PDA

View Full Version : Obama's comments on the economy.....



Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-05-2014, 09:26 PM
are all over the news here.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2014/12/RawChange.png&w=1484

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-05-2014, 09:27 PM
Our top level economists are being quite complimentary, and happy that we are positioned with a weaker dollar as the US economy starts to take off.

I suppose this is all because of republican leadership. LOLOLOLOL

Cuyahoga Chuck
12-06-2014, 02:14 AM
It don't matter that the jobs picture is improoving and that the unemployment rate is 5.8%. It's all about Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi.

John Smith
12-06-2014, 09:29 AM
More of Obama's failed policies.

George Jung
12-06-2014, 09:42 AM
Damn.... where are the yahoos on this one? Don't recall seeing 'speechless' from that mob before... but I like it!

Bubba L.
12-06-2014, 09:50 AM
Damn.... where are the yahoos on this one? Don't recall seeing 'speechless' from that mob before... but I like it!

Still celebrating their landslide, upset, mandate from the people I guess.

Gene

Too Little Time
12-06-2014, 12:02 PM
Damn.... where are the yahoos on this one? Don't recall seeing 'speechless' from that mob before... but I like it!

I have been called one of the yahoos. At least I think that was the intent.

I posted a couple links from the Wall Street Journal. One had 4 graphs that indicate life is not all that good. The other making a claim that at the current rate it will take "4 more years" (great campaign slogan) for the economy to recover.

Today there was a piece saying that wage increases for workers were primarily for those in supervisory positions. Not really good news for the majority of workers.

John Smith
12-06-2014, 12:35 PM
It's far from what we'd like, but it's far better than what we had. Working wages are still stagnant, but not as stagnant as they have been.

I think the important thing, as pointed out elsewhere, is how this country has fared since 2009 compared to other countries. We've done much better.

More failed policies have led to great improvements. We'd all love greater improvements. Given the total lack of support from the other party, Obama's record, IMO, is quite remarkable.

Too Little Time
12-06-2014, 01:50 PM
It's far from what we'd like, but it's far better than what we had. Working wages are still stagnant, but not as stagnant as they have been.

I think the important thing, as pointed out elsewhere, is how this country has fared since 2009 compared to other countries. We've done much better.


From the radio I gather the Wall Street Journal had an article about a recent study. Middle class - $18-95K of income. Little to no improvement.

Considering that the top 10% has improved a great deal. It seems that it might be better to compare the middle and rich of this country to each other than to compare this country to other countries. But I will allow you you choice.

hokiefan
12-06-2014, 02:18 PM
From the radio I gather the Wall Street Journal had an article about a recent study. Middle class - $18-95K of income. Little to no improvement.

Considering that the top 10% has improved a great deal. It seems that it might be better to compare the middle and rich of this country to each other than to compare this country to other countries. But I will allow you you choice.

Try imagining how much better things could have been without the ignorant Republicans in the House and Senate trying to cut spending at the worst possible time, and then shutting down the government, which wasted $24B in additional costs by the way. What if they had allowed some moderate stimulus in terms of infrastructure repair, which we really need by the way. No, they did everything in their power to make things worse with the intent of blaming the resultant slow recovery on Obama. Miserable creatures one and all...

Cheers,

Bobby

John Smith
12-06-2014, 02:30 PM
From the radio I gather the Wall Street Journal had an article about a recent study. Middle class - $18-95K of income. Little to no improvement.

Considering that the top 10% has improved a great deal. It seems that it might be better to compare the middle and rich of this country to each other than to compare this country to other countries. But I will allow you you choice.

We all know this. We'd all like better jobs. That said, compared to the rest of the world, our recovery from 2009 has been very good. Compared to Republican presidents it's been good.

That's not to say it is where I would want it to be. It seems obvious, however, that we have fared better than other nations and are doing, I think, remarkably well considering the GOP did nothing but obstruct.

Imagine if they had been willing to help.

George Jung
12-06-2014, 03:23 PM
Try imagining how much better things could have been without the ignorant Republicans in the House and Senate trying to cut spending at the worst possible time, and then shutting down the government, which wasted $24B in additional costs by the way. What if they had allowed some moderate stimulus in terms of infrastructure repair, which we really need by the way. No, they did everything in their power to make things worse with the intent of blaming the resultant slow recovery on Obama. Miserable creatures one and all...

Cheers,

Bobby


Bingo

Too Little Time
12-06-2014, 03:30 PM
Try imagining how much better things could have been ...


It seems obvious, however, that we have fared better than other nations ...

Imagine if they had been willing to help.

It is amazing how people think doubling the disparity between the rich and everyone else is good.

hokiefan
12-06-2014, 03:47 PM
It is amazing how people think doubling the disparity between the rich and everyone else is good.

Don't even try to pretend the Republicans did anything to slow that disparity growth, or give a rats a$$ for that matter.

Bobby

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-06-2014, 06:34 PM
The comments from economists up here have been the USA was hit much harder than a lot of nations in the downturn, and that Obama inherited a much bigger mess. They are impressed with the numbers, given where America was in 2008.

