Log in

View Full Version : The Obama Economy



George Gervin's Afro
03-03-2009, 12:56 PM
The Obama Economy
As the Dow keeps dropping, the President is running out of people to blame.Article

As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem.

Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence -- and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth.

The Democrats who now run Washington don't want to hear this, because they benefit from blaming all bad economic news on President Bush. And Mr. Obama has inherited an unusual recession deepened by credit problems, both of which will take time to climb out of. But it's also true that the economy has fallen far enough, and long enough, that much of the excess that led to recession is being worked off. Already 15 months old, the current recession will soon match the average length -- and average job loss -- of the last three postwar downturns. What goes down will come up -- unless destructive policies interfere with the sources of potential recovery.

And those sources have been forming for some time. The price of oil and other commodities have fallen by two-thirds since their 2008 summer peak, which has the effect of a major tax cut. The world is awash in liquidity, thanks to monetary ease by the Federal Reserve and other central banks. Monetary policy operates with a lag, but last year's easing will eventually stir economic activity.

Housing prices have fallen 27% from their Case-Shiller peak, or some two-thirds of the way back to their historical trend. While still high, credit spreads are far from their peaks during the panic, and corporate borrowers are again able to tap the credit markets. As equities were signaling with their late 2008 rally and January top, growth should under normal circumstances begin to appear in the second half of this year.

So what has happened in the last two months? The economy has received no great new outside shock. Exchange rates and other prices have been stable, and there are no security crises of note. The reality of a sharp recession has been known and built into stock prices since last year's fourth quarter.

What is new is the unveiling of Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance. Every new President has a finite stock of capital -- financial and political -- to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.

His Treasury has been making a similar mistake with its financial bailout plans. The banking system needs to work through its losses, and one necessary use of public capital is to assist in burning down those bad assets as fast as possible. Yet most of Team Obama's ministrations so far have gone toward triage and life support, rather than repair and recovery.

AIG yesterday received its fourth "rescue," including $70 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program cash, without any clear business direction. (See here.) Citigroup's restructuring last week added not a dollar of new capital, and also no clear direction. Perhaps the imminent Treasury "stress tests" will clear the decks, but until they do the banks are all living in fear of becoming the next AIG. All of this squanders public money that could better go toward burning down bank debt.

The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget last week, and that should be no surprise. The document was a declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy. Health-care stocks have dived on fears of new government mandates and price controls. Private lenders to students have been told they're no longer wanted. Anyone who uses carbon energy has been warned to expect a huge tax increase from cap and trade. And every risk-taker and investor now knows that another tax increase will slam the economy in 2011, unless Mr. Obama lets Speaker Nancy Pelosi impose one even earlier.

Meanwhile, Congress demands more bank lending even as it assails lenders and threatens to let judges rewrite mortgage contracts. The powers in Congress -- unrebuked by Mr. Obama -- are ridiculing and punishing the very capitalists who are essential to a sustainable recovery. The result has been a capital strike, and the return of the fear from last year that we could face a far deeper downturn. This is no way to nurture a wounded economy back to health.

Listening to Mr. Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, on the weekend, we couldn't help but wonder if they appreciate any of this. They seem preoccupied with going to the barricades against Republicans who wield little power, or picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh, as if this is the kind of economic leadership Americans want.

Perhaps they're reading the polls and figure they have two or three years before voters stop blaming Republicans and Mr. Bush for the economy. Even if that's right in the long run, in the meantime their assault on business and investors is delaying a recovery and ensuring that the expansion will be weaker than it should be when it finally does arrive.


I just want to get the conservatives of this board on record? Does Obama bear sole responsibility for the Stock Market Plunge?

I have a feeling we won't get any of the hypocrites err rather conservatives on this board to answer a simple yes or no question.

Wild Cobra
03-03-2009, 01:38 PM
I just want to get the conservatives of this board on record? Does Obama bear sole responsibility for the Stock Market Plunge?

