Obama's Econmy: Helll in a Hand Basket? with 5.1% Unemployment?

from Daily Kos Site [1]


Trump has made the statement "The country is going to hell in a hand basket." Let's look at the figures? See those little red stumps on the upper graph? That's Bush's Job growth. One is negative. Obama's much better. It's not as good as Clinton's or even Reagan's (see the graph, Clinton blue) but Obama had a much worse economic crisis that he inherited.



From Fact Check.org

Summary

Since President Barack Obama first took office:

• The economy has added nearly 8.4 million jobs — more than six times the number gained under George W. Bush.
• The number of job openings doubled, to a record 5.7 million.
• Nearly 15 million fewer people lack health insurance coverage.
• Corporate profits are at record levels; stock prices have more than doubled.
• However, median household income was down 3 percent as of 2014, and the official poverty rate was 1.6 percentage points higher.
• The rate of home ownership has dropped to the lowest point in nearly half a century.
• The federal debt owed to the public has more than doubled — up 107 percent.[2]

The site lists unemployment ratevatv5.1%,  Job openings up 180%,  Business start ups +19%, business failimgs downm 27%

Even a conservative publication such as the Economist says that "the president's record is a lot better than the woes of America's economy suggests." The article points out that Obama faced the most grim economic conditions since 1933, After detailing failure in comic growth and housing market for most of Obama's two terms only picking up late in second term the articles finds all economic recoveries are slow. This a far cry from hell in a hand basket. Since the article is not lauding him as stupendous or berating him for causing every sill since the great depression, it's probably a fairly objective appraisal. [3]

Sources

all sources accessed 2/26/16
[1] Jon Perr, "Obama Has Created Six Times As Many Jobs As Bush," Daily Kos Blog, July 6, 2015,
URL: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/6/7/1391360/-Obama-has-created-six-times-as-many-jobs-as-Bush

[2] Brooks Jackson, "Obama's Numbers (October, 2015)," Fact check .org, Posted on October 6, 2015 , blog URL http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/obamas-numbers-october-2015-update/
Trump's statement was that same month.

[3]  Editor, "End of Term Report,"  The Economist, Sep 2012, online URL:
http://www.economist.com/node/21561909

My Take on the Debate

 


When I was in high school and college debate we had a saying, used at both levels, "who won on the flow?" "The flow" refers to the flow sheet, the legal pads almost all debaters use upon which we would take a special kind of notes designed to getting down everything in that debate format. The reason we distinguished between winning 'on the flow' and 'on the ballot' is becuase there's a disparity. Often we would win the issues according logic an evidence and lose because the judge was not a debater, didn't understand what we were talking about, and would vote on whatever extraneous factor she find, like who was most handsome or the color of a tie. In the Presidential debates last night it seems the spin doctors and the press are saying Romney won. I supposed he may have won on the ballot but he didn't win on the flow.

I think what happened is most people expected Obama to put Romney away. Romney has said some stupid things (we forget the 47% quote was a candied shot after an event--he didn't say it to the public and he's not stupid, he's not going to say that in the debate!). When he came out, spoke well, smiled, looked confidence and knew how many beans make five, it seemed like he's winning. Obama looked tried and apprehensive. That make him look frustrted and being frustrated make it seem he's losing. I felt he was thinking "this misconception of Rowney's is too complicated to explain here." So in other words I don't believe Obama lost, but he looked like he was losing.

Are we going to let little extraneous factors determine the outcome? Are we voting who tie we like the best? Probably. Hey I still content that's why Reagan won. I suggest we nominate David Letterman, I like his ties. The trust of it is Obama did not put Romney away even on the issues. I never thought Romeny was a fool. He's an opportunist and will be much more likely to side with the right than the left. The few reasonable seeming things he did as governor or Massachusetts were probably due to the fact that the legislature was overwhelmingly Democrat. Actually, I have to admit I don't think Romney lost all that badly on the flow (on the issues). I do think he lost, but it was close. It was the closeness that makes people just feel Obama lost. If in fact people feel that. So far I have sen a lot pundits telling me how I feel but little evidence of how people really feel.