Keith Wilson
12-06-2014, 06:37 PM
It is amazing how people think doubling the disparity between the rich and everyone else is good.It is. Someone should tell the Paul Ryan and the American right wing that increasing inequality is not a good thing.

Tom Montgomery
12-06-2014, 06:39 PM
Oppose trade unions and collective bargaining and then weep for the disappearing middle class.

American political conservatives do not have a clue.

S.V. Airlie
12-06-2014, 06:48 PM
How many are minimum paying jobs?
Is WalMart a bigger employer?

jack grebe
12-06-2014, 06:57 PM
How many are minimum paying jobs?
Is WalMart a bigger employer?

Don't matter Jamie.......they're raising minimum wage.............

Like kids at the playground, stand around and point fingers at
the kids that don't see things your way.

How many of the 3 remaining Obama supporters would support
a Republican Prez?............Not a f*ckin one


Fight nice kids

S.V. Airlie
12-06-2014, 07:00 PM
When all of them do!! States that is. And waiters?

CWSmith
12-06-2014, 07:04 PM
More of Obama's failed policies.

His failed policy is his inability to convince the American voter of his successes. It baffles me.

jack grebe
12-06-2014, 07:10 PM
His failed policy is his inability to convince the American voter of his successes. It baffles me.

What baffles me is how health care reform.......pre election, became insurance reform, post election

Chris Coose
12-06-2014, 07:16 PM
Imagine if Palin and McCain had been elected?

Keith Wilson
12-06-2014, 07:30 PM
. . . how health care reform.......pre election, became insurance reform, post electionThe art of the possible, and a perfect example of vested interests. It was hard enough to pass plausible health care reform while retaining private insurance. It would have been nearly impossible otherwise. When those in charge of a major industry know that most of their business will disappear with a proposed change in the law, they do not have much incentive to cooperate, and will spare no effort or expense in opposing it. And the Radical Republicans (plus some folks like our friend Sky Blue who should really know better) already think the fairly modest reforms we got are a little worse than the Black Death and a little better than the Massacre of the Innocents; what would they think of real socialized medicine?

Too Little Time
12-06-2014, 07:39 PM
It is. Someone should tell the Paul Ryan and the American right wing that increasing inequality is not a good thing.

Both parties have increased the wealth of the rich hoping that would help the poor. They have been wrong.

There are a lot of old ideas in both parties. The disparity has gotten so large that those ideas will not resolve the problems.

Bubba L.
12-06-2014, 07:50 PM
I have been called one of the yahoos. At least I think that was the intent.

I posted a couple links from the Wall Street Journal. One had 4 graphs that indicate life is not all that good. The other making a claim that at the current rate it will take "4 more years" (great campaign slogan) for the economy to recover.

Today there was a piece saying that wage increases for workers were primarily for those in supervisory positions. Not really good news for the majority of workers.

Just think about how much better off we would be if the right wingers had helped rather than hindered Obama in his efforts to improve things?

Gene

Too Little Time
12-06-2014, 08:01 PM
The art of the possible, and a perfect example of vested interests. It was hard enough to pass plausible health care reform while retaining private insurance. It would have been nearly impossible otherwise. When those in charge of a major industry know that most of their business will disappear with a proposed change in the law, they do not have much incentive to cooperate, and will spare no effort or expense in opposing it. And the Radical Republicans (plus some folks like our friend Sky Blue who should really know better) already think the fairly modest reforms we got are a little worse than the Black Death and a little better than the Massacre of the Innocents; what would they think of real socialized medicine?

Several times I have asked people when it comes to pass who pays the single payer. No one ever offered a suggestion. I suspect most people want those who are less well of than themselves to pay at least some. That is true regardless of party.

Everyone even those who want "change" don't want change. At least not in the sense of improving the lot of the poor.

John Smith
12-06-2014, 08:32 PM
It is amazing how people think doubling the disparity between the rich and everyone else is good.

Who's said that?

John Smith
12-06-2014, 08:33 PM
His failed policy is his inability to convince the American voter of his successes. It baffles me.

That's the impact of money without any responsibility to be honest.

John Smith
12-06-2014, 08:34 PM
Both parties have increased the wealth of the rich hoping that would help the poor. They have been wrong.

There are a lot of old ideas in both parties. The disparity has gotten so large that those ideas will not resolve the problems.

But not equally.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-06-2014, 08:36 PM
Disparity is dissipated by social programs that make the playing field level for everyone, especially in areas such as health and education.

John Smith
12-06-2014, 08:37 PM
Several times I have asked people when it comes to pass who pays the single payer. No one ever offered a suggestion. I suspect most people want those who are less well of than themselves to pay at least some. That is true regardless of party.

Everyone even those who want "change" don't want change. At least not in the sense of improving the lot of the poor.

I'm sure many have told you single payer is paid via taxes. Some of us are cognizant that taxpayers/consumers pay for everyone's health insurance. What single payer does is take the middleman's profit out of the equation. It also ends employer based health insurance and gets that obstacle to creating more, better paying, jobs out of the way.