I have a feeling we won't get any of the hypocrites err rather conservatives on this board to answer a simple yes or no question.
Absolutely. YES!

He signed the bailout, and there are more bailouts to come. The stock markets are largely based of future predictions which are by large based on consumer confidence. The confidence isn't there with this president. The talk of raising taxes on the people who provide capital in stocks absolutely hurts the US stock market. Remember this:

2/4/09 post (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3081536&postcount=17):


No, it's a recipe for disaster.

Look at how the markets reacted to the last bailout. We are now hovering at 8,000 on the Dow. If the demonrats pass this bailout, I predict the markets will fall to about 6,000.

Do we really want to give more money to China and others holding US debt?

Do we really want to place more debt on our children?

The more bailouts, taxes, etc the democrats propose and Obama signs into law, the worse things will get. My 6,000 prediction may be a bit high!

George Gervin's Afro
03-03-2009, 02:38 PM
Absolutely. YES!

He signed the bailout, and there are more bailouts to come. The stock markets are largely based of future predictions which are by large based on consumer confidence. The confidence isn't there with this president. The talk of raising taxes on the people who provide capital in stocks absolutely hurts the US stock market. Remember this:

2/4/09 post (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3081536&postcount=17):



The more bailouts, taxes, etc the democrats propose and Obama signs into law, the worse things will get. My 6,000 prediction may be a bit high!


So, would it be fair to say that when the economy does turn around he should get most of the credit for it. Right?

Winehole23
03-03-2009, 03:17 PM
So, would it be fair to say that when the economy does turn around he should get most of the credit for it. Right?If the patient survives the dosage, the doctor should receive some credit but maybe the patient was already basically healthy.

Who should get the credit then, GGA? This is what optimists are saying. That the economy is doing ok. If it fails Obama killed it, but if it recovers it was always going to recover anyway so why give any credit at all to the man in charge? It's a free goddam market.

George Gervin's Afro
03-03-2009, 03:40 PM
If the patient survives the dosage, the doctor should receive some credit but maybe the patient was already basically healthy.

Who should get the credit then, GGA? This is what optimists are saying. That the economy is doing ok. If it fails Obama killed it, but if it recovers it was always going to recover anyway so why give any credit at all to the man in charge? It's a free goddam market.

If Obama gets the majority of the blame if it goes south then he should get most of the credit when it goes north. The conservtaives on this board don't have any logic in their arguments so I wanted to see if anyone would answer the question.COnservatives want to have it both ways. Obama gets all of the blame and zero credit.. Nice being a conservatiuve huh?

ChumpDumper
03-03-2009, 03:41 PM
The market continues to tank because the news is still coming about just how bad this economy has become. There is an enormous amount of irrational behavior from investors just as there was during the bubble -- it's just working in the opposite direction now.

Consumer spending actually increased in January, probably because prices had fallen to a point where folks thought they could afford whatever they got. It will probably go down again since more jobs are being cut and Americans are actually starting to save more money now. Investors and businesses are now sitting on their money because they are afraid. They didn't and don't need Obama to be afraid -- but Republicans need to shift the blame onto him if they can for political advantage. It's all they have now, so fear mongering is once again the order of the day.

George Gervin's Afro
03-03-2009, 03:42 PM
The market continues to tank because the news is still coming about just how bad this economy has become. There is an enormous amount of irrational behavior from investors just as there was during the bubble -- it's just working in the opposite direction now.

Consumer spending actually increased in January, probably because prices had fallen to a point where folks thought they could afford whatever they got. It will probably go down again since more jobs are being cut and Americans are actually starting to save more money now. Investors and businesses are now sitting on their money because they are afraid. They didn't and don't need Obama to be afraid -- but Republicans need to shift the blame onto him if they can for political advantage. It's all they have now, so fear mongering is once again the order of the day.

No! Conservatives are against fear mongering..!

Winehole23
03-03-2009, 03:47 PM
COnservatives want to have it both ways. Obama gets all of the blame and zero credit.. Nice being a conservatiuve huh?USA #1. Ain't it a great country?

