Did Obama Destroy the Economy?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2011 5:44 AM GMT
    From "The Truth Squad" at CNN
    http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/23/politics/truth-squad-bachmann-economy/index.html?hpt=hp_bn3

    CNN Truth Squad: Did Obama destroy the economy?
    By Matt Smith, CNN
    updated 11:49 AM EST, Fri September 23, 2011


    (CNN) -- The statement:
    "President Obama has embraced a view of government-directed temporary fixes and gimmicks. They don't work. He's destroyed the economy."
    -- Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, during Thursday night's Republican presidential debate on Fox News.

    The facts:
    -- The recession from which the United States is still struggling to recover began in December 2007, 13 months before Obama took office in January 2009. That's according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the nonprofit agency that tracks business cycles.
    -- By the fourth quarter of 2008, shortly after the banking crisis that resulted in the widely unpopular federal bailouts, the economy contracted by 8.9%, according to the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis.
    -- The bureau found the recession officially ended in June 2009, five months after Obama took office. The economy has grown in every quarter since then, though barely in the past six months, according to the Commerce Department.
    -- The unemployment rate, a more direct concern to the average American, has remained high after shooting up from 5.5 % in December 2007 to a peak of 10.1 % in October 2009. It was 7.8 % when Obama took office, and it has held at 9.1 % for the past two months.

    The verdict:
    False. The Obama administration's much-criticized efforts to revive the economy may not have lived up to their billing, but statistics show the bulk of the damage was done before he was sworn in.

    The GAMRican Commentary:
    "Michelle Bachmann is a cunty liar with makeup almost as bad as Katherine Harris. May she continue to divide and confuse the Republican party. May the Bush II presidency allow Herbert Hoover to now rest in peace knowing that there was another president after him that was worse."

    Bachmann
    220px-Michele_Bachmann_by_Gage_Skidmore.

    Harris
    harris7.jpg
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19136

    Sep 24, 2011 5:48 AM GMT
    I don't think he destroyed the economy. The problem is that he didn't help it. Almost every time he gives a major speech the stock market nose dives. He's a great speaker, and seemingly a good man, but he simply is in over his head to handle the problems of a complicated world and world economy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2011 6:14 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI don't think he destroyed the economy. The problem is that he didn't help it. Almost every time he gives a major speech the stock market nose dives. He's a great speaker, and seemingly a good man, but he simply is in over his head to handle the problems of a complicated world and world economy.


    Or, he's doing the best he can, with the talent he has given how bad the situation was which he inherited.

    I can understand (albeit on a much smaller scale). I took the reigns of a 38yo not-for-profit which was "sailing headstrong into the shoals". I inherited not just a mess...but a fucking mess.

    In the 176 days of my Presidency, my senior leadership team and a host of pro-bono professionals have managed to turn around stop the financial and human capital bleeding, institute a "surplus budgeting" policy on all of our external programs, continue to create the same or more external value for our member/owners, launch strategic change initiatives for long term human capital and brand management, define and implement our value chain creation and delivery system, and kick off our governance transformation. Our community and organizational culture is undergoing intense and rapid return to our founding values. We're now ready to start creating economy among our member/owner community, local corporations, academic institutions, and others. We're just now starting up the system which has been created from the ground up

    Yet, to the outside observer we haven't delivered much, and my critics are quite busy and vocal. However, if the future bears the fruit of our labors, by the time my term is up, the next President will have a scalable system already bearing fruit. Most likely, he or she will get all the credit. "That bad GAMRican took the punch bowl away with his fiscal conservativism. Why hasn't he started this program or that program to help our unemployed members?"

    Have I been sitting on my ass doing nothing? No. I volunteer 150 hours a month on average. Our average pro-bono professional volunteer contributes 10 hours per month. We're building fundamental "core capacity".

    Could it be that our humble President, Barack Obama may be getting the same sour deal? Could it be that fundamental "core capacity" is now being built with our economy and people are just being impatient "talkers" who are doing nothing to really help the situation?

    I think so. I get lots of people telling how "this isn't good enough", or "this is how you should do it". But, when I say, "Ok, are you willing to shoulder up with me and put your muscle into a collaborative effort with me? All of a sudden the critics come up short in actually doing anything to help.

    Michelle Bachmann like oh so many other GOP/Teabaggers are just a bunch of "parade pissers" with no real plans and no real efforts provided to make anything better.