One problem that made debating the issues difficult is that Romney's basic ideology is republican trickle down theory. That means that they automatically equate saved money for the rich with stimulus and investment that creates jobs, they don't equate it with lack of revenue. So all of the Republican nominee's estimates about what he will cover, what he will do, how he will pay for things he's assuming something that has never worked out historically. For example in the 80s Regan tax cuts for Steel industry were not spent on updating plants, they were spent investing in oil; this gave the inverter profits but created few jobs. Another assumption Romney made is that 'green energy' doesn't produce jobs, which it does. At several points he kept saying how much money Obama was wasting investing in green energy. He knows the average voter doesn't know about the multiplier effect and doesn't trust green energy, and doesn't see the necessity of it. Romney stated flatly "I'm interested in clean coal." Clean coal doesn't' exist. It requires every expensive scrubbers to clean it an those are not mandated so they don't have to use them. They are cost prohibitive so they wont install them. Coal is the most polluting form of energy. The first study to quantify deaths from pollution was largely quantifying coal pollution, that was the Leave and Suskin study of the early 70s. Yet Obama seemed too tired to answer this so he let it go with minimal defense of green energy as a choice.Americans have been groomed by Republican administrations not to trust global warming senierios so he President was probably leery of getting bogged down in a  debate about that.

Another point at which I feel Obama won on the flow was about raising revenue. At one point Romney said "I will not raise taxes on high income" he also said he would not raise taxes middle income. He kept saying they would pay for programs by not spending differently, obviously he means cutting social programs. Obama did talk about they wont have the revenue and the elderly will be on the street. Romney asserts his play will grow the economy and we will have revenue because wee will be creating jobs and the economy will be growing. That's a good dream on paper but what if it works like he Regan tax cuts which allowed the rust belt to determinate and put steel industry out of business? Historically that's what happens when you cuts taxes for the right, they do not create jobs they invest in non labor intensive profit making ventures. Obama did allude tot his but he didn't clarify. Yet he did npoint out the capital short fall. He pointed out the Romey voucher program will cost the average elderly person six thousnd dollars years in permiums and medicine and repealling the health care reform will take away the cheap meds for the elderly. Romney did not respond.

Another area where Obama won hands down was the issue of leaving medicaid to the states. That will be a total disaster. Romney's answer indicates he doesn't understand the issue. He talks about how the states want that. He indicates that because that's what the states would prefur that means they will do a better job. It doesn't dawn on him (or does it?) the reason they want it is because it will enable them to put that money in other things they can't pay for now and cut befits to the poor and elderly. The states with Republican governors are the reason the stimulus package didn't work. They spent the money on things already being done that they couldn't pay for. What would change that with Romney? Especially since he so enthusiastic about leaving it tot he states. Obama pointed this out but he didn't point out that in the sixties the state administration was one of the major means of circumventing the war on poverty. then you have places like Texas where they have raised raiding the funds to an art form. Perry is now in a suit where a state legislator is charging that he took from the education fund to pay for other things, and denuded state education. We know that will happen again. So leaving it to the states is a disaster.

The horror that awaits us from a Romney administration is clear, but in last nights debate it was well disguise beneath a confident smile, affable manner, and competent seeming air. I still think this was all just window dressing and if one studies Romney's answers one sees it's not pretty what he's leading us into. Obama won on the flow and we should understand and take it seriously.

I am in the wrong 47%

 

I am a victim and I'm entitled. I'm largely a victim of my own stupidity and I'm entitled to all the rights granted in the bill of rights. I don't see why everyone should not be entitled to or granted the basic right to food, medicine, shelter, and safety. Why should I deny myself what I am willing to grant others? 

The major mistake made by the Obama 47 is that they are too obstinate to ask their parents for money. If they would barrow that money form their parents no one would be poor. The economy is still bad and people are still hurting but things are going to pick up in the next couple of years. On ABC News today they talked about five million jobs will be added to the economy in the next two years. Here are a couple of other sources that echo that news.



 White planes

America's economy will continue its recovery this year and next as it adds nearly 5 million jobs and unemployment falls below 8 percent, say University of Michigan economists.
"The performance of the U.S. economy during much of 2011 did nothing to alter the perception that we were mired in a sluggish recovery," said U-M economist Joan Crary. "Indeed, by late summer economists were considering the likelihood of a double-dip recession.
"The economy regained some momentum during the fall, however, with the closing quarter registering some of the best economic readings of the year. Although the economy is growing at a subpar rate to begin 2012, we expect the pace of economic activity to accelerate over the next two years as the economic headwinds that have plagued the recovery begin to abate."

In their annual spring forecast update of the U.S. economy, Crary and colleagues Daniil Manaenkov and Matthew Hall say that employment rises at a moderate pace, consumer spending increases, the housing market picks up, vehicle sales improve and inflation remains in check in 2012 and 2013.
They predict that payroll employment will rise by 2.5 million jobs during 2012 and 2.3 million during 2013, an average of 200,000 jobs per month.