I'm serious, it still is.

Ain't you still a fan GGA?

:lobt2:





:toast

Aggie Hoopsfan
03-03-2009, 04:56 PM
You hypocrites, err, liberals on this board blamed Bush the economic problems he inherited when he took office.

So using the same "logic", this is all on Obama.

Now that I gave you an asshole answer to your asshole question, the reality is this: Obama inherited issues, but his policy announcements and his budget unveiled last week have further put the screws to anyone with money in this country.

Instead of being such a bitch with your original post, howabout you tell me what's wrong, if anything, with the article you linked.

Because if you have half a brain and don't get your talking points from CNN or MSNBC, that article is pretty spot on.

Aggie Hoopsfan
03-03-2009, 04:58 PM
It's all they have now, so fear mongering is once again the order of the day.


Damn dude, what happened to you? Republicans are fear mongering because it's all they have, but I suppose you think all of Obama's fear mongering of late and blaming shit on Bush instead of being a leader is just him being a great president, right?

George Gervin's Afro
03-03-2009, 05:00 PM
You hypocrites, err, liberals on this board blamed Bush the economic problems he inherited when he took office.

So using the same "logic", this is all on Obama.

Now that I gave you an asshole answer to your asshole question, the reality is this: Obama inherited issues, but his policy announcements and his budget unveiled last week have further put the screws to anyone with money in this country.

Instead of being such a bitch with your original post, howabout you tell me what's wrong, if anything, with the article you linked.

Because if you have half a brain and don't get your talking points from CNN or MSNBC, that article is pretty spot on.



The Obama Economy
As the Dow keeps dropping, the President is running out of people to blame.Article


How about the title to the article? Why don't we start there? So according to you this isn't necessarily Obama's economy nor is he actually blaming anybody.. So is it Obama's economy or not? Is he blaming anyone or not?

coyotes_geek
03-03-2009, 05:01 PM
republicans = democrats = fear mongers

ChumpDumper
03-03-2009, 05:02 PM
Damn dude, what happened to you? Republicans are fear mongering because it's all they have, but I suppose you think all of Obama's fear mongering of late and blaming shit on Bush instead of being a leader is just him being a great president, right?He is implementing his policies -- right or wrong -- so I don't know what else he is supposed to do in that respect.

What else should he be doing?

Republicans can't do anything policywise because they got so badly beaten in November. When a party is out of power, what else can they do but complain about the party in power? Democrats did this when they were out of power, and it worked for them -- and Republicans complained about it while implementing their agenda. The roles are merely reversed now.

doobs
03-03-2009, 05:03 PM
No. Obama does not bear sole responsibility for the stock market plunge. So what?

He does bear sole responsibility for part of the stock market plunge, however.

Winehole23
03-03-2009, 05:03 PM
What else should he be doing?Exactly what the GOP wants. That would be the bipartisan thing to do.

LockBeard
03-03-2009, 05:04 PM
I've already said my peace on this subject.

All I will say now is...

Good luck reaching a 2nd term if you keep rapidly pushing your far-left liberal agenda during these shitty economic times Mr. Obama.

And Good luck GOP finding a candidate worth a damn not named Romney, Palin, or Huckabee. Jesus Christ. Maybe you don't need luck reaching that 2nd term after all Mr. Obama :depressed

101A
03-03-2009, 05:05 PM
I just want to get the conservatives of this board on record? Does Obama bear sole responsibility for the Stock Market Plunge?

No.

AntiChrist
03-03-2009, 05:05 PM
George W. Bush is the sole cause of all the world's ills, including this fucked up economy that I inherited.


Reagan was wrong. Government is not the problem, government is the solution.


I'll show all you mofo's that I can turn this thing around. I'll make this economy my bitch. You wait and see.

George Gervin's Afro
03-03-2009, 05:08 PM
You hypocrites, err, liberals on this board blamed Bush the economic problems he inherited when he took office.

So using the same "logic", this is all on Obama.