Our employer based healthcare system is an anchor around the neck of industry here.

hokiefan
12-06-2014, 08:54 PM
Several times I have asked people when it comes to pass who pays the single payer. No one ever offered a suggestion. I suspect most people want those who are less well of than themselves to pay at least some. That is true regardless of party.

Everyone even those who want "change" don't want change. At least not in the sense of improving the lot of the poor.

We are already paying far more than enough to cover what our healthcare should cost, given the example of only the entire rest of the civilized world. Basically twice as much as they are paying to cover everybody.

We will certainly have to change where that money goes and how we pay it. Right now a big chunk is paid via taxes to cover Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Another big chunk funnels through our employers to insurance companies. For many that is 20% or more of their total compensation. Ultimately all that money will have to funnel through whatever agency that manages the system, and it will have to come from taxes of some sort. But as a nation we are already paying more than enough. If we did it even close to right we should save significant amounts of money.

Cheers,

Bobby

John Smith
12-06-2014, 09:55 PM
Disparity is dissipated by social programs that make the playing field level for everyone, especially in areas such as health and education.

I don't think an even playing field is possible. The concept I have of the safety net type programs is to put a floor under which no one falls. This floor is supposed to provide them the ability to survive and improve; the bootstraps we want them to pick themselves up by.

As I read countless posts, there seems to be a number of people who don't understand that many people who qualify for these programs ARE employed. People can work full time and still qualify for programs designed to help the poor.

Some of us believe if one works full time one should make sufficient income to neither need or qualify for food stamps or welfare.

One area in in equity is college costs. Only a relative few can borrow the money from mom and dad, as Romney suggested.

John Smith
12-06-2014, 09:57 PM
We are already paying far more than enough to cover what our healthcare should cost, given the example of only the entire rest of the civilized world. Basically twice as much as they are paying to cover everybody.

We will certainly have to change where that money goes and how we pay it. Right now a big chunk is paid via taxes to cover Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Another big chunk funnels through our employers to insurance companies. For many that is 20% or more of their total compensation. Ultimately all that money will have to funnel through whatever agency that manages the system, and it will have to come from taxes of some sort. But as a nation we are already paying more than enough. If we did it even close to right we should save significant amounts of money.

Cheers,

Bobby

And the money that funnels through employers COMES FROM CONSUMERS. The question is whether we prefer paying as consumers or as taxpayers.

slug
12-06-2014, 10:04 PM
Best question is do you prefer to pay for health care once or twice ?

John Smith
12-06-2014, 10:05 PM
Back to the thread topic. Anyone here rather be in any of those countries who haven't been recovering so well?

slug
12-06-2014, 10:08 PM
I'm sure many have told you single payer is paid via taxes. Some of us are cognizant that taxpayers/consumers pay for everyone's health insurance. What single payer does is take the middleman's profit out of the equation. It also ends employer based health insurance and gets that obstacle to creating more, better paying, jobs out of the way.

Our employer based healthcare system is an anchor around the neck of industry here.


In switzerland health care insurance companies are prohibited from making a profit on basic coverage. This basic coverage is mandatory for all citizens. The US should adopt this system.

John Smith
12-06-2014, 10:09 PM
Best question is do you prefer to pay for health care once or twice ?

I'd rather they take it directly from my taxes.

I'd also like to point out: since we've turned 65, neither the wife or I have had a co-pay or deductible. I don't think this has caused us to go to the doctors noticeably more often. I can't say for sure it hasn't, as that's a difficult thing to measure. I can say it sure doesn't seem like we go more often because there's no cost.

slug
12-06-2014, 10:10 PM
Back to the thread topic. Anyone here rather be in any of those countries who haven't been recovering so well?


Yes. In ten years the massive debt that the US took on to create jobs will strangle the economy.

S.V. Airlie
12-06-2014, 10:33 PM
I called my sister on her birthday and wished her Happy Medicare!She laughed and said she loves it. No more paying 1,000 a month for health insurance!

ccmanuals
12-06-2014, 11:09 PM
Yes. In ten years the massive debt that the US took on to create jobs will strangle the economy.

Well, let's put some numbers there and see.

Cost of stimulus, 830 billion.

Cost of two senseless wars, 6 trillion.

slug
12-07-2014, 05:38 AM
Gee...I must be reading the wrong stuff. i Understood that the cost of stimulus was 2.8 trillion ?

John Smith
12-07-2014, 09:26 AM
Yes. In ten years the massive debt that the US took on to create jobs will strangle the economy.

What debt have we taken on to create jobs under Obama? Deficit has shrunk by 2/3.

Massive debt to create the illusion of prosperity was the theme of the Reagan administration.

Today we have a $17 trillion national debt, give or take a little. Exactly what has Obama contributed to that?

John Smith
12-07-2014, 09:27 AM
I called my sister on her birthday and wished her Happy Medicare!She laughed and said she loves it. No more paying 1,000 a month for health insurance!

