4 years ago - before Obama was President

Rion said:

Obama has fixed nothing. He's put the economy into a malaise... we're all but stagnant. What little we have recovered has been because of the market, not because of Obama.

Are we better off? No!

Click to expand...

SolomonVII said:

The economy has not recovered after four years. It remains droopy, without investors showing much interest in making money by investing in instability.

On the other hand his platform was getting by on less, turning the thermostat down, stuff like that.

If such a stagnant lacklustre economy of producing less was the goal, at least on that front, the Democratic presidency has been a success.

It is the new measure of success—getting by on being poorer and mediocrity.

The Food Stamp President.

Click to expand...

jmorin28 said:

Apparently just getting by better than we did 4 years ago is cause for reelection. President bush and obama have been utter failures in the cause of healing our nation to what it was. We still today remain in a poor economy and that I guess is a success somehow

Click to expand...

A2SG said:

I guess the question is....is Mitt Romney the man to do that?

All through this campaign, he's said he'll return us to the failed policies of the Bush administration. Given that, and his record here in Massachusetts, I'd say no.

The only way we're going to return the country to what it was and to fix the economy is to strengthen the middle class and stop handing everything over to the rich. History resoundingly proves that the economy is at its best, and most stable, when the middle class can work steady and have money to buy things. When they can't, no amount of money thrown to the rich will make them create jobs. If we, as a nation, have learned nothing else from the 80s up to today, it's that.

-- A2SG, the rich do not create jobs, consumer demand does....and the biggest consumer class is the middle class......

Click to expand...

jmorin28 said:

so why the regulation that has helped lead to outsourcing?

Click to expand...

How will the middle class have more money to buy things if a "tax" healthcare take away that middle class dream?

Click to expand...

Romney has an advantage here to financially be able to help our nation.

Click to expand...

He has turned around bankrupt companies to be successfull.

Click to expand...

Though I agree with what you say here, the president doesnt legislate to make what you say come to pass. The healthcare and mandate is the worlds biggest joke on the middle class

Click to expand...

and sadly when 2014 roles around they will realize their mistake voting for Obama.

Click to expand...

Sadly Romney doesnt have a chance in hell to win.

Click to expand...

Dieselman said:

We lost a lot of jobs in the last quarter for three reasons; the economy was tanking, Obama was elected, and hundreds of thousands of seasonal jobs ended after Christmas. No surprise there.

You might remember these immortal words, spoken by Maxine Waters in 2004 when the Bush administration ordered hearings into the solvency of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae: “We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Frank Raines.” The facts are, for those interested in facts, that the sub-prime mortgage crises was caused by liberals wanting better housing numbers by putting people into houses they couldn't afford. The Community Re-investment Act started it all.

You might remember that in 1996 when the Democrats took over Congress, that we were planning to drill in an arctic wasteland called ANWR. The Democrats stopped the drilling, like they've stopped construction of refineries and like they've opposed all forms of drilling for domestic oil. A surge in demand shot the price of gasoline to the roof, and people who were already cash strapped went broke.

Blame Bush all you want, these are the two things that caused the recession. Bush's tx cuts generatede economic activity which generated much more tax income than Obama's tax increases ever have. That concept, called "Trickle Down Economics under Reagan, was first demonstrated by John F Kennedy.

Obama's war on energy has kept energy costs at record highs. His excessive regualtion has caused industry jobs to go overseas.
The man is the greatest enemy of prosperity this country has ever known.
Frankly, if you voted for Obama and subsequently lost your job, you reap what you sow.
If you vote for him again, you will be contributing to the destruction of this country.

Romney may not be the perfect candidate, but he WILL rebuild the economy.

Click to expand...

wannaberocker said:

Read a few pages worth of discussions. The difference between the two parties is simple enough. One party believes that the govt is the engine that fixes and runs economies. While the other party believes that a limited govt and more private sector investment is the answer.



The choice is between a euro style socialism and a crony capitalist system. Sadly the country loses in both cases.

Click to expand...

wannaberocker said:

Read a few pages worth of discussions. The difference between the two parties is simple enough. One party believes that the govt is the engine that fixes and runs economies. While the other party believes that a limited govt and more private sector investment is the answer.



The choice is between a euro style socialism and a crony capitalist system. Sadly the country loses in both cases.

Click to expand...

SolomonVII said:

Sadly, there is a crony capitalist, or more accurately, a crony corportist system with either Democrat or Republican. That is not part of the choice as of yet, because there is not enough power in either party to run against that. OWS is not a part of the equation, and tea party is at most a junior partner.
The choice is only between a party which seeks to make government increasingly bigger with larger and larger cradle-to-grave social welfare schemes, and a party that would seek to somehow try to control the rate of government growth and spiraling debt.

The best that can be hoped for is to grow oneself out of the burgeoning costs, and that is to grow the economy. That has as much to do with the psychological as it has to do with policy. If people believe that the government is not after any wealth that they generate, they become more willing to invest their time and money in order to increase their wealth. Otherwise, it is hardly worth the effort.

There is no signal that Obama can put out that is going to change the psychology. It runs against his ideology and everything that he believes in.