Now that I gave you an asshole answer to your asshole question, the reality is this: Obama inherited issues, but his policy announcements and his budget unveiled last week have further put the screws to anyone with money in this country.

Instead of being such a bitch with your original post, howabout you tell me what's wrong, if anything, with the article you linked.

Because if you have half a brain and don't get your talking points from CNN or MSNBC, that article is pretty spot on.



The document was a declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy.

Rasing taxes is a hostile action now?

Winehole23
03-03-2009, 05:08 PM
George W. Bush is the sole cause of all the world's ills, including this fucked up economy that I inherited.


Reagan was wrong. Government is not the problem, government is the solution.


I'll show all you mofo's that I can turn this thing around. I'll make this economy my bitch. You wait and see.Better, but needs improvement. Signs of characterization are present, but the style is still mechanical. B-minus aptitude is awarded.

George Gervin's Afro
03-03-2009, 05:12 PM
You hypocrites, err, liberals on this board blamed Bush the economic problems he inherited when he took office.

So using the same "logic", this is all on Obama.

Now that I gave you an asshole answer to your asshole question, the reality is this: Obama inherited issues, but his policy announcements and his budget unveiled last week have further put the screws to anyone with money in this country.

Instead of being such a bitch with your original post, howabout you tell me what's wrong, if anything, with the article you linked.

Because if you have half a brain and don't get your talking points from CNN or MSNBC, that article is pretty spot on.


Perhaps they're reading the polls and figure they have two or three years before voters stop blaming Republicans and Mr. Bush for the economy.

So bringing up the notion that he inherited a recession is blaimg someone else for the recession?

baseline bum
03-03-2009, 05:18 PM
And Good luck GOP finding a candidate worth a damn not named Romney, Palin, or Huckabee. Jesus Christ.

Christ vs. Anti-Christ would be a pretty good race.

Winehole23
03-03-2009, 05:21 PM
So bringing up the notion that he inherited a recession is blaimg someone else for the recession?Yes it is and it's much resented. It's gonna be fun blaming everything on somebody besides Bill Clinton.

AntiChrist
03-03-2009, 05:24 PM
Bush started this fire.


I'm just adding a little gasoline.

Winehole23
03-03-2009, 05:26 PM
Bush started this fire.


I'm just adding a little gasoline.:wow

LockBeard
03-03-2009, 06:00 PM
Bu bu bu bu but....

My president has a Harvard degree! That means he is smart and will fix problems regardless of the agenda he is passing...

No?

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao


I'm starting to think a state university journalism major who had any real world COMMON FUCKING SENSE could do a better job. :wakeup


These times are awesome. The people are about to get a great lesson on why some ideas don't really work in the real world. And not being able to just print money to cover up the ill effects? Another awesome truth in our reality.

ChumpDumper
03-03-2009, 06:01 PM
My president has a Harvard degree!You talking about Bush?

Winehole23
03-03-2009, 06:16 PM
Heh heh.

Nbadan
03-03-2009, 07:52 PM
Pffffffff.........the do-nothing Congress and Bush policies put the economy in this shithole and Obama is supposed to fix that disaster in 3 months? dumbass...

Bartleby
03-03-2009, 07:56 PM
I'm starting to think a state university journalism major who had any real world COMMON FUCKING SENSE could do a better job. :wakeup

I had a suspicion LockBeard=Whottt. The Palin infatuation is a dead giveaway.

ChumpDumper
03-03-2009, 07:57 PM
whottt has no reason to hide behind a different screen name.

It's obviously me.

Nbadan
03-03-2009, 08:08 PM
I smell a conspiracy - it's TimVP!

Nbadan
03-03-2009, 08:40 PM
The Obama economy...


05io7d7FM-w

...according to the wing-nut pundits.

LockBeard
03-04-2009, 12:47 AM
I had a suspicion LockBeard=Whottt. The Palin infatuation is a dead giveaway.