 Obama can't take all the credit because part of it is due to lower energy prices due to the boom in natural gas mined form shale (such the boom in gas drilling in Ft. Worth). Lower energy prices have contributed to boom in productivity and thus in sexpots, according to Scot Malone. (Boston, Reuters). Neither can he take all the blame. The stimulus packed did help and Republicans are holding the jobs bill back and thus negating a million Job increase that would come from that (Daily Kos)

A year ago today, Republicans began blocking the passage of the American Jobs Act. This is not a happy anniversary. Without Republican obstruction, the very jobs report that Republicans are crowing about as proof of the President's failings would instead show an increase in hiring and GDP.

On September 8, 2011..........President Obama laid out a series of policy proposals known collectively as the American Jobs Act. The plan included stimulus spending in the form of immediate infrastructure investments, tax credits for working Americans and employers to encourage consumer spending and job growth, and efforts to shore up state and local budgets to prevent further layoffs of teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public safety officials. The American Jobs Act never became law....because Republicans opposed it from the start, blasting it as another form of “failed stimulus” that wouldn’t help the economy. (They ignored the fact that the first “failed stimulus,” the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, wasn’t a failure at all.) One month later, the GOP blocked the bill in the Senate, preventing the creation of more than a million jobs and the added growth that multiple economists predicted would occur if the bill passed:
    –Moody’s Analytics estimated the American Jobs Act would create 1.9 million jobs and add two percent to gross domestic product.
    –The Economic Policy Institute estimated it would create 2.6 million jobs and protect an addition 1.6 million existing jobs.
    –Macroeconomic Advisers predicted it would create 2.1 million jobs and boost GDP by 1.5 percent.
    –Goldman Sachs estimated it would add 1.5 percent to GDP.

How Do Taxes Figure in the Comming Campaign?

Romney's tax return has become an issue. The charge that may have committed a felony by retroactively retiring form a company that he continued working for at the time, and thus made conflict of interest, hasn't escaped the notice of either his enemies or his friends. Both side urge him to resale his tax returns.

What about the way taxes figure into the campaign as an issue? The Obama campaign outlines their position thus:

Info please

Budget/Deficit/Taxes

• Will focus on continuing to stimulate the economy by creating new jobs and investing in health care, education, energy, and infrastructure
• Increase alternative energy production, modernize and weatherize buildings and homes, expand broadband technology, and computerize the health care system. Obama has said these measures will create some 3.5 million jobs
• Supports the Making Home Affordable Modification program to prevent foreclosures and the Making Home Affordable Refinancing program to restructure loans to keep people in their homes
• Has demanded accountability and transparency from banks and other financial institutions
• Plans to create a financial regulatory system that makes executives in the financial market accountable for their actions and prevents fraud
• Will work to make the tax system more fair to working families and the middle class and eliminate loopholes that benefit the wealthy
• Has promised to simplify the tax code

Read more: Barack Obama: Campaign Issues — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/presidential-campaign-2012-obama-issues.html#ixzz21GX9tJRF

Romney Campaign (Ibid)

Budget/Deficit/Taxes

• Criticizes the Obama spending bill, saying it will only stimulate the government, not the economy.
• Believes a well-crafted stimulus plan is needed to put people back to work and that permanent tax cuts should be at the center of the stimulus plan.
• Believes in the principle behind Reaganomics: cutting taxes brings economic growth.
• Supports a budget that cuts payroll taxes for people aged sixty-five and older as well as cutting taxes on people earning less than $200,000 a year, including reducing taxes on savings and investment.
• Supports a national catastrophic fund to cover home owners insurance in the event of natural disasters like hurricanes and tornadoes.
• Opposes the estate tax.
• Believes only private sector entrepreneurs will create the millions of jobs that the U.S. needs.
• Endorses eliminating the minimum wage.
• For placing sanctions on China.
• Wants to cut the corporate tax rate.

Read more: Mitt Romney: Campaign Issues — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/presidential-campaign-2012-mitt-romney-issues.html#ixzz21GXZGdmk

Granted this is the public face each side puts on so the voter will get an idealized view of them in their sundae best all clean and antiseptic so one might vote for them.

What's the real difference? Obama wants to use taxes structures to stimulate the economy but Romney claims this will only help government. The Republicans argue that private sector is more productive and doesn't evoke huge government spending. When Republicans have given their blessing to tax cuts for private industry the private industry doesn't spend the money on labor intensive projects. When Reagan made tax cuts so the steel industry would modernize they invested in oil and other less labor intensive things and did not modernize their industry and we continued to decay into the rust belt and couldn't compete in steel. (see also)

Populist Daily
Sat July 21,2012

Ronald Reagan cut taxes in the belief that doing so would stimulate the economy several times more than the cost of the tax cuts. It is something like this (and it sounds…sounds…logical): if we cut the amount of money you pay to the government (taxes) then you will have more to spend. The more you make, the more you save in taxes and the more you have to spend or invest. More spending and investment will boost the economy several times more than the cost of those tax cuts to the government.