She will get bombarded with supplemental options. I always found the prescription drug part strange, as you can list your medications and see which available plan covers them best, but your medications can change at any visit to any doctor.

John Smith
12-07-2014, 09:37 AM
Gee...I must be reading the wrong stuff. i Understood that the cost of stimulus was 2.8 trillion ?

You have definitely been ill advised. ALL of the policies/programs/laws initiated by Obama have contributed less than $1 trillion to our debt. The CBO tells use the ACA is SAVING us money. The stimulus which was way under $1 trillion, and a large part was tax cuts, did reverse the job losing and begin 50 plus consecutive months of job growth. He also kept GM and Chrysler in business, along the great many jobs related to them.

Go ahead, do some research. Find out exactly how much of that $17 trillion in debt is the result of Obama's policies, and how much is the result of things he inherited that congress (Republicans) would not let him change.

You do this research honestly, and I think you'll find you have a whole new perspective.

Elsewhere I posted a link to Maddow's show of the other night. She gave an interesting history lesson covering the time from the first Bush presidency to the present, and how each president fared insofar as jobs are concerned. She also compared our recovery since '09 to the recovery in other countries.

When you do your research, please give me a list of Obama's failed policies. Most of what he's managed to get through congress seem to have been quite successful. We've recovered all the jobs lost in the great recession, stock market is booming, gas prices are low, more people have health insurance, insurance companies are making more money, cost of healthcare is rising more slowly than it has in several decades, deficit is shrinking.

And this is failing?

Too Little Time
12-07-2014, 09:43 AM
I'm sure many have told you single payer is paid via taxes. Some of us are cognizant that taxpayers/consumers pay for everyone's health insurance. What single payer does is take the middleman's profit out of the equation. It also ends employer based health insurance and gets that obstacle to creating more, better paying, jobs out of the way.

Our employer based healthcare system is an anchor around the neck of industry here.

My question is: Which tax payers pay for heath care? I think the rich should pay for everyone's health care. But I don't think that is going to go over very well.

I think the other other issues are more complex and may not have the affect that is attributed to them.

slug
12-07-2014, 09:47 AM
Err. Obama took over with 10 trillion and the debt is now 17 trillion.

7 trillion is a lot of money for making jobs.

slug
12-07-2014, 09:49 AM
My question is: Which tax payers pay for heath care? I think the rich should pay for everyone's health care. But I don't think that is going to go over very well.

I think the other other issues are more complex and may not have the affect that is attributed to them.


It makes no difference who pays for health care , the issue is health care inflation.

John Smith
12-07-2014, 10:12 AM
My question is: Which tax payers pay for heath care? I think the rich should pay for everyone's health care. But I don't think that is going to go over very well.

I think the other other issues are more complex and may not have the affect that is attributed to them.

Obviously the wealthier people will be supporting the poorer people. Just as in all other areas.

RodB
12-07-2014, 10:15 AM
Cooked books rubbish... how about the people who stopped looking for work.... ie., "the labor participation rate".... this is the typical "rose colored glasses view" from this administration ... chronically disregarding "all the facts". This administration's "spin" is rampant with deception... as usual.

RodB




How to really turn the economy around.
Government, business and workers need to address values and incentives.

For years, Washington politicians have said that our economy is turning the corner. They said it in 2011, in 2013 and again last week — every time they report a quarter with 4% economic growth (https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm). But each time, the economy has turned sluggish again.
Like most Americans, I am deeply concerned about our weak economic recovery and its effects on millions of families. Opportunity, especially for the young and disadvantaged, is declining. High underemployment (http://www.statista.com/statistics/205240/us-underemployment-rate/) has become our new norm.
The effects (http://www.apa.org/about/gr/issues/socioeconomic/unemployment.aspx) of underemployment are not just economic, they are also social and psychological. Real work is an important part of how we define ourselves. Meaningful work benefits both us and others. Those who lack real jobs often end up (http://theweek.com/article/index/256809/the-mental-anguish-of-the-long-term-unemployed) depressed, addicted or aggressive.
Today, opportunities for such work are not what they should be. We need a different approach, focused less on politics and more on basic principles.
Principled business
First, we need to encourage principled entrepreneurship. Companies should earn profits by creating value for customers and acting with integrity, the opposite of today's rampant cronyism.
Too many businesses focus on getting subsidies and mandates from government rather than creating value for customers. According to George Mason University's Mercatus Center, such favors cost us more than $11,000 (http://mercatus.org/publication/cost-rent-seeking-actual-and-potential-economic-growth) per person in lost GDP every year, a $3.6 trillion economic hit.
Compounding the problem are destructive regulations affecting whether and how business invests and employees work. Federal rules cost America an estimated $1.86 trillion per year, (http://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2014/06/19/the-cure-for-regulation-destabilization/) calculated the Competitive Enterprise Institute. At Koch Industries, we've seen how punitive permitting for large projects creates years of delay, increasing uncertainty and cost. Sometimes projects are canceled and jobs with them. Meanwhile, 30% (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/opinion/why-license-a-florist.html?_r=1) of U.S. employees need government licenses to work. We need a system that rewards those who create real value, not impedes them.


