Could Obama lose?

[Bonam]

True, the economy is largely out of the control of the president. But it is American tradition to blame/credit the president for the economy.

[dre]

True, the economy is largely out of the control of the president. But it is American tradition to blame/credit the president for the economy.

Yup, pretty much.

[sharkman]

Both the idea that Bush single handedly destroyed the economy, and that Obama can fix it in a few years. They are both pretty much at the mercy of economic events, not in control of them. THe only people sitting around waiting for the president to fix the economy or saying he didnt "create enough jobs" are people that dont understand economics.

I see what you are saying, but I think the president can affect the economy, outside of some economic events. Clinton was given credit for his handling of the economy, and rightly so. Reagan got things turned around in his first term, and he had a 20% interest rate to deal with, so it is possible.

The Obama administration, however, only tried to get the economy going by pumping money into it, which has simply not worked. He himself said if he didn't get the economy turned around in his first term he would be looking at a single term for his career. There are some events that are outside a president's control of course, but the mortgage crisis seems to be one that both parties had a hand in, and it was stunningly stupid.

[punked]

I see what you are saying, but I think the president can affect the economy, outside of some economic events. Clinton was given credit for his handling of the economy, and rightly so. Reagan got things turned around in his first term, and he had a 20% interest rate to deal with, so it is possible.

The Obama administration, however, only tried to get the economy going by pumping money into it, which has simply not worked. He himself said if he didn't get the economy turned around in his first term he would be looking at a single term for his career. There are some events that are outside a president's control of course, but the mortgage crisis seems to be one that both parties had a hand in, and it was stunningly stupid.

Considering Gallup now has the unemployment rate now lower then when Reagan was re-elected I think there is some confirmation Bias going on here. PS Obama did while getting rid of 600,000 government employees not growing them by 300,000 like Reagan. Sorry it is like Biden says facts matter.

[Smallc]

The Obama administration, however, only tried to get the economy going by pumping money into it, which has simply not worked.

Putting money into an economy is the only way to get it going. Where it should come from is the debate. Obama is facing very unique global circumstances that are keeping the economy stalled.

[sharkman]

Well you would have to define "putting money into an economy". There are many ways to do it, but Obama's method obviously didn't work. Obama may be facing very unique global circumstances, but Canada has done much better at stimulating our economy while facing the exact same circumstances.

[punked]

I suppose you might have a point. But what was the Debt to GDP ratio of Russia? The USA's is roughly 100%.

More importantly, what's relevant is that Medicare and Social Security are both near insolvent and the President has no plan. You gotta be some crazy kind of stupid to keep driving a bus that's clearly headed off a cliff and instead of steering off course, continue promising the same old lollipops that got you into this mess in the first place.

Ok lets start here Russia debt was so bad they had to default on it and restructure it after the fall of the Soviet Union it was around 200% I think. Here is the kicker the Russians didn't owe that debt to their people like they did after WW2 they owed to international lenders so they were forced to pay it. The American people own 75-85% of their debt. Know what Russia did to balance their books after WW2? They just burned up the bonds there you go no more debt.

As for SS and Medicare. You do know Social Security is FULLY FUNDED for the next 70 years right? 70 YEARS! Medicare if Obama stays in power is fully funded for the next 16 years although Romney is promising to bankrupt it in just 4 years before his first term would be over. It seems crazy to vote for the guy that promises to bankrupt Medicare before there would even be time to fix it although you seem quite ok with that.

[punked]

Well you would have to define "putting money into an economy". There are many ways to do it, but Obama's method obviously didn't work. Obama may be facing very unique global circumstances, but Canada has done much better at stimulating our economy while facing the exact same circumstances.

Why didn't it work? Unemployment is falling, he now has a positive job gain something Bush never left office with. Seems to me if anything Obama's methods is working and the Bush method which Romney is promising isn't. Again Bush created no private sector jobs in fact he left office with less then he started with and Obama already has positive Job growth after inheriting the worst jobs picture (losing 800,000 jobs a month) on day one. You have to stop the fall before you start growing. That is just a fact.

[sharkman]

And if it has indeed stopped, the thing is it took Obama 4 years of failing while millions of Americans got laid off, lost their homes, etc. I say he is responsible for their loss. You probably say he isn't. It's the same old story every election, the two sides disagreeing and so on. Does it ever bore you?

[punked]

And if it has indeed stopped, the thing is it took Obama 4 years of failing while millions of Americans got laid off, lost their homes, etc. I say he is responsible for their loss. You probably say he isn't. It's the same old story every election, the two sides disagreeing and so on. Does it ever bore you?