So if the people themselves don't send the signal that they aspire for something more than a food stamp presidency, the capitalists will in effect remain on strike and invest themselves in something with a greater return than that kind of America.

Click to expand...

Dieselman said:

We lost a lot of jobs in the last quarter for three reasons; the economy was tanking, Obama was elected, and hundreds of thousands of seasonal jobs ended after Christmas. No surprise there.Numbers are adjusted for season. To say that jobs were lost because Obama won the election is specious at the very best.

You might remember these immortal words, spoken by Maxine Waters in 2004 when the Bush administration ordered hearings into the solvency of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae: “We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Frank Raines.” The facts are, for those interested in facts, that the sub-prime mortgage crises was caused by liberals wanting better housing numbers by putting people into houses they couldn't afford. The Community Re-investment Act started it all.No, the Community Re-investment Act merely said that a portion of money received from a community must be reinvested into that community - it did not say that bad loans be given (that was greed and, often, fraud).

You might remember that in 1996 when the Democrats took over Congress, that we were planning to drill in an arctic wasteland called ANWR. The Democrats stopped the drilling, like they've stopped construction of refineries and like they've opposed all forms of drilling for domestic oil. A surge in demand shot the price of gasoline to the roof, and people who were already cash strapped went broke. I guess one man's wasteland is another man's wilderness (also, Inuits and Aleutos live there). The situation is a bit more complex than you let on: Arctic Refuge drilling controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blame Bush all you want, these are the two things that caused the recession. Bush's tx cuts generatede economic activity which generated much more tax income than Obama's tax increases ever have. That concept, called "Trickle Down Economics under Reagan, was first demonstrated by John F Kennedy.

Click to expand...

Trickle Down Economics, aka Voodoo Economics, was a demonstrable fraud.

Obama has LOWERED taxes not increased them. A person needs good information to make good decisions.

Click to expand...

DaisyDay said:

Dieselman said:

Click to expand...

A totally dishonest statement by you. The community re-investment act forced banks (under thread of legal action) to loan money to people who could not pay it back. Why? because according to the govt if you dont lend money to people in poor neighborhoods, you are racist.



Your explanation of “Greed” holds no real economic value.

DaisyDay said:

I guess one man's wasteland is another man's wilderness (also, Inuits and Aleutos live there). The situation is a bit more complex than you let on: Arctic Refuge drilling controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Economic decisions are based on simple cost benefit. Basic economics teaches us that scarcity is what drives us to make these cost benefit decisions. There will always be some reason not to drill here or drill there. There is no place in the world where drilling wont affect some human being, plant or animal. So you say well we cant drill there because its going to effect the Inuit’s and Aleutos. Yet, the same argument can be made about pretty much every other oil hotspot.



So the decision about oil exploration is a simple one. Do people wish to pay euro style 5+ gas prices? If the answer from people like yourself is "Yes" then id say there is no reason to drill. If however, you live in some fantasy economic world where there can be no drilling and prices can stay low. Well then, hey that is your fantasy who am I to spoil it for ya.

DaisyDay said:

Trickle Down Economics, aka Voodoo Economics, was a demonstrable fraud.

Click to expand...

No serious economist has ever actually suggested this trickle down theory. THe basic concept that many mistakenly call "Trickle down economics" is however an economic Fact that economist on the right and the left agree on. That being, that when tax rates are kept lower more investments are made in different sectors of the economy. On the other hand when tax rates go up, the amount of investment drops.



Now if people want to argue that this basic idea is not accurate and want to call it "Voodoo Economics" then id say you need to study up on your elementary economic textbook.

DaisyDay said:

Obama has LOWERED taxes not increased them. A person needs good information to make good decisions.

Click to expand...

Tax rates have relatively stayed the same. But to say that Obama lowered taxes is also inaccurate. Most people confuse tax cut with tax credits. At the end of the day Obama's tax hikes have not kicked in yet. So we cant say that he has raised takes "Yet". On the other hand a tax credit is not a tax cut, so we cant say he has lowered taxes any further either.



Now on of the indirect taxes that can be blamed on Obama is inflation. While the rate remains low, we know that food and energy cost have gone up and stayed up. So that is an indirect tax that is affecting people.

Click to expand...

..like Obama?

Click to expand...

Illuminaughty said:

Yes. The Bush tax cuts were about to end so Obama signed a law that would continue similar cuts into the future. I hold him responsible for that. It resulted in billions of debt and lost revenues. They didn't help the economy to begin with and neither are they helping us now. It's just the continuation of magical trickle down thinking.

Click to expand...

2) Obama's economic policies "rescued the economy from falling off a cliff."

False. Nearly 350 economists, including several Nobel laureates, publicly urged Obama to following the path President Reagan pursued -- cutting taxes, slowing the growth of domestic spending and continuing deregulation.

Most business economists think Obama's "stimulus" plan accomplished little, if anything, with some academic economists, like Stanford's John Taylor, believing that stimulus actually made things worse: "I just don't think there's any evidence. When you look at the numbers, when you see what happened, when people reacted to the stimulus, it did very little good."

Click to expand...