    May they enjoy 8 full years of a Barack Obama Presidency. May we have another 8 full years of a Michelle Obama Presidency. This should make up for the misery of the Bush years.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2011 5:20 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI don't think he destroyed the economy. The problem is that he didn't help it. Almost every time he gives a major speech the stock market nose dives. He's a great speaker, and seemingly a good man, but he simply is in over his head to handle the problems of a complicated world and world economy.


    Obama was simply not the right man for the job. Yes, he can read a teleprompter, but if the machine malfunctions, you've got trouble. Obama was also taught to effectively copy JFK when he speaks: Watch how often he puts his thumb and index finger together - holding them up to accentuate a point - exactly like JFK did. They say imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. Ruin the economy? Of course not. Bachman is incorrect. Obama did not ruin the economy. He just does not know how to do all the things he promised to put the economy back into high gear and put people back to work. I think he is in over his head, and I think he is trying his best. He is a good man. But the poor guy was just not the right man for the job. We were so happy to break the color barrier and put a black man in office. I think we picked the best one we thought we could find. He can speak, is young, went to a good college. But was Obama experienced enough for this job? Well, it is now clear he was not. I've never seen or read about a case in history where so many supporters of a president soon became so disenchanted with him - - - except in the case of Pres. Carter. And we know full well how the voters treated him when he tried to get a second term. He was sent packing because of his constant blunders. He wasn't right for the job either. Let's put a positive spin on things: We tried an inexperienced man and he failed. Now we have got to pick a businessman with experience - who can get this economy working again.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19136

    Sep 24, 2011 5:30 PM GMT
    CAJock753 saidI think he is in over his head, and I think he is trying his best. He is a good man. But the poor guy was just not the right man for the job. We were so happy to break the color barrier and put a black man in office. I think we picked the best one we thought we could find. He can speak, is young, went to a good college. But was Obama experienced enough for this job? Well, it is now clear he was not.



    Pretty much put it in a nutshell. With every passing day it appears less and less likely that a 2nd term will be given to Obama. Obviously, anything can happen and world events could alter the mood and percepetion of the voters. However, almost everywhere I go I seem to find anti-Obama sentiment, and this is coming from people who voted for him and were staunch supporters of him in the early stages of his Presidency.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2011 5:37 PM GMT
    CAJock753 said
    CuriousJockAZ saidI don't think he destroyed the economy. The problem is that he didn't help it. Almost every time he gives a major speech the stock market nose dives. He's a great speaker, and seemingly a good man, but he simply is in over his head to handle the problems of a complicated world and world economy.


    Obama was simply not the right man for the job. Yes, he can read a teleprompter, but if the machine malfunctions, you've got trouble. Obama was also taught to effectively copy JFK when he speaks: Watch how often he puts his thumb and index finger together - holding them up to accentuate a point - exactly like JFK did. They say imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. Ruin the economy? Of course not. Bachman is incorrect. Obama did not ruin the economy. He just does not know how to do all the things he promised to put the economy back into high gear and put people back to work. I think he is in over his head, and I think he is trying his best. He is a good man. But the poor guy was just not the right man for the job. We were so happy to break the color barrier and put a black man in office. I think we picked the best one we thought we could find. He can speak, is young, went to a good college. But was Obama experienced enough for this job? Well, it is now clear he was not. I've never seen or read about a case in history where so many supporters of a president soon became so disenchanted with him - - - except in the case of Pres. Carter. And we know full well how the voters treated him when he tried to get a second term. He was sent packing because of his constant blunders. He wasn't right for the job either. Let's put a positive spin on things: We tried an inexperienced man and he failed. Now we have got to pick a businessman with experience - who can get this economy working again.

    I think just citing inexperience is being very kind. I would say not just inexperience, but 1) ideology - trying to emulate a Western European model which is failing there and not seeing that, 2) stubbornness, lack of flexibility, compared to Pres Clinton, as an example, 3) question of wisdom in not surrounding himself with advisors within his "inner sanctum" who had experience and served as a counter-point to his ideology, and 4) failure to enforce the transparency that he touted, leading to the ongoing evolving scandals.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2011 6:34 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI don't think he destroyed the economy. The problem is that he didn't help it. Almost every time he gives a major speech the stock market nose dives. He's a great speaker, and seemingly a good man, but he simply is in over his head to handle the problems of a complicated world and world economy.

    Over his head, or his hands tied by the Party of No? The Party that announced, especially through its surrogates like Rush Limbaugh even before Obama had taken office, that Republicans would work to make him fail, so they could regain the White House & Congress.

