Is Obama ruining the economy?

[Nervous]

A friend of my said Obama should have just hired the top economists, and let them solve the problem.
Honestly, I think if it where this easy he would have done this.
Obviously, the economy was ruined before Obama was in office.
My friend then said " But it's been worse then ever with Obama. "

What do you think?
(Keeping in mind that if you don't like Obama your a racist!) jk... Not really.

[Sigma_Tau_Theta]

A friend of my said Obama should have just hired the top economists, and let them solve the problem.
Honestly, I think if it where this easy he would have done this.

He did set up a debt commission, but none of the suggestion passed through.

Obviously, the economy was ruined before Obama was in office.
My friend then said " But it's been worse then ever with Obama. "

What do you think?
(Keeping in mind that if you don't like Obama your a racist!) jk... Not really.

Congress has a BIG sway in how the economy is ran. Congress (the House in particular) holds the purse strings.

[Listening]

The seeds for economic decline were sown a long long time ago.

Obama's claim to be able to restore us was a pipe dream.

He can not control the forces that would have to aligned for things to recover.

And that is a good thing....not because it is Obama....but because this is a Republic.

[grandpa]

The seeds for economic decline were sown a long long
time ago.
Obama's claim to be able to restore us was a
pipe dream.

On this we can agree. We are not his brothers and sisters, and he is not leading us to a "promised land."

Grandpa h.

[Listening]

On this we can agree. We are not his brothers and sisters, and he is not leading us to a "promised land."

Grandpa h.

Unless the "promised land" is the patch of ground that will break our fall after we go over the cliff.

[Angry Citizen]

Of course he's not. We have the Republicans, both past and present, to thank for ruining our economy. Bush for actually ruining it, and the current and last legislatures for preventing the obvious fixes from passing.

[Listening]

Of course he's not. We have the Republicans, both past and present, to thank for ruining our economy. Bush for actually ruining it, and the current and last legislatures for preventing the obvious fixes from passing.

The GOP and dems are "We The People...." in theory.

So, if the GOP ruined it what does that mean.

After all, we just put them back in charge of the House and will likely give them the senate.

President Obama does not have very good approval ratings when it comes to the economy either. Although better than the GOP.

[Trojan_Ripper]

Of course he's not. We have the Republicans, both past and present, to thank for ruining our economy. Bush for actually ruining it, and the current and last legislatures for preventing the obvious fixes from passing.

I could have swore it was Clinton and NAFTA that ruined it. As for legislatures and fixes....

Almost without exception every recession in the last 60 years happened when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. In the instances when the Democrats controlled a single House of Congress it ended a growth in the economy, which continued after they were removed from power.

Date of Recession Control of House/Senate
1957-1958 Dem/Dem
1960-1961 Dem/Dem
1973-1975 Dem/Dem
1980-1982 Dem/Dem*
*In 1981 the Republicans take control of the Senate and the recession comes to an end.
1990-1991 Dem/Dem
2001-2003 Dem/Rep*
*Prior to the Democrats winning the Senate in 2001 due to a Republican switching parties the economy had been in a steady growth since 1994 when the Republicans had won control of both Houses of Congress. After the Republicans won back the Senate two years later the growth continued until the Democrats took back the House and Senate and took office in 2007.
Late 2007-2009Dem/Dem


List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008

[Charlatan]

The biggest mistake he made was bailing out the top companies. The company survives to supply the world with things it cannot afford. Great!

The best thing he could do would be to let them fall. If they fall, they will see the common man having the same amount of money and investing it into new companies, but then again the common man is not an investor. They need to be supplied, raising the debt amount is just another way of screwing things up. If Obama was to instead give money to the poor, they would spend it, it supplies them with goods, and the amount of times the money changes hands would lead to the state recovering the amount.

Now, if the state recovers the amount they can afford to stick to thier debt limits. If they were to actually pay back the debt a little, it would see investor confidence return.

All the money that should be there is somewhere else. This is due to corruption. If all the corruption was rooted out of the state, then there would be a hell of an easier time recovering to a good state again.

