On the Economy...

[Nbadan]

Seems like the important issue in this election is pretty cut and dry......more economic stimulus or more tax-cuts for the rich

On more stimulus...

If you start at the low point in the private-sector job market -- February 2010, which is 31 months ago -- then Obama has presided over the net creation of 4.7 million jobs.

But that means starting the count more than a year after Obama took office, which -- a little too conveniently for the president -- removes all of the job losses from his first year off his ledger.

Another way of doing it would be to start with January 2009, when Obama was sworn in. By this count, the nation has gained a net 514,000 private-sector jobs -- an amount only one-tenth the size of what Obama claimed. However, this method has its drawbacks, because no president can have much impact in the first few months on the job.

A middle-ground position is to start the count at the official beginning of the recovery, which came in June 2009. From June 2009 until today, the nation has gained roughly 3.6 million private-sector jobs. That’s less than Obama claims, but more than the inauguration-day calculation the Romney camp often prefers.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...has-created-5/

Versus..

On more tax cuts for the rich...

On the debt...

The ulative debt of the United States in the fiscal years 2001-2007 was approximately $4.08 trillion, or about 40.8% of the total national debt at the time of that completion of approximately $10.0 trillion...

On household income..

During President Bush's terms, income disparity grew. Median household income has more than kept up with inflation since Bush took control of fiscal policy during the 2001 near-recession, growing 1.6% higher in constant 2007 dollars to $50,233 in 2007 from $49,454 in 2001,[61][62] while poverty rate increased from 11.25% in 2000 to 12.3% in 2006 after peaking at 12.7% in 2004; in 2008 increased to 13.2%.[63]

Under 18 years poverty rate increased from 16.2% in 2000 to 18% in 2007; in 2008 rose to 19%.[64] From 2000-2005, only 4% of workers, typically highly-educated professionals, had real income increases.[65]

There's no business like shady business

A significant driver of economic growth during the Bush administration was home equity extraction, in essence borrowing against the value of the home to finance personal consumption. Free cash used by consumers from equity extraction doubled from $627 billion in 2001 to $1,428 billion in 2005 as the housing bubble built, a total of nearly $5 trillion dollars over the period. Using the home as a source of funds also reduced the net savings rate significantly

Income Inequality..

"the average after-tax income of the richest one percent of households rose from $722,000 in 2003 to $868,000 in 2004, after adjusting for inflation, a one-year increase of nearly $146,000, or 20 percent. This increase was the largest increase in 15 years, measured both in percentage terms and in real dollars."[19]

On corporate taxes

in 2000, 60.8% of the federal taxes collected came from personal and corporate income taxes (i.e. two progressive taxes) whereas only 38.9% came from payroll and excise/customs taxes (i.e. two regressive taxes). This is a ratio of 60.8 to 38.9, with the remaining 0.4% coming from taxes collected from the rest of the world. By 2005, this ratio had changed to 56.4 to 43.1, thus indicating a trend towards a less progressive federal tax system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...administration


How is this race even this close....Stupid people voting against their own self interest....

[Nbadan]

So what about Romney's 5.4 unemployment figure during the debate and the constant 8 percent figure wing-nuts love to associate Obama with?

FACT CHECK: Obama promised a 5.4 percent unemployment rate by now: Romney's claim is based on a report Obama's Council of Economic Advisers prepared before Obama took office. The council predicted that passage of Obama’s stimulus package would prevent unemployment from rising above 8 percent -- a fact Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney cites frequently -- and would bring it down to the mid-5s in the third quarter of 2012.

http://live.boston.com/Event/Live_bl...omney/52176772

Obama's advisors may have been off on their predictions, but that has nothing to do with policy...

[boutons_deux]

america Did Progressive Economic Policy Better Than Europe And Got A Better Recovery

Germany’s insistence that indebted Mediterranean countries cut government spending deepened recessions in those nations. [...]

[The United States Federal Reserve was] far more aggressive than the European Central Bank, quicker to drop interest rates to zero and pump money into the economy, buying government debt and other bonds. Fiscal stimulus — an initial $800 billion package in 2009 followed by about $600 billion in payroll tax cuts and other efforts — was bigger and more sustained than in other advanced countries. Banks in the United States were forced to raise billions in new capital, which allowed them to cope with the turbulent financial markets better than their European peers. [...]

Today, most economists say they believe that these policies provided vital support to the economy. In its most recent World Economic Outlook, published this month, the I.M.F. acknowledged that the fiscal stimulus was probably much more effective at bolstering growth than it had previously allowed.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...better-europe/

[boutons_deux]

Bank of America says housing has 'begun to turn'

For banks, mortgage-making kept profits humming before the financial crisis, then blackened reputations and stamped out earnings when the crisis hit.

Now, the business of mortgage lending is more of a mixed bag.

Bank of America, the country's second-biggest bank, reported Wednesday that mortgage originations jumped over a year ago — up 18 percent to $21 billion. But the mortgage unit still lost money as the bank worked through problem mortgages issued before the crisis.

It's the latest sign that five years after the housing bubble burst, mortgages remain thorny for the banking industry. They still drive revenue, but banks are getting hit with expensive reminders of the risky mortgage lending of last decade, in the form of lawsuits, foreclosures and regulatory headaches.

Bank of America's chief financial officer said Wednesday he thought the housing market had turned, noting that home prices are rising more consistently. His statements echoed what JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, the country's two largest mortgage lenders, suggested last week.

"I think we've clearly begun to turn the corner," Bruce Thompson said in a conference call with reporters to discuss the bank's third-quarter earnings, which beat Wall Street expectations.
Still, Thompson noted that any recovery is tenuous. He said he'd remain "a little bit cautious because there are headwinds out there."

"'It's obviously early in the cycle with home prices moving up," Thompson said. "There are obviously certain questions that remain in the economy with respect to other matters."
http://mobile.sfgate.com/sfchron/db_...l=true#display