    Difficult to help the economy when your political opponents are using every legislative trick to destroy it, for their political advantage. And to pay-off and give continuing breaks to their wealthy campaign contributors, at the expense of ordinary Americans. The gap between the wealthy and the poor continues to widen in the US, one of the worst in the industrialized world, and it isn't Obama's policies that are causing it.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Sep 24, 2011 7:18 PM GMT
    you Political Pundits are forgetting that the economy was destroyed before President obama assumed office icon_exclaim.gif


    icon_idea.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2011 7:40 PM GMT
    rnch saidyou Political Pundits are forgetting that the economy was destroyed before President obama assumed office icon_exclaim.gif


    icon_idea.gif


    Yuh huh... it´s hard to blame someone, no matter how limp, for an ecomonic disaster created by Bush and aided by a world recession, especially when his every move was undermined by an opposition party which seemed hell bent on wrecking the country to make him look bad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2011 7:42 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI don't think he destroyed the economy. The problem is that he didn't help it. Almost every time he gives a major speech the stock market nose dives. He's a great speaker, and seemingly a good man, but he simply is in over his head to handle the problems of a complicated world and world economy.


    I think it's fair to say that while the economy wasn't good (and quite clearly bad) when he inherited the economy, he has made it worse - and instead of fixing bad policies, he's applied bandaids over them. Things are structurally worse than when he started. Even those who believe that universal healthcare as a laudable objective are having doubts as to the piecemeal legislation that is coming into place.

    Economic growth in this recovery is the worst it's ever been - even worse if I recall than during the Great Depression and the US is set to either enter into another recession if it isn't in one already. It's remarkable to see those like GAMRican cling so desperately to this belief that Republicans are evil and Democrats must therefore be good.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2011 8:29 PM GMT


    Did the economy destroy Obama?

    Global meltdown - Obama, Prez of ONE country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2011 9:08 PM GMT
    Did I just read a bipartisan and yet fairly acrimony-free thread? On Realjock? Or am I dreaming? Usually these threads break down within minutes with personal insults thrown at various members.

    Well played, gentlemen. I'm totally impressed!

  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    Sep 24, 2011 9:12 PM GMT
    No.The US economy was in poor shape by the time he inheirited it from Bush.And failing economies don`t improve quickly to any government action. It`s taken decades and many presidents to make the economy so bad,it won`t recover in a few years.
    As meninlove said,he`s one president in one country in a globalized economy that undermines any attempt at unilateral policies,that can overwhelm any one government`s actions.But if things are swept aside by world forces,the people will still blame that leader/party/government.
    Plus,he has to deal with a Republican opposition who`s main concern is not the health of the economy,but rather Obama`s political defeat.And at the moment,economic failure seems to be their weapon of choice.
    On top of that were all the constraints any US president has to work within.
    Obama`s mistake/failure was to greatly overstate,pre-election,what could be done by the government in the worst global recession since the 1930s.And he was naive,underestimating how cynical and ruthless the Republicans would be in opposing him.
    Thinking on all that,it`s a wonder things aren`t much worse!
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19136

    Sep 24, 2011 9:14 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    CuriousJockAZ saidI don't think he destroyed the economy. The problem is that he didn't help it. Almost every time he gives a major speech the stock market nose dives. He's a great speaker, and seemingly a good man, but he simply is in over his head to handle the problems of a complicated world and world economy.



    Over his head, or his hands tied by the Party of No?




    Over his head.






  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19136

    Sep 24, 2011 9:16 PM GMT
    Lincsbear said
    Obama`s problem was to greatly overstate,pre-election,what could be done by the government in the worst global recession since the 1930s.
    And he was naive,underestimating how cynical and ruthless the Republicans would be in opposing him.



    All significant factors that define "Over Your Head"
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14360

    Sep 24, 2011 9:18 PM GMT
    It is totally foolhardy ina free market economy to expect the president or the congress to fix economic problems and create jobs. That is the responsibility of the marketplace, not the government. The government can only enact policies that will either help stimulate or hinder growth and investment but they are not the begin all and end all. The government does not control the US economy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2011 9:23 PM GMT
    Actually, I thought it was the ferocious greed of the bankers which brought down the economy. At least that is how I see it here in the UK.
    But again, I could be wrong where the American economy is concerned.


    And by the way, welcome back, Southbeach.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2011 9:47 PM GMT
    Actually, I just remembered an article I came across today in the Daily Mail newspaper (which is a Tory newspaper).