No what am saying is that not only has it stopped but Obama HAS A POSITIVE job creation record unlike Bush. Romney is running on the Bush policies that didn't create 1 job while Obama has a record of creating jobs. That is the choice right now. I know who I will be voting for when it comes to NO JOB CREATION vs JOB CREATION. I see you support no job creation.

Again unemployment looks lower now then when Reagan was re-elected but you probably wouldn't have voted for that guy either right?

Edited October 14, 2012 by punked

[msj]

Now seems like a good time to include this look at the unemployment rate and presidential elections.

I think people are focusing on small sample size.

There are more factors going into deciding on who to vote for than a simple unemployment rate.

[punked]

Romney the Ryan, or the photo op campaign:

Afterward, Mr. Ryan stopped with his wife and children at a nearby soup kitchen. The family put on aprons and washed several large pans, though they did not appear to need washing, according to a pool reporter. There also was no one to serve at the soup kitchen, as breakfast had ended.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/us/politics/gop-ticket-focuses-on-crucial-ohio-votes.html?ref=politics&_r=0

Yep no one was there, and Ryan washed already clean pans so he could get his pictures for the paper looking like he cares for the poor. This guys doesn't give any shits. That is clear or he would have went to that soup kitchen when they could have actually used his help.

[sharkman]

No what am saying is that not only has it stopped but Obama HAS A POSITIVE job creation record unlike Bush. Romney is running on the Bush policies that didn't create 1 job while Obama has a record of creating jobs. That is the choice right now. I know who I will be voting for when it comes to NO JOB CREATION vs JOB CREATION. I see you support no job creation.

Punked, only you would characterize Obama's administration as having a positive job creation record.

[Shady]

Now seems like a good time to include this look at the unemployment rate and presidential elections.

I think people are focusing on small sample size.

There are more factors going into deciding on who to vote for than a simple unemployment rate.

Good point. The rate itself is very determined by a number of factors, and doesn't always indicate that actual employment situation. To me, it was funny to watch the Obama campaign, and the mainstream media celebrate the jobs report of 114,000. That's not even close to keeping up with population growth, and during normal recoveries, would be considered very poor. Perhaps the media has just lowered the bar of expectations.

[Shady]

Punked, only you would characterize Obama's administration as having a positive job creation record.

Exactly. And he likes to pretend that the financial crisis has something to do with Bush economic policies. That's the Obama campaign mantra, of "policies that got us into the mess in the first place." Lowering tax rates in 2001 and 2003 didn't contribute at all to the housing bubble which caused the recession. People keeping more of what they earn didn't lower mortgage standards. It was done by Dems for the purposes of advancing homeownership to people that wouldn't otherwise qualify. And Bush economic policies didn't include Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae taking on more and more subprime loans for the same reasons of "helping the poor" own homes.

Anyways, I'd expect Obama to have presided under at least a little job creation, considering all of the money that's been spent. A trillion dollar stimulus. 4 trillion dollar deficits, which act as stimulus. and quantitive easing 1, 2, and now 3 from the Fed.

[punked]

Punked, only you would characterize Obama's administration as having a positive job creation record.

Nope it is a fact. Like Joe Biden says facts matter. I'll just post the Economists article right here so you know it isn't only me but very real serious people who are also saying this.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/27/economist-obama-now-in-net-positive-territory-on-job-growth.html

Again Bush left office with less jobs then when he started. Obama already has more. That is a fact and those matter. I know what I will be voting on.

[punked]

Good point. The rate itself is very determined by a number of factors, and doesn't always indicate that actual employment situation. To me, it was funny to watch the Obama campaign, and the mainstream media celebrate the jobs report of 114,000. That's not even close to keeping up with population growth, and during normal recoveries, would be considered very poor. Perhaps the media has just lowered the bar of expectations.

Krugman has pointed out several times this is a very normal recovery here you go ahead and educate yourself. Although considering if the GOP would get out of the way and let the president have what Reagan had the unemployment rate would be under 7% now I don't think anyone supporting them has any right to criticize anyone. They were elected in 2010 and have only stop the recovery that clearly started right after the stimulus.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/fact-checking-financial-recessions/

[punked]

Exactly. And he likes to pretend that the financial crisis has something to do with Bush economic policies. That's the Obama campaign mantra, of "policies that got us into the mess in the first place." Lowering tax rates in 2001 and 2003 didn't contribute at all to the housing bubble which caused the recession. People keeping more of what they earn didn't lower mortgage standards. It was done by Dems for the purposes of advancing homeownership to people that wouldn't otherwise qualify. And Bush economic policies didn't include Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae taking on more and more subprime loans for the same reasons of "helping the poor" own homes.

