, you're not special.

With age comes wisdom it's said. Here's to hoping it pans out for you.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

In the 2008 election, there were two candidates. One Democrat and one Republican. So when you say this situation got dumped in Obama's lap, well frankly it's bullshit. He ran for the office, he got what he got and he wanted the job. If the Republican had won he'd have inherited it. Your point is foolish and not even remotely valid.

Let's start off with one factual point of order: when Obama started running for this particular job, nobody had any idea of what was awaiting the country in 2008. He couldn't really have quit in the middle once the campaign was underway. So while you can say he "wanted the job", that's true, but he didn't get what he thought he was getting when he started out.

Both political parties have a bad habit of taking into account the previous administrations when they were their opponents', and ignoring those administrations when they were not. In this case, the Rs pretend Bush never existed and blame everything on Obama. If Romney wins in November, the Rs will blame everything on Obama for four years, while the Democrats will pretend Obama never existed.

Regardless of the blame game, the damage that Bush and Cheney did to this country is real and long-lasting. It doesn't disappear because of partisan spats. And it is something that needs to be accounted for even if Obama "ran for the job".

Obama told us if he failed that he would be a one term President. Most of us took that at face value and are not even remotely shocked that he's going to lose in November.

He may lose in November, but I don't think he will. "Failure" is in the eye of the beholder -- I think Obama has done some things well, some things not so well. He's had quite a few demonstrable successes IMO, and some areas where he's really done a lousy job.

I'll also point out that when he made that comment, he probably assumed that the Republicans would run a good candidate against him this year. They aren't.

But because the maturity level of the typical progressive is still rooted in adolescence, the reason Obama is going to lose, is of course not the fault of Obama, it's the fault of evil Republicans.

Childish insults aside, it is a fact -- not opinion, demonstrable, verifiable fact -- that Republicans have been specifically trying to derail and delegitimize Obama's presidency from the start. From the planning sessions on the day of his inauguration, the record number of filibusters, to McConnell's brazen admission that keeping Obama from being reelected was their #1 priority, there's valid reason for Obama to blame Republicans for a fairly unprecedented level of obstructionism.

We typically don't respond to wailing and lamenting of this nature because it's just so damned ridiculous, but it's time you knew that we just shake our heads in disbelief that adults can walk around thinking like this.

More ad hominems. Unimpressive.

"but at what expense to the "peasants" like me who had to suffer the consequences of the Repubs" And now we're at the heart of the matter. It's really all about you. It's time you knew, you're not special.

Ah, but that's exactly the point. He's not special. He's like millions of Americans who watched what happened the last time the Republicans had control of all three branches of government: the worst terror attack on US soil; a budget surplus squandered; banks running amok leading to a financial crash; and thousands of US lives wasted on a war based on lies.

Everyone has pathetically short memories. So many people forget that in early 2009, a lot of people thought we were headed for a second Great Depression. Now they bitch and moan because the recovery isn't fast enough, forgetting how much worse things could have been.

Has Obama been perfect? Far from it. Would putting Romney in charge to give us a repeat of the Bush years be better? Far from it.

 

[crashtestdummy]

By that metric we've be doing stimulus for the last sixty-odd years at an ever-increasing rate. I'm sure we've all noticed the steady improvement.

Scheiderguy is correct; if your theory is correct, the best thing to do is to take every unemployed person and give them a government job paying $100,000 per year. It doesn't matter what they do, or if they do anything at all, because we're stimulating demand. And of course, people who earn less than $100,000 per year in the private sector would certainly quit those jobs to get those good, secure $100,000 per year government jobs, so the system would be sustainable - AND those people with poorly paying private sector jobs would now have well-paying government jobs. We would have excellent growth not only in employment, but also in GDP. And of course, those government jobs are secure and more lucrative than the vast majority of private sector jobs, so since we've eliminated the threat of being fired or laid off and we've eliminated the need to change jobs, we've also eliminated the boom-bust cycle. In fact, things would only get better and better as more and more people got the secure, well-paying government jobs to which they are entitled.

There is nothing you can say to refute that scenario without refuting the whole of progressive economic dogma.

The problem is the overspending from before was that it was during an up cycle. When jobs are good, you don't need to push as hard on stimulus because you're already on the positive side of the feedback loop. It's only when jobs are bad the we should be deficit spending in huge amounts.

We need to tackle the debt, but not until after we've gotten ourselves out of this mess. Otherwise, it'll become a nasty death spiral of austerity like what Europe has now.

 

[Matt1970]

The undeniable factual real life proof of the abject failure of that ideology is there for all of us to see, hear and live through: The rich got richer off the backs of the middle class and the poor and the economy crashed as a consequence related to the pursuit of that utter failure of an ideology.

Except the middle class had their taxes cut to so it wasn't off anyone's backs. Thte economy crash had absolutely nothing to do with anyone's tax rates.

Nice fails. You are welcome to try again.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

We need to tackle the debt, but not until after we've gotten ourselves out of this mess. Otherwise, it'll become a nasty death spiral of austerity like what Europe has now.

Part of the problem is that many people don't understand -- or won't acknowledge -- the tight relationship between the economy as a whole and government spending. When times are bad you have the double-whammy of fewer people earning and thus paying taxes, and more people relying on government services.

Who's doing well right now? Corporations.

 

[Matt1970]

Part of the problem is that many people don't understand -- or won't acknowledge -- the tight relationship between the economy as a whole and government spending. When times are bad you have the double-whammy of fewer people earning and thus paying taxes, and more people relying on government services.

Who's doing well right now? Corporations.

You are not making a good argument for more Government jobs.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You are not making a good argument for more Government jobs.

I wasn't trying to, though I'm curious why you think I wasn't, had I been.

 

[wirednuts]

obama will be in for a 2nd term. i suspect in september or october we will magically grab kony, and the youth vote will swing for obama again.