Second, we should eliminate the artificial cost of hiring. Government policies such as Obamacare have given businesses a (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/08/03/public-servants-masters-cia-sentors-privacy-column/13542065/)powerful incentive (http://online.wsj.com/articles/mortimer-zuckerman-the-full-time-scandal-of-part-time-america-1405291652) to hire two part-time people to do one full-time job. This trend was reflected in June's employment data, which included the loss of half a million full-time jobs (http://online.wsj.com/articles/mortimer-zuckerman-the-full-time-scandal-of-part-time-america-1405291652). In 2007, 4.4 million Americans worked part-time jobs because they could not find full-time work. That number now stands at 7.5 million, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/more-americans-are-stuck-in-part-time-work/2014/07/02/2eefaa72-f7e7-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html) up 275,000 in June. "The existence of such a large pool of 'partly unemployed' workers," Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20140331a.htm) said, "is a sign that labor conditions are worse than indicated by the unemployment rate."


Skills AND values
Third, we need to guide many more people into developing skills and values that will enable them to reach their potential. Everyone knows education increases a person's ability (http://www.epi.org/publication/states-education-productivity-growth-foundations/) to create value. But the willingness to work, an essential for success, often has to be taught, too.
When I was growing up, my father had me spend my free time working at unpleasant jobs. Most Americans understand that taking a job and sticking with it, no matter how unpleasant or low-paying, is a vital step toward the American dream. We are in for more trouble if young people don't find that all-important first job, which is critical to beginning their climb up the ladder.
Finally, we need greater incentives to work. Costly programs (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/02/on-labor-day-2013-welfare-pays-more-than-minimum-wage-work-in-35-states/), such as paying able-bodied people (http://dailysignal.com/2012/09/19/food-stamp-participation-doubled-among-able-bodied-adults-after-obama-suspended-work-requirement/) not to work, are addictive disincentives. By undermining people's will to work, our government has created a culture of dependency and hopelessness. This is most unfair to vulnerable citizens who suffer even as we say they are receiving "benefits."
I agree with Dr. Martin Luther King. There are no dead-end jobs. Every job deserves our best. "If a man is called to be a street sweeper," King said (http://www.thekingcenter.org/blog/mlk-quote-week-all-labor-uplifts-humanity-has-dignity-and-importance-and-should-be-undertaken), "he should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, 'Here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.'"
Our government's decades-long, top-down approach to job creation has failed. Its policies have made our problems worse, leaving tens of millions chronically un- or underemployed, millions of whom have given up ever finding meaningful work. In doing so, our government has not only thwarted real job creation, it also has reduced the supply and quality of goods and services that make people's lives better and undermined the culture required to sustain a free society.
When it comes to creating opportunities for all, we can do much better. It's time to let people seek opportunities that best suit their talents, for businesses to forsake cronyism and for government to get out of the way.
Charles Koch, chairman and CEO of Koch Industries, is a donor to libertarian causes.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/08/05/charles-koch-how-to-really-turn-the-economy-around/13643229/

John Smith
12-07-2014, 10:15 AM
Err. Obama took over with 10 trillion and the debt is now 17 trillion.

7 trillion is a lot of money for making jobs.

That is true, but you dodge the question. How much of that debt comes from HIS policies and how much comes from policies already in place that congress wouldn't let him change?

Are you afraid to do that research for fear if you do it you can't blame Obama for Bush's policies? We had a surplus until Bush cut taxes. The Bush started two wars on borrowed money. Then Bush gave us a Medicare Part D on borrowed money. ALL THOSE THINGS ARE STILL ADDING TO OUR DEBT.

ccmanuals
12-07-2014, 10:25 AM
Gee...I must be reading the wrong stuff. i Understood that the cost of stimulus was 2.8 trillion ?

Congress passed one bill.

http://www.govexec.com/management/2014/02/cbo-tallies-cost-stimulus-package/79264/

RodB
12-07-2014, 10:25 AM
More info to refute the OP.... libs as usual only see what they want to see.

RodB


Obama's Wrong; The Economy Is Improving Because Of Congressional Deadlock


President Obama says the recent jobs report shows the economy (http://www.forbes.com/the-economy/) is recovering; but it would be doing even better, he asserts, if Republicans would end the deadlock (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/07/01/remarks-president-economy) and pass his tax-increasing, big-spending agenda. To the contrary, a stronger case can be made that the economy is improving precisely because Obama and Congress are deadlocked.
Let’s start with Obama’s pejorative accusation that this is a do-nothing Congress, which he uses to justify circumventing the legislative branch.
According to the House of Representatives’ Office of the Clerk (http://library.clerk.house.gov/congressional-data.aspx), 125 public bills were enacted into law in 2009, Obama’s first year in office, and 258 in 2010, including Obamacare.
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/merrillmatthews/files/2014/07/12200407886_5e30ec169a_b.jpgBarack Obama’s 5th State of the Union (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)


But Republicans took over the House in 2011, after a massive voter pushback against the president, Obamacare and the Democratic agenda. As a result, only 90 public bills were enacted in 2011. That number climbed to 193 in 2012—a presidential election year, which usually means both parties are trying to placate voters—but fell to 73 in 2013, and 35 so far this year (with not much time left).




