Does Obama understand our economy?

Onceler said:
How in the world is that a strawman?

It's absolutely true. Your statement about it being "just Dems" who think that was ridiculous.
Click to expand...
my reference to dems is simply because it's obamas economy right now. before him, it was bush's economy and that also means that republicans don't know any other economy but government spending.

If it was just goods and services that government spent money on, it might not be so bad, but it's nothing more than political payouts to politically connected people and companies for things like building more roads or more government buildings, all of which ends up in the pockets of the already wealthy.
 
Yurt said:
Washington (CNN) - President Barack Obama, walking back his assertion at a press conference the "private sector's doing fine," acknowledged Friday that "it is absolutely clear that the economy is not doing fine."

The struggling economy, he clarified, is "why I had the press conference."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

:palm:
Click to expand...

i suspect that he meant that the private sector is doing better than the public sector

oh well
 
Damocles said:
It seems to be a regular mantra from the left.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/19/reid-private-sector-jobs-have-been-doing-just-fine/

There's Reid saying the same thing...

It appears that neither of them seem to understand that if the private sector grows then there are funds for the public sector jobs. Private sector jobs should be their priority.
Click to expand...

It's not one or the other. If people are working in the public sector, they spend money on goods & services from the private sector.

If you knew anything about anything, you'd know that the gov't has very limited power to grow the private sector. It's always been the interpretation of the stimulus that I've seen from the right - it was supposed to restore the private sector to full employment, or something along those lines.

All the gov't can do is stem some bleeding and get some people back to work. At a certain point, early on, the private sector has to take over.
 
LOL



Obama: 'Absolutely clear' economy's not fine


It didn't take long for President Obama to step in with some damage control after saying Friday morning that "the private sector is doing fine."
"It is absolutely clear the economy is not doing fine," he said in a brief appearance before cameras in the Oval Office following a meeting with Philippine President Benigno Aquino.
“That’s the reason I had a press conference," Obama continued. "That’s why I spent yesterday, the day before yesterday, this past week, this past month and this past year talking about how we can make the economy stronger. The economy is not doing fine. There are too many people out of work. The housing market is still weak, too many homes underwater and that’s precisely why I asked Congress to start taking some steps that can make a difference.”
The president's attempt to clarify his morning statement comes after Republicans quickly seized on his comment as evidence that Obama is out of touch with economic realities.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/06/obama-absolutely-clear-economys-not-fine-125687.html
 
Leave aside "the private sector has been doing a good job at creating jobs. I'd argure it's not; so - so at best. but take a look at the rest of the phrase.

What's the "wrong direction?" State and local jobs are disappearing as the STIMULUS money is run out.
Stimulus is deficit spending. You can have a checkbook full of blank checks, but it doesn't mean you have money to back it.

Keep writing those checks, you're broke, and overdrated ( in debt in this analogy).

Q? > HOW DOES GOV"T JOBS GROW WEALTH??
It creates jobs, but no tangible increase in assets. The economy is "complex', and i understod the need for the stimulus that kept us from literally going into another depression.

Eventually though, adding $1T + a year in debt leads to...lots of 'bad stuff' ( I'm not gonna list them).

We also have that future fact that we're headed off a fiscal cliff ( future unfunded mandates)
So please, someone explain to me that the anemic growth we're getting in GDP is going to boost with more "public sector jobs".

Private sector jobs create wealth ( however unevenly distributed).
What do "public sector jobs create? OK. jobs, but nothing added to the economy. The 'checkbook' just gets more in the red.
It does add jobs, but no real wealth now - you can look at it a a necessity, or a requirement for the future (teachers), but nothing NOW.

Keynesianism is pumped dry, the purpose of Keynesianism is to stimulate growth, not just "jobs"
Keep adding debt, and factor in the unfunded mandates coming up, and we're "forward" -right off the fiscal cliff.
 
What needs to be done is to re-establish regulatory control over banking and the financial markets. Congress needs to repeal the "safe harbor" provisions for derivative contracts under title 11. (I would add to the list the like provisions that immunize leveraged buyouts - viz. the "Mitt Romney Special" - as these transactions have a high potential for fraud and abuse and consequential damage to the economy.) Elimination of these safe harbor provisions will force the counterparties to these contracts to disclose their transactions in order to protect the priority of their security interests in bankruptcy. Then, at least, everyone will know the risks and where they stand. As it stands now, these contracts are undisclosed ("off-balance sheet"); and are being used not to hedge risk, but rather to speculate ("gamble") on the financial markets - witness the MF Global Funding bankruptcy, and, more recently the losses sustained by J.P. Morgan Chase. There has to be a clear dividing line between bank investment that is insured, and market trading that is not. (This was the purpose of the Volcker Rule agains proprietary trading by banking institutions.) The problem - which will be the same whoever is elected President - is that Congress lacks the political will to stand up to the banking and market lobbyists; and it is back to business as usual.

In the final analysis, what needs to be done is to get back to an economy that is based on making things rather than making deals.
 
Nemo said:
What needs to be done is to re-establish regulatory control over banking and the financial markets. Congress needs to repeal the "safe harbor" provisions for derivative contracts under title 11. (I would add to the list the like provisions that immunize leveraged buyouts - viz. the "Mitt Romney Special" - as these transactions have a high potential for fraud and abuse and consequential damage to the economy.) Elimination of these safe harbor provisions will force the counterparties to these contracts to disclose their transactions in order to protect the priority of their security interests in bankruptcy. Then, at least, everyone will know the risks and where they stand. As it stands now, these contracts are undisclosed ("off-balance sheet"); and are being used not to hedge risk, but rather to speculate ("gamble") on the financial markets - witness the MF Global Funding bankruptcy, and, more recently the losses sustained by J.P. Morgan Chase. There has to be a clear dividing line between bank investment that is insured, and market trading that is not. (This was the purpose of the Volcker Rule agains proprietary trading by banking institutions.) The problem - which will be the same whoever is elected President - is that Congress lacks the political will to stand up to the banking and market lobbyists; and it is back to business as usual.

In the final analysis, what needs to be done is to get back to an economy that is based on making things rather than making deals.
Click to expand...

Excellent.
 
The Dude said:
He's trying to shift blame to Europe.
Click to expand...

I think you're on to something there. It's gotta be hard on him to see Europe being dragged kicking and screaming into the consequences of socialism. I believe that his intentions all along have been to turn America into a European style socialist welfare state.

Did anyone else hear about this?: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...longed-to-radical-socialist-new-party-in-1996

Had to get it from FOX, and I don't know if it's true, but it would explain a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top