Posted on Nov 7, 2015
6
6
0
I'm confused. Hasn't President Obama been disastrous for the American economy?
Since he was so bad for the America economy, can anyone explain the graphs?
http://www.electoral-vote.com/index.html
PS - Please don't tell me that the people who are running the website are "liberals" - I already know that and as far as I know a "liberal" 2 is identical to a "conservative" 2 (and that applies to any other number you want to name).
Since he was so bad for the America economy, can anyone explain the graphs?
http://www.electoral-vote.com/index.html
PS - Please don't tell me that the people who are running the website are "liberals" - I already know that and as far as I know a "liberal" 2 is identical to a "conservative" 2 (and that applies to any other number you want to name).
Posted in these groups: 
Barack Obama
Economy
Barack Obama Economy
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 18
9
9
0
It is fairly common knowledge among those who really care and look deeper than the 30 second sound-bites that the Unemployment numbers are grossly under-reported, and the Dow Jones is being artificially buoyed by Quatitative Easing (QE) and sleight of hand economic tricks.
The real Unemployment rate is likely somewhere in the mid-20% or higher. UE numbers only report those who have applied for new benefits and those who are currently receiving benefits. It does NOT report those who have exhausted their benefits (and are still unemployed), nor those who have stopped seeking employment. You cannot honestly say the UE rate is somewhere lower than 10% when 35+% of Americans are unemployed. The math simply does not support that.
As for the economy, it only appears to be stable and positive. The truth is that the stock market is being artificially inflated by the Fed buying its own T-Bills (which are losing value), the Fed artificially keeping interest rates low, and currency manipulation that is done by continuously printing money that has no value. The only thing that sets our currency apart from Monopoly money is that the government has said that US Currency has value. Yeah, OK. I will continue to buy precious metals...
So revel in the LameStream Media's pronouncements that all is well and things are rosy and happy. Just pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. And don't be surprised when it all comes crashing down.
The real Unemployment rate is likely somewhere in the mid-20% or higher. UE numbers only report those who have applied for new benefits and those who are currently receiving benefits. It does NOT report those who have exhausted their benefits (and are still unemployed), nor those who have stopped seeking employment. You cannot honestly say the UE rate is somewhere lower than 10% when 35+% of Americans are unemployed. The math simply does not support that.
As for the economy, it only appears to be stable and positive. The truth is that the stock market is being artificially inflated by the Fed buying its own T-Bills (which are losing value), the Fed artificially keeping interest rates low, and currency manipulation that is done by continuously printing money that has no value. The only thing that sets our currency apart from Monopoly money is that the government has said that US Currency has value. Yeah, OK. I will continue to buy precious metals...
So revel in the LameStream Media's pronouncements that all is well and things are rosy and happy. Just pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. And don't be surprised when it all comes crashing down.
(9)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
COL Ted Mc You do realize that an 8% drop in Real Median Household Income is horrible right. Those are awful numbers for any president. Simple proof is that the economy per person has contracted even after the "collapse." Also GDP per capita has stagnated since 2011, but worst of all with all the talk of income redistribution those numbers have gotten so much worse. Under Obama's administration the poorer have a lower share of GDP, so none of the paltry growth we have seen is being distributed to the poor. This administration has been catastrophic to the incomes of the minorities and millennials.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#2009.E2.80.93present
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#2009.E2.80.93present
Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Income inequality in the United States has increased significantly since the 1970s after several decades of stability, meaning the share of the nation's income received by higher income households has increased. This trend is evident with income measured both before taxes (market income) as well as after taxes and transfer payments. Income inequality has fluctuated considerably since measurements began around 1915, moving in an arc between...
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
MAJ (Join to see) - Captain; I don't dispute the fact that income disparity in the US has gotten worse (although the "real median family income" has been relatively static since 1999).
As for why none of the benefits of the economic growth that has occurred have been distributed to "the poor", the simple fact is that "the poor" aren't "the investing class" and, as such, don't benefit from "the investments". (This is what's known as "Capitalism".).