Anyways, I'd expect Obama to have presided under at least a little job creation, considering all of the money that's been spent. A trillion dollar stimulus. 4 trillion dollar deficits, which act as stimulus. and quantitive easing 1, 2, and now 3 from the Fed.

Yah Bush had the Senate and Congress for 6 years and could have done anything he wanted. This recessions lays at his feet because he got everything he wanted for 6 years and yet didn't create 1 single job by the time he left office. If he spent more time national building at home maybe that number would be different but it isn't. That is the record Romney is running on. Not creating 1 single job unlike Obama who actually has added jobs. It is a simple choice stop trying to make it more then it is.

[msj]

Good point. The rate itself is very determined by a number of factors, and doesn't always indicate that actual employment situation. To me, it was funny to watch the Obama campaign, and the mainstream media celebrate the jobs report of 114,000. That's not even close to keeping up with population growth, and during normal recoveries, would be considered very poor. Perhaps the media has just lowered the bar of expectations.

Back in 2008 the rule of thumb was 100,000 to 150,000 jobs needed to be created each month to keep up with population.

Those numbers have been revised down towards the 90,000 ish mark due to demographics (even the US has an aging workforce with a trend towards more people retiring).

Of course, it's not surprising to those of us who knew that any recession brought on through a failure of the financial industry would lead to terrible unemployment and it would take longer to gain back employment.

You can read all about that in the Recession thread under the US/Canada forum.

[Shady]

Krugman has pointed out several times this is a very normal recovery here you go ahead and educate yourself. Although considering if the GOP would get out of the way and let the president have what Reagan had the unemployment rate would be under 7% now I don't think anyone supporting them has any right to criticize anyone. They were elected in 2010 and have only stop the recovery that clearly started right after the stimulus.

http://krugman.blogs...ial-recessions/

Then he's a liar. It's not a normal recovery, it's the worst recovery on record. During the Reagan recovery, he had months of 500,000 - 700,000 jobs per month. Same with the Clinton recovery. Heck, during the recovery of the dot come bubble in 2000 - 2003 there were many months of 300,000+ jobs created. Sorry punked, but this kind of job growth is anemic.

[punked]

Then he's a liar. It's not a normal recovery, it's the worst recovery on record. During the Reagan recovery, he had months of 500,000 - 700,000 jobs per month. Same with the Clinton recovery. Heck, during the recovery of the dot come bubble in 2000 - 2003 there were many months of 300,000+ jobs created. Sorry punked, but this kind of job growth is anemic.

Go read the article Shady. He clearly shows you are liar, with citations and actual numbers. Have fun buddy.

As he points out Financial Recessions are a very different beast then what you are talking about. That is what this is and it is following the SAME pattern as the other Financial Recessions the US has had. Facts matter Shady.

Edited October 14, 2012 by punked

[msj]

I will point out this link for some data about job creation. Neither Obama nor Bush look that great but I think people are willing to give Obama a pass on this because he inherited Bush's legacy (by this I do not mean that Bush actually left a legacy of unemployment - no President is singularly responsible for economic growth. What I do mean is that under Bush unemployment was trending up and this straddled into Obama's term in office).

Oh, and Bush benefited from lots of government jobs (mostly state and local) whereas Obama has benefited from more federal (but not much more than Bush) but less state and local (hence the negative number for government).

Job Creators in Chief

[punked]

I will just point out Bush's first day in office there were 132,466,000 jobs on Obama's first day that number was 129,734,000. Bush spent 8 years to destroy 3 million jobs. That is his record. Facts matter.

[Shady]

I will just point out Bush's first day in office there were 132,466,000 jobs on Obama's first day that number was 129,734,000. Bush spent 8 years to destroy 3 million jobs. That is his record. Facts matter.

He didn't destroy any jobs. That was the housing bubble, brought upon by Democrat policy lowering mortgage standards in an effort to "help the poor" attain loans they wouldn't otherwise qualify for. And everyone forgets that Bush inherited the dot com bubble burst from Clinton in 2000.

[punked]

He didn't destroy any jobs. That was the housing bubble, brought upon by Democrat policy lowering mortgage standards in an effort to "help the poor" attain loans they wouldn't otherwise qualify for. And everyone forgets that Bush inherited the dot com bubble burst from Clinton in 2000.

Yah I remember the 6 years Bush could have done anything he wanted from 2001-2007 yet he never fixed that housing bubble. Probably because it was creating 300,000 jobs a month until it destroyed all of them and some of the jobs Clinton created. Facts matter. Bush left with less jobs then he came in with after 8 years. Obama has already created more jobs then Bush whose policies Romney is runnning on. I am going to make sure my vote counts this year because the Bush Recession hit hard and fast, and republicans have done nothing but got in they way of the Obama recovery.