    It was about the boss of Lloyds Bank, which is 41% owned by the taxpayer.
    This guy, Eric Daniels, is set to receive a pension pot of £5,000,000 - and that is after receiving a monthly salary of almost £100,000 for doing absolutely nothing. Last year he took home £1,122,000 in basic pay and benefits, in addition to a £1,450,000 bonus.

    This was the man who screwed up the once successful Bank by taking over HBOS and bringing his company to a brink of disaster. The end result that 43,000 jobs are being shed in order to streamline the Bank back to prosperity. The only reason why the Bank is trading to this day was because the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, allowed the Bank to be bailed out by hardworking taxpayers.

    And lately, so I read, that our current Tory Prime Minister, David Cameron is turning a blind eye at the financial mess these bankers had got us into. It is an act of cowardice. He knows full well that if he let out a squeak, his head will be rolling, with Bank bosses wielding the axe. Instead, he has spent his time praising himself on how he sent the British troops to help free Libya from the reigns of Colonial Gaddafi.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Sep 24, 2011 10:05 PM GMT
    Lincsbear saidNo.The US economy was in poor shape by the time he inheirited it from Bush.And failing economies don`t improve quickly to any government action. It`s taken decades and many presidents to make the economy so bad,it won`t recover in a few years.
    As meninlove said,he`s one president in one country in a globalized economy that undermines any attempt at unilateral policies,that can overwhelm any one government`s actions.But if things are swept aside by world forces,the people will still blame that leader/party/government.
    Plus,he has to deal with a Republican opposition who`s main concern is not the health of the economy,but rather Obama`s political defeat.And at the moment,economic failure seems to be their weapon of choice.
    On top of that were all the constraints any US president has to work within.
    Obama`s mistake/failure was to greatly overstate,pre-election,what could be done by the government in the worst global recession since the 1930s.And he was naive,underestimating how cynical and ruthless the Republicans would be in opposing him.
    Thinking on all that,it`s a wonder things aren`t much worse!



    Q F T icon_exclaim.gif



    icon_sad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2011 12:12 AM GMT
    NotThatOld saidActually, I thought it was the ferocious greed of the bankers which brought down the economy. At least that is how I see it here in the UK.
    That is an overwhelmingly LARGE part of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2011 12:15 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidActually the economy was doing very well prior to January of 2007. Unemployment was low, growth was around normal historical levels.


    Until the bank overdrafted............ because the government wasn't doing any depositing. They were too busy buying weapons and infrastructure in far off lands.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2011 5:40 AM GMT
    rnch saidyou Political Pundits are forgetting that the economy was destroyed before President obama assumed office icon_exclaim.gif


    icon_idea.gif


    THIS!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2011 6:16 AM GMT
    GAMRican said
    rnch saidyou Political Pundits are forgetting that the economy was destroyed before President obama assumed office icon_exclaim.gif


    icon_idea.gif


    THIS!


    Somewhere lost in the hyperbole is the fact the economy was not "destroyed" by either. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_gdp_history There's definitely been a slow down in growth but GDP is higher than it was though we may be entering another recession. Three years is more than sufficient to change policies that have an effect on the economy - and as far as business is concerned, this Administration has been largely a net drag unless you're one of the favored few like GE who thrive at the government tit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2011 6:28 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    CuriousJockAZ saidI don't think he destroyed the economy. The problem is that he didn't help it. Almost every time he gives a major speech the stock market nose dives. He's a great speaker, and seemingly a good man, but he simply is in over his head to handle the problems of a complicated world and world economy.

    Over his head, or his hands tied by the Party of No? The Party that announced, especially through its surrogates like Rush Limbaugh even before Obama had taken office, that Republicans would work to make him fail, so they could regain the White House & Congress.

    Difficult to help the economy when your political opponents are using every legislative trick to destroy it, for their political advantage. And to pay-off and give continuing breaks to their wealthy campaign contributors, at the expense of ordinary Americans. The gap between the wealthy and the poor continues to widen in the US, one of the worst in the industrialized world, and it isn't Obama's policies that are causing it.


    "or his hands tied by the Party of No"

    Well, he had the party of yes until just this last January and they couldn't even pass a budget.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2011 6:36 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    NotThatOld saidActually, I thought it was the ferocious greed of the bankers which brought down the economy. At least that is how I see it here in the UK.
    That is an overwhelmingly LARGE part of it.


    This is much of it right here. Plus, a rapid increase in oil prices in 2008 and all the residential folks who were using their home equity as an ATM suddenly found that they were paying $120 or so for a fill up for their Range Rover then didn't have money to service their adjustable and away we go. A big boom followed by a big bust. Biggest blame IMO – lenders