The Clerk’s office only quantifies the enacted bills without assessing their importance, but the number of enacted bills has declined. However, as enacted bills declined the economy improved.
While correlation is not causation, a case can be made that the economy is doing better because Congress is doing less.

Read more to see the case: http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2014/07/09/obamas-wrong-the-economy-is-improving-because-of-congressional-deadlock/



Even CNN agrees...

Is the economy as good as it looks?By Annalyn Kurtz (https://twitter.com/AnnalynKurtz) @CNNMoney (https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=CNNMoney) December 18, 2013: 5:39 PM ET

http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/18/news/economy/economy-outlook/

ccmanuals
12-07-2014, 10:27 AM
Err. Obama took over with 10 trillion and the debt is now 17 trillion.

7 trillion is a lot of money for making jobs.

You really have no clue as to how gov't runs and how funds are appropriated and spent. This much is pretty obvious from your posts.

slug
12-07-2014, 10:55 AM
Hmm...sounds like youre an expert.

ccmanuals
12-07-2014, 11:09 AM
Hmm...sounds like youre an expert.

I have worked for the federal gov't for 45 years.

slug
12-07-2014, 11:12 AM
Then tell us about the jobs growth report . Part time up, full time down.

Too Little Time
12-07-2014, 11:18 AM
Obviously the wealthier people will be supporting the poorer people. Just as in all other areas.

While I used to believe that, in recent years I have come to a different view of the economy.

Too Little Time
12-07-2014, 11:28 AM
That is true, but you dodge the question. How much of that debt comes from HIS policies and how much comes from policies already in place that congress wouldn't let him change?

Not to take a position, but the federal debt had a limit and that limit was raised at the request of the president. In fact, the president wanted the limit removed. I guess we hit the limit again soon. One could argue that the president's policy is responsible for the amount that he had the debt limit raised.

But more importantly: The debt is growing slower than personal wealth is growing. If we had any intention of taxing personal wealth (estate tax perhaps), debt would be a good investment.

slug
12-07-2014, 11:43 AM
Not to take a position, but the federal debt had a limit and that limit was raised at the request of the president. In fact, the president wanted the limit removed. I guess we hit the limit again soon. One could argue that the president's policy is responsible for the amount that he had the debt limit raised.

But more importantly: The debt is growing slower than personal wealth is growing. If we had any intention of taxing personal wealth (estate tax perhaps), debt would be a good investment.

a wealth tax might be worthwhile. It would begin to align capital with labour

hokiefan
12-07-2014, 12:19 PM
Not to take a position, but the federal debt had a limit and that limit was raised at the request of the president. In fact, the president wanted the limit removed. I guess we hit the limit again soon. One could argue that the president's policy is responsible for the amount that he had the debt limit raised.

But more importantly: The debt is growing slower than personal wealth is growing. If we had any intention of taxing personal wealth (estate tax perhaps), debt would be a good investment.

Not at all. The debt limit (a really stupid construct by the way) needs to be raised to cover the sum total of the debt incurred by the difference between the spending bills and the taxation bills approved by Congress. Yes, the President signs those, but ultimately the spending/taxation gap is controlled by Congress. The President can only spend what the Congress authorizes, he is also supposed to spend what the Congress authorizes.

Cheers,

Bobby

George Jung
12-07-2014, 02:29 PM
Spot on. I've never understood how our congress, knowing this, continues to rail on about it.... oh wait, that's what they do! That's manipulating an uneducated/clueless public.

Paul Denison
12-07-2014, 03:21 PM
What's the national debt now?


Try imagining how much better things could have been without the ignorant Republicans in the House and Senate trying to cut spending at the worst possible time, and then shutting down the government, which wasted $24B in additional costs by the way. What if they had allowed some moderate stimulus in terms of infrastructure repair, which we really need by the way. No, they did everything in their power to make things worse with the intent of blaming the resultant slow recovery on Obama. Miserable creatures one and all...

Cheers,

Bobby

Keith Wilson
12-07-2014, 04:56 PM
The deficit is now below the historical average for the past 40 years, and lower that it was for the entire Reagan administration.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/45xxx/45229-land-Baseline1-yellow.png

https://therightthingblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/debt-as-percent-of-gdp.gif

Paul Denison
12-07-2014, 05:38 PM
What is the $ amount of our national debt?


The deficit is now below the historical average for the past 40 years, and lower that it was for the entire Reagan administration.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/45xxx/45229-land-Baseline1-yellow.png

https://therightthingblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/debt-as-percent-of-gdp.gif

Keith Wilson
12-07-2014, 05:41 PM
A Very Big Number - but that's the wrong question, the wrong units. The US national debt is much, much larger than El Salvador's, but that doesn't mean we're in worse shape.