I am sure that you are going to be able to find a lot of economic analysts who are going to be able to tell you that an 8% drop in "real median family income" works out to a drop of $2.190 (less than the price of coffee at Starbucks) per day for every $10,000 of "real family income". Of course, you are also going to have a hard time finding one of those economic analysts whose "real family income" actually dropped 8%.
As for why none of the benefits of the economic growth that has occurred have been distributed to "the poor", the simple fact is that "the poor" aren't "the investing class" and, as such, don't benefit from "the investments". (This is what's known as "Capitalism".).
I am sure that you are going to be able to find a lot of economic analysts who are going to be able to tell you that an 8% drop in "real median family income" works out to a drop of $2.190 (less than the price of coffee at Starbucks) per day for every $10,000 of "real family income". Of course, you are also going to have a hard time finding one of those economic analysts whose "real family income" actually dropped 8%.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
COL Ted Mc Sir the 8% is taken from the website you posted. investing class is not Capitalism that is Crony Capitalism the current market form supported by both Republican and Democratic Parties. True Capitalism promotes liberty and growth. This Crony system establishes barriers to entry and taxes income rather than wealth resulting in a system where it is difficult to transverse class groups because of the tax on success. While that 8% is as you consider small it is still more than a used car payment. That is big. Anyone can feel free to promote our presidents successes but economic growth isn't one of them. Compound that with the recent jump in interest rates our economy isn't going to be rebounding any time soon. (I'm not saying the Republicans candidates would have done better just saying Economics isn't one of Obamas successes.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
MAJ (Join to see) - Captain; I agree that the economic system (at least the macro parts of it) in the US today leans heavily towards "Crony/Monopoly Capitalism" and that that is supported by BOTH political parties (they just have different lists of who is a "Crony" and who isn't).
"Micro-Capitalism" does have a tendency to promote widespread improvements in living conditions but doesn't actually have much to do with politics (the wellspring of all "rights" and "freedoms"). It also seldom is capable of funding large projects.
"Macro-Capitalism", on the other hand, has a tendency to promote improvements in living conditions for a small sub-set of the population and DOES have a lot to do with politics (the wellspring of "advantages" and "preferences"). It can, however, fund large projects.
The "trick" is to keep the two in balance.
The problem with figures like "average real income change" is that they are AVERAGES. If 99 people suffer a 1% drop and 1 person experiences a 99% increase, then the AVERAGE remains unchanged. Quite frankly, given how close the American economy came to tanking, I think that Mr. Obama did reasonably well (not "great", but "reasonably well"). Mind you, since "Congress" has consistently resisted taking any steps which would prevent a repeat of the incipient crash (or the flooding of money out of the country) - shovelling tons of cash into corporate treasuries isn't quite the same thing - the "issue" is going to raise its head again.
[ASIDE - My "suggestion" in 2007/8 was that the Democrats not even bother to run a candidate for President of the United States of America and simply campaign on the slogan of "OK, you broke it now let's see you fix it.". The odds would have been that by 2012 there would only have been one functional political party in the US (and it could have been EITHER the Republicans or the Democrats).
As far as a "jump" in interest rates is concerned, you might find the linked table of "Real Interest Rates" interesting.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FR.INR.RINR
"Micro-Capitalism" does have a tendency to promote widespread improvements in living conditions but doesn't actually have much to do with politics (the wellspring of all "rights" and "freedoms"). It also seldom is capable of funding large projects.
"Macro-Capitalism", on the other hand, has a tendency to promote improvements in living conditions for a small sub-set of the population and DOES have a lot to do with politics (the wellspring of "advantages" and "preferences"). It can, however, fund large projects.
The "trick" is to keep the two in balance.
The problem with figures like "average real income change" is that they are AVERAGES. If 99 people suffer a 1% drop and 1 person experiences a 99% increase, then the AVERAGE remains unchanged. Quite frankly, given how close the American economy came to tanking, I think that Mr. Obama did reasonably well (not "great", but "reasonably well"). Mind you, since "Congress" has consistently resisted taking any steps which would prevent a repeat of the incipient crash (or the flooding of money out of the country) - shovelling tons of cash into corporate treasuries isn't quite the same thing - the "issue" is going to raise its head again.