If the corrupt steal money, they don't spend it. As it doesn't get spent except on luxury cars and housing, it goes to those avenues. We should also observe the bonuses paid by banks to thier top brass. This means the banks are fine, despite thier claims of frailty. If all the money needs to be somewhere, it is just because they are not giving out loans to new people who do not have a credit rating!

So that must be it. How often have you seen a new business? All the new businesses would be making money and thier employees spending money. This would solve the recession quickly.

Now, for that to happen, the people need to have a good credit rating. If not they need to get the money from somewhere else. Instead of bailing old companies out, the state should invest in bailing the entrepreneurs into the world. This will ensure that there is money changing hands.

Then there is the aspect of the stock market to entail. If everyone is buying blue chip stock, they should tax this more. If there are monopolies forming, stopping the money from changing hands, and making sure the rich get richer, then the rich have to get poorer. The state could declare that wall mart should close down, along with all other leading brands. They ensure that nobody will have a new job and be able to spend money at all! This means they should tax these companies more, a new tax bracket, and tax changing of these stocks. If somebody was to sell wall mart stocks, for example, they will keep that money and not reinvest it because they see all the biggest profits coming from the stocks they just sold and that means that they will wait for them to drop again and rebuy them. The person who buys the stocks will also be thinking that, as these are the top ones aren't they? Tax them for trading these stocks, they will invest somewhere else, or, as everyone thinks they are something of a trading expert, open thier own businesses. This will help or guarantee a way out of the recession.

[linda_mary_13]

You have got to be kidding if you think this is between the GOP and Dems, or that they represent "we the people". What happened with the Wall Street bailout and the Stimulus should give you some kind of clue that they are not representing US, but instead, they represent interests overseas and the chosen elite, and special interests like Unions and every acronymed agency you can throw out there.

Tell me, why did Obama let the private jet loop hole get through in the Stimulus bill? Why if the Dems believe the rich are getting unfair tax breaks did they write them into the Stimulus bill and tax law? Where was Charlie Wrangle all of these years when all these tax break loop holes occurred under his watchful eye as "chair" of the committee? They all talk as if someone else did these dirty deeds when it is every incumbant sitting in congress, and they can't afford to let members of the Tea Party spoil their little club. It's not GOP vs Dems, it's "in" vs "out". We the people are just pawns to advance power.

[Nervous]

Of course he's not. We have the Republicans, both past and present, to thank for ruining our economy. Bush for actually ruining it, and the current and last legislatures for preventing the obvious fixes from passing.

What specifically did the republicans and Bush do?

[barts]

There's so little policy difference between the Republicans and the Democrats that it seems illusionary to blame or credit one or the other for economic performance, good or bad. Same can be said about any president.

The overriding issue is, as linda_mary_13 points out, that federal politicians from the President to Representatives are, with few exceptions (Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, et al) bought and paid for by financial interests, corporations, and the wealthy: entities that can fund election campaigns.

Ordinary Americans who earn less then $200,000 per year and are 95% of the population are essentially unrepresented in the US Congress and most state legislatures.

The US was founded, in part, on the notion of "No taxation without representation", yet that is exactly what is happening today.

You can be sure that if campaign donations could only be made by individuals (not corporations, unions, associations, or organizations), were capped at $2,000 per year per person, and candidates could not spend more than $.20 per voter in any campaign, America would have a country that would approach a democracy rather than the present plutocracy.

It would also be necessary to curtail third party spending by non-candidates, including individuals, corporations, unions, associations, or organizations, in elections as well to achieve an even fairer election.

What about the right to free speech? When rights conflict-in this case the right to free speech with the right to a representative democracy- choices must be made. Is it reasonable or good for the country or Americans in general that a few people who, because of wealth, can use their free speech to drown and suppress everyone else's speech and thereby gain putative control over politicians? One person's free speech ought not be allowed to deny another's right to an elected politician who will honestly and faithfully represent them (rather than campaign fund donors) in the legislature.

In the US you can have unfettered "free speech" during elections or a democracy. Pick one. You can't, as has been shown, have both.