Well, it sounds great but we all know now that it did not work. Studies by the Congressional Budget Office showed that the most that the government (that is, us taxpayers) could expect to get back in return was about 20% of the money that the government lost.

The result of those mixed up economics was a continuing deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars a year up until Bill Clinton was able to stem it and balance the budget in the last three years of his eight years as President. But by then the national debt was $5.6 trillion dollars! Then, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney took it to $12 trillion in just 8 years, relying on the advice of the same economists who had incorrectly guided Reagan and Bush’s father.

American productivity has continued to rise but the American middle class has not benefited from it.

While some think "if public sector stimulates works why didn't the stimulus package do any good?" Why did the economy continue down hill? It's been reported that the stimulus package did create a couple of million jobs. The problem we continued to lose more than that. Things would have been much worse without the package, it's hard to see that because they they still got bad. It would have been much worse without it.

If you look at Rowney's no 2 point you see it reads basically like Obama's no 1. Neither list is really is saying anything at that point. What are they calling "well crafted?"

Obama wants to extend Bush Tax cuts to middle class and not the super rich.

CNN Politics
July 9, 2012

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama revitalized his push for holding down middle-class tax rates Monday, calling on Congress to pass a one-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for people earning less than $250,000 a year.

In a White House statement delivered while people described as working Americans stood behind him, Obama said his proposal would provide the certainty of no tax increase next year for 98% of Americans.

Noting that Republicans seek to maintain all of the Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, Obama said both sides therefore agree on extending the lower rates for middle-class families.

click on link to see video

A Romney Campaign official is quoted as saying:

"President Obama's response to even more bad economic news is a massive tax increase," said Andrea Saul, the Romney campaign's spokeswoman. "It just proves again that the president doesn't have a clue how to get America working again and help the middle class."

Unlike Obama, Saul continued, Romney "understands that the last thing we need to do in this economy is raise taxes on anyone." (ibid)

Don't raise taxes on anyone is the Republican euphemism for "let the 1% get richer." This relates back to what we said above. They want you to believe that if they don't tax the rich the rich will spend the money on labor intesive probject and crate jobs. They constantly speak as though right wing rich guys know all about job creation. As we have seen what really happens is they invest the money overseas where it doesn't create American jobs.

The republicans charge that Obama's tax program will harm small businesses the truth is "Obama, however, said that under his proposal, 97% of the nation's small business owners would benefit from having their lower tax rates maintained at current levels.'This isn't about taxing job creators," Obama said. "This is about helping job creators.'" (ibid)

Court Upholds Obama's Health CARE

Out USA News

ABC News

By MATT NEGRIN (@MattNegrin) AND ARIANE DE VOGUE (@Arianedevogue)

June 28, 2012

In a landmark ruling with wide-ranging implications, the Supreme Court today upheld the so-called individual mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, the key part of President Obama's signature health care law.

The court ruled that the mandate is unconstitutional under the Constitution's commerce clause, but it can stay as part of Congress's power under a taxing clause. The court said that the government will be allowed to tax people for not having health insurance.

"The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the ruling. "Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness."

The ruling is a victory for the Obama administration and a defeat for Republicans, who had anticipated that at least some of the law would be struck down. But it also means the debate will continue.

"It actually settles nothing. By shifting the debate to the tax arena, and with a four-justice dissent, the decision guarantees only that the broader fight over a suitable national health policy will continue," said Richard Saltman, a professor at the Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University. "In effect, the court decided this was too hot to handle. The focus will (has already) shift back to the political arena, where a deeply divided electorate will have to decide which policy path they want the country to pursue."

Bristal Palin and Nucelar War

Bristol Palin did not do well on Dancing with the starts, She said "if I had won that really would have shown all the people who hate my mom." O yes, if she has won I would really have to re think my whole idea of Sarah Palin. I'm still longing to see my Hollywood dream couple win dancing with the stars, Lucy Recardo and Bullwinkle.


So we are about to have a Korean missile crisis. This will truly test Obama's metal. I Have no idea what should be done but I'm scared. I am scared in the say David Cosby said he was at Woodstock. That is something-less, something brown and muckyless. The North Koreans are nuts you know. That's about par for the course now days. They are the Taliban, the Tea party, with Nuclear weapons.