[ASIDE - My "suggestion" in 2007/8 was that the Democrats not even bother to run a candidate for President of the United States of America and simply campaign on the slogan of "OK, you broke it now let's see you fix it.". The odds would have been that by 2012 there would only have been one functional political party in the US (and it could have been EITHER the Republicans or the Democrats).
As far as a "jump" in interest rates is concerned, you might find the linked table of "Real Interest Rates" interesting.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FR.INR.RINR
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
COL Ted Mc - Smoke and mirrors.
While there are some good stats that can be shown, there are many more that show the true status of the economy and it is not good, even with the erroneous/manipulated data put out by the administration.
While there are some good stats that can be shown, there are many more that show the true status of the economy and it is not good, even with the erroneous/manipulated data put out by the administration.
(3)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Jean (John) F. B. - Colonel; Agreed. If we ignore everything that doesn't fit precisely within our existing stereotypes then the world will always be the way we want it to be.
And, of course, it is completely unacceptable for "the administration" to "manipulate the data" by using exactly the same rules for data definition and collection as previous administrations did (and which showed previous administrations in a positive light).
And, of course, it is completely unacceptable for "the administration" to "manipulate the data" by using exactly the same rules for data definition and collection as previous administrations did (and which showed previous administrations in a positive light).
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Pres. Obama has been far from "disastrous" for the American economy. It has improved significantly by nearly every metric used to evaluate the economy since January 2009 (unemployment, stock indices, housing market, gas prices, and the list goes on). Whether that has anything to do with the President's policies is up for debate but it'a incorrect to assess that he has been "disastrous" for the economy.
(3)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
2d Lt (Join to see) - Lieutenant; What you have to remember is that although the "non-Obama supporters" use the same names for numbers and directions as the "Obama supporters" do, those names don't mean the same thing to both sides of the issue. For example a 10% "unemployment rate" under Mr. Bush is, to a "non-Obama supporter" LOWER than a 5% "unemployment rate" under Mr. Obama and a $5Billion deficit under Mr. Obama is HIGHER than a $10Billion deficit under Mr. Bush.
Although BOTH the "non-Obama supporters" and the "Obama supporters" will agree that 2 plus 2 equals 4, they are not in agreement over the meaning of either "2" or "4"..
Although BOTH the "non-Obama supporters" and the "Obama supporters" will agree that 2 plus 2 equals 4, they are not in agreement over the meaning of either "2" or "4"..
(0)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
COL Ted Mc - No, we all know and agree that 2+2=4. The issue is whether it is really "2", or has the data been manipulated to make it look like "2", when it is really something else.
The Obama Administration is the embodiment of the old joke/definition of a good accountant, who, when asked, what 2+2 equals, answers, "what would you like it to be".
The Obama Administration is the embodiment of the old joke/definition of a good accountant, who, when asked, what 2+2 equals, answers, "what would you like it to be".
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Jean (John) F. B. - Colonel; 2 + 2 doesn't necessarily always equal 4. Sometimes 2 + 2 = 11 and some times 2 + 2 = 10 and sometimes 2 + 2 = 4.
Of course the data has been "manipulated" - it's been "manipulated" in exactly the same manner as it was being "manipulated" when Mr. Bush was President, and when Mr. Carter was President before him, and when Mr. Bush's father was President before him and when Mr. ....
The difference, of course, is that when "our guy" is in charge then we accept the data uncritically but when "their guy" is in charge we are totally disgusted at the way that the data is being "manipulated".
This is a classic case of "But that's different.".
Of course the data has been "manipulated" - it's been "manipulated" in exactly the same manner as it was being "manipulated" when Mr. Bush was President, and when Mr. Carter was President before him, and when Mr. Bush's father was President before him and when Mr. ....
The difference, of course, is that when "our guy" is in charge then we accept the data uncritically but when "their guy" is in charge we are totally disgusted at the way that the data is being "manipulated".
This is a classic case of "But that's different.".
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google