Paul Denison
12-07-2014, 05:53 PM
On top of the big number the US is devaluing the dollar.


A Very Big Number - but that's the wrong question, the wrong units. The US national debt is much, much larger than El Salvador's, but that doesn't mean we're in worse shape.

Keith Wilson
12-07-2014, 06:25 PM
First I'd heard of it. Link, please?

Boater14
12-07-2014, 08:57 PM
Americans kid themselves that they're "good sports". Compliment an opponent on a good outing? Don't believe it. No one on the right here can even say, well those numbers are encouraging. Teach your kids to be such sore heads?

Paul Denison
12-07-2014, 09:08 PM
This has been a hot topic for years. It is especially fun to repay your creditors (Bond Holders) with cheaper dollars.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/02/06/the-federal-reserves-explicit-goal-devalue-the-dollar-33/


First I'd heard of it. Link, please?

Keith Wilson
12-08-2014, 12:09 AM
Well, that was the proverbial nothingburger. What the fellow in the Forbes column (not up to their usual standard at all) was talking about was nothing more than the Fed's 2% inflation target, an extremely modest rate of inflation. A moderate amount of inflation is desirable. Too much is bad. Deflation is very, very bad.

The normal meaning of 'devaluation' is a change in the exchange rate with other currencies.

Paul Denison
12-08-2014, 07:44 AM
From the Fed Website:




Under a fixed exchange rate system, devaluation and revaluation are official changes in the value of a country's currency relative to other currencies. Under a floating exchange rate system, market forces generate changes in the value of the currency, known as currency depreciation or appreciation.



In a fixed exchange rate system, both devaluation and revaluation can be conducted by policymakers, usually motivated by market pressures.



The charter of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) directs policymakers to avoid "manipulating exchange rates...to gain an unfair competitive advantage over other members."

Gone to the grocery store lately, bought any meat, seen packaging sizes decrease?


Well, that was the proverbial nothingburger. What the fellow in the Forbes column (not up to their usual standard at all) was talking about was nothing more than the Fed's 2% inflation target, an extremely modest rate of inflation. A moderate amount of inflation is desirable. Too much is bad. Deflation is very, very bad.

The normal meaning of 'devaluation' is a change in the exchange rate with other currencies.

Keith Wilson
12-08-2014, 08:15 AM
What in the world are you talking about? First, we don't have a fixed exchange rate system; the market sets the value of the dollar relative to other currencies, although government and Federal reserve policy certainly has some effect. Second, the rate of inflation is at historically very low levels, probably lower than would be ideal.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-p64s0ltijo4/VHQu1Njl_NI/AAAAAAAAGJM/7OWleC1fiBU/s1600/US_inflation_30y.png

TomF
12-08-2014, 08:36 AM
To bolster Keith's point, it was reported last week that in Canada at least, interest rates haven't been this low for this long since the 1950s. The Bank of Canada has warned folks for years now that rates won't stay at these levels forever, but they're forecasting no change for a number of months yet.

slug
12-08-2014, 09:00 AM
What in the world are you talking about? First, we don't have a fixed exchange rate system; the market sets the value of the dollar relative to other currencies, although government and Federal reserve policy certainly has some effect. Second, the rate of inflation is at historically very low levels, probably lower than would be ideal.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-p64s0ltijo4/VHQu1Njl_NI/AAAAAAAAGJM/7OWleC1fiBU/s1600/US_inflation_30y.png
The dollar, as the reserve currency, is fixed in value. In never changes. Other currencies change in relation to the dollar.

When Europe purchases dollars with euros, the dollar doesnt increase in value, the euro decreases in value. When china purchases US debt the value of the chinese currency falls.

If the dollar looses is reserve currency status this will change

Keith Wilson
12-08-2014, 09:34 AM
The dollar, as the reserve currency, is fixed in value. In never changes. Other currencies change in relation to the dollar. It's all one. The difference is only in the mind, the way we look at it, not in reality. Whether you say that a yen buys .0083 dollars, or a dollar buys 121 yen, it makes no difference. The real value of money is established by how much real stuff it will buy, and the change over time is described by the inflation rate or the GDP deflator, which are different ways of measuring the same thing.

Paul Denison
12-08-2014, 11:55 AM
I don't understand your point. If the US prints $ out of thin air, the dollar in your pocket is worth less.

If the US issues debt and the Fed buys it, what is happening?

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=25161

slug
12-08-2014, 12:01 PM
Not if the US can sell the dollars. For instance All oil is in dollars. Americas enemies must buy dollars if they want oil.

If the US lost its market for dollars and had to compete like other countries. the dollar would collapse.

This will happen. The Chinese are step by step setting up a reserve currency.