You remember how all these losers bashed Palin on her degree compared to Ivy League Obama? Palin was much too common for these losers who would rather worship their media driven golden idol.

Common fucking sense + doing what is best for the country > Ivy League Degree with a traitorous agenda

ChumpDumper
03-04-2009, 01:21 AM
The hyperbole train just pulled into the station.

So LockBeard hates America.

101A
03-04-2009, 09:59 AM
Bu bu bu bu but....

My president has a Harvard degree! That means he is smart and will fix problems regardless of the agenda he is passing...

No?

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao


I'm starting to think a state university journalism major who had any real world COMMON FUCKING SENSE could do a better job. :wakeup


These times are awesome. The people are about to get a great lesson on why some ideas don't really work in the real world. And not being able to just print money to cover up the ill effects? Another awesome truth in our reality.


No Social Progam ever conceived or implemented in this country has delivered on its promise. They all do less and cost more than their original authors/designers/proponents promised they would. Actual evidence is meaningless. Intentions and promises are all that matter. Don't for a moment think that when Obama's plans don't work - that the cost of healthcare does not come down - that more jobs are not created, etc....that there won't be more in line right behind him promising to do more of the exact same thing; and berating anyone as a cold-hearted bastard who dares question them.

Winehole23
03-04-2009, 10:13 AM
berating anyone as a cold-hearted bastard who dares question them.It's more a point of guile than analysis to say so IMO.

The GOP said something very similar about the Dems in 2004, not that that excuses anything; it only underlines the tit-for-tat, mechanical nature of retail politics.

Aggie Hoopsfan
03-04-2009, 12:22 PM
The Obama economy...


05io7d7FM-w

...according to the wing-nut pundits.

:lol the resident wing-nut calling anyone else a wing-nut.

Aggie Hoopsfan
03-04-2009, 12:26 PM
How about the title to the article? Why don't we start there? So according to you this isn't necessarily Obama's economy nor is he actually blaming anybody.. So is it Obama's economy or not? Is he blaming anyone or not?

Again, what's wrong about the article? What's wrong about the article title?

So far all we're hearing out of Team Obama is that this all the fault of some combination of the Bush Administration, Rush Limbaugh, Jim Cramer, etc.

50% of the households in this country own stocks in some form (either directly or through a 401k), and Obama and Gibbs are up there saying they don't care about them.


Rasing taxes is a hostile action now?

In a recession? Fuck yes, it's stupid. We all get 13 a week or whatever, but you'd have to be an idiot or drinking some serious Obama koolaid to think all the tax and spend carbon tax warfare costs won't be passed on to you and me as the consumers.

Aggie Hoopsfan
03-04-2009, 12:26 PM
He is implementing his policies -- right or wrong -- so I don't know what else he is supposed to do in that respect.

What else should he be doing?

Republicans can't do anything policywise because they got so badly beaten in November. When a party is out of power, what else can they do but complain about the party in power? Democrats did this when they were out of power, and it worked for them -- and Republicans complained about it while implementing their agenda. The roles are merely reversed now.

That's not what I asked. Are you happy with the Obama administration's policies and direction on our economy?

word
03-04-2009, 01:02 PM
I just want to get the conservatives of this board on record? Does Obama bear sole responsibility for the Stock Market Plunge?

I have a feeling we won't get any of the hypocrites err rather conservatives on this board to answer a simple yes or no question.

No one bears it all, but the groundwork was laid for this under Clinton and a republican congress. It lay more on their heads than either Bush or Obama.

It's too late now...who is responsible is irrelevent now. I don't agree with Obamas vision or remedies.

I'm PO'd at Bush and the congress for knowing this was looming as a disaster and did nothing.

But, we had to put people in their own homes. Sounds great on the surface but...they couldn't afford them. I say, hit the F'in streets dumbass's. I didn't buy as much home as I could have, I bought a home I could afford and paid cash for it with no mortgage. I get have bought 5 times the house I did, but I didn't.

Why do I have to suffer simply because I know how to use a calculator ?