Keith Wilson
12-08-2014, 12:09 PM
If the US prints $ out of thin air . . . ALL money is created out of 'thin air'. It's worth something only because people believe it's worth something. This is true whether it's represented by pieces of paper, patterns of electrons in a computer, or small disks of shiny yellow metal. Anything else is barter. One can discuss the supply of money and its rate of growth, and whether more or less inflation would be good, but the dollar in my pocket is currently shrinking more slowly than it has for almost all of the last 30 years.

leikec
12-08-2014, 12:38 PM
ALL money is created out of 'thin air'. It's worth something only because people believe it's worth something. This is true whether it's represented by pieces of paper, patterns of electrons in a computer, or small disks of shiny yellow metal. Anything else is barter. One can discuss the supply of money and its rate of growth, and whether more or less inflation would be good, but the dollar in my pocket is currently shrinking more slowly than it has for almost all of the last 30 years.


+1

Jeff C

Paul Denison
12-08-2014, 04:18 PM
You didn't answer my question.

Paul Denison
12-08-2014, 04:51 PM
FYI - I think both parties are guilty in this, they have dug a hole they don't know how to get out of.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/federal-reserve-printing-free-lunch/

"First, the Fed now owns trillions of dollars of Treasury bonds. The interest paid on those bonds is sent from the U.S. Treasury to the Fed, and then the Fed sends them back to the Treasury. The Fed also owns trillions in mortgage bonds and some of the interest on those bonds is sent to the Treasury too."

....."In a previous post (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/the-dow-may-be-above-17000-but-not-for-long/), I noted that the government is on an historic “spending spree that has increased total government debt by almost $10 trillion in a decade — more in the last decade than in the entire prior history of the U.S.” Without quantitative easing, perhaps interest rates would have been higher than 4.9 percent to induce extra buyers to own all these extra government bonds."

...."The magnitude of quantitative easing is staggering. In fact, the Fed has monetized 40 percent of the cumulative new issuance of federal debt since 2007. “Monetized” means that the Fed has created new money by waving its electronic wand, and used that new money to buy Treasury and mortgage bonds."

..."Therefore, I continue to believe that this grand Keynesian experiment will end in tears. Furthermore, when it ends badly, future generations will not be able to believe our stupidity. They will ask, “So your plan to solve the problem of overspending and too much debt was to have the Fed create a lot of money to enable much greater amounts of overspending and debt accumulation? Who was running the asylum, the evil doctors or the patients?”"

Too Little Time
12-08-2014, 04:55 PM
Not at all. The debt limit (a really stupid construct by the way) needs to be raised to cover the sum total of the debt incurred by the difference between the spending bills and the taxation bills approved by Congress. Yes, the President signs those, but ultimately the spending/taxation gap is controlled by Congress. The President can only spend what the Congress authorizes, he is also supposed to spend what the Congress authorizes.

Cheers,

Bobby

The fact that you support a different position does not make the position I put forth wrong.

In fact, the government shut down indicates my position is supported by the executive branch. They stopped spending to avoid violating the debt limit.

hokiefan
12-08-2014, 05:43 PM
Not to take a position, but the federal debt had a limit and that limit was raised at the request of the president. In fact, the president wanted the limit removed. I guess we hit the limit again soon. One could argue that the president's policy is responsible for the amount that he had the debt limit raised.

But more importantly: The debt is growing slower than personal wealth is growing. If we had any intention of taxing personal wealth (estate tax perhaps), debt would be a good investment.


Not at all. The debt limit (a really stupid construct by the way) needs to be raised to cover the sum total of the debt incurred by the difference between the spending bills and the taxation bills approved by Congress. Yes, the President signs those, but ultimately the spending/taxation gap is controlled by Congress. The President can only spend what the Congress authorizes, he is also supposed to spend what the Congress authorizes.

Cheers,

Bobby


The fact that you support a different position does not make the position I put forth wrong.

In fact, the government shut down indicates my position is supported by the executive branch. They stopped spending to avoid violating the debt limit.

My point was that the President's policies have nothing to do with determining the size of the deficit and therefore the debt, which is what drives the need to raise the debt limit. The deficit is determined entirely by Congress.

The President spends what he is authorized to spend. When the government was shutdown much of his authorization stopped so spending was stopped. That was still a Congressional decision.

Cheers,

Bobby

George Jung
12-08-2014, 07:31 PM
You don't really 'save money' with a govt. shutdown - they pay 'catch up' after the politicking is finished. Just one more fanciful, creative way our good congressmen have invented to waste our hard-earned tax dollars.

Too Little Time
12-08-2014, 11:09 PM
My point was that ...

I understand your point. I disagree with it.

hokiefan
12-09-2014, 09:26 AM
I understand your point. I disagree with it.

Then you don't understand how our government works. The President spends the money allocated by the Congress, no more, no less.

Too Little Time
12-09-2014, 10:32 AM
Then you don't understand how our government works. The President spends the money allocated by the Congress, no more, no less.

I guess we have more to disagree on.

Boater14
12-09-2014, 10:39 AM
Messing with the debt is new. First vote some profile but it passes. The tea baggies who started threatening to default really didn't know what the debt ceiling was. You could tell when one of the dopes was on a news show. That debt is ours we happily spent the Russians into oblivion. We should all be of one mind on the debt ceiling.