The Obama Economy

[buzz]

Osama is dead and GM is alive.   

[Ted]

  I agree the housing market is still tough, unemployment is still high and gas prices are high.

But, things are getting better and are better now than they were 4 years ago.

Unemployment is going down; the housing market is starting to get out from under foreclosures; and most financial institutions and the car industry are now stable (as well as many state and local governments that had financial problems).

I also agree that the debt has to be addressed. But, if Obama had tried to address the debt in 2009/2010 rather than institute a spending program, America would still be in a depression, like Europe. 

   Germany's and England's austerity programs have kept the rest of Europe in a depression.  The only countries that survived are those not tied to the Euro (Poland, Denmark) because they had the option of de-valuing their currency.

The trend is in the right direction in America from 2008.  America is recovering while Europe is still in a funk and going downhill fast.

  If you think people are going to care about the GDP increase being 2.2% rather than 2.5%, then you're crazy, especially when they look at the negative GDP numbers from Europe last year. No one cares about that .3% except the Obama haters.

Economically, this country is in much better shape than it was 4 years ago.  The biggest threat to that recovery right now is Europe.

[jake]

I agree that few people outside of finance and econ care about the magnitude of the miss.  But people will care that the GDP growth rate is again slowing in a meaningful way.  That trend is bad, and while people may not care about the actual vs. estimate, they will notice that GDP did not rebound as much as expected given the depth of the recession (the deeper the recession, the higher the rebound...until now).  They will also notice that with actual numbers trending down, Obama's forecast (which already show increased debts) will be far off the mark and debt will get even larger.

Things are not better now than 4 years ago.

Gas costs more.

Houses are worth less.  You may spin tales of foreclosures moderating, but prices are down meaningfully compared to 4 years ago.  That is a fact; check the home indexes.

Debt is much higher and Obama's lofty projections (based on higher GDP, vs. actual trending down) reflect MORE DEBT!

Unemployment is still very high with U6 still in solid double digits.  Record numbers of Americans are now out of the workforce!  And recent jobless claims data is again trending UP. 

After Obama brought US debt to record levels, Americans are not better off today. 

Recessions end.  Given the depth of the recent recession, Americans were due for a much better rebound! 

[Ted]

It's the economic trend that matters, not minute numbers.  The trend is going to the better in America.  Unemployment is going down. The housing market is getting better. Financial institutions are stabler.

  Compared to Europe, America's economic trend is much much better and we are in a much better place now than we were 4 years ago.
 
  As for the people who "care about GDP", economists look at what is happening in Europe and understand why America's GDP increased by "only" 2.2% rather than 2.5%.  We live in a global economy.

  Next fall, voters will decide if we are better off today than we were 4 years ago.  Only an Obama hater with blinders on would say we are worse off today than we were 4 years ago.

[watcher]

I agree that few people outside of finance and econ care about the magnitude of the miss.  But people will care that the GDP growth rate is again slowing in a meaningful way.  That trend is bad, and while people may not care about the actual vs. estimate, they will notice that GDP did not rebound as much as expected given the depth of the recession (the deeper the recession, the higher the rebound...until now).  They will also notice that with actual numbers trending down, Obama's forecast (which already show increased debts) will be far off the mark and debt will get even larger.

Things are not better now than 4 years ago.

Gas costs more.

Houses are worth less.  You may spin tales of foreclosures moderating, but prices are down meaningfully compared to 4 years ago.  That is a fact; check the home indexes.

Debt is much higher and Obama's lofty projections (based on higher GDP, vs. actual trending down) reflect MORE DEBT!

Unemployment is still very high with U6 still in solid double digits.  Record numbers of Americans are now out of the workforce!  And recent jobless claims data is again trending UP. 

After Obama brought US debt to record levels, Americans are not better off today. 

Recessions end.  Given the depth of the recent recession, Americans were due for a much better rebound!

"people" (that you mean) will care about what they're told, by Faux Noise, to care about.  You do, or should understand that it's a rigged game, which makes your obsessive blame-shifting and re-framing of the current clusterfuck all the more odious. Whatever. Don't let facts get in the way.

The GDP did not rebound as much as expected BY WHOM? From Sept. 2008- Jan. 2009 we were losing 700,000 jobs a month.  Wall Street and its allied power brokers, who had orchestrated the clusterfuck, RIPPED over a TRILLION Dollars directly OUT of the economy, then sat on it, bathed in it and  scoffed at being held accountable. They siphoned/vaporized another $2-3 Trillion out of asset values and money pools.

We had 200,000 plus troops deployed with Cheney/Rumsfeld bestowed support and supply private contractors overbilling for their efforts.

Three years later, most of that has been halted and despite full-court obstruction, distraction and tantrum-tossing, the trend is moving positive across the U.S. economic spectrum. 

Now. Imagine 2009-2012 with Preznit Wallnuts and the Grifter from Wasilla's austerity plan.

[jake]

It's the economic trend that matters, not minute numbers.

YES!

But if you remove the Obama loving blinders, the TRENDS ARE DOWN! 
-GDP growth is slowing (trending down)
-Jobless claims are rising again (trending up)
-People fleeing the Obama jobs market is increasing (trending up)
-Gas prices are increasing (trending up)
-Home prices continue to fall (trending down)
-Banks continue to be shut down by the FDIC
-Major financial firms have been downgraded or are on CW negative

Oh, and the US got DOWNGRADED by a rating agency and US Debt is at a record high

Talk about blinders
Obama convinced his followers to not look at historical recoveries and the absolute weakness of his...turn a blind eye to our history and just focus on Europe...yeah, that's it.  There is nothing to see outside of those Obama blinders.

[jake]

And let me introduce Mark Berwyn with nothing to say:

[markberwyn]

When GDP numbers go up, it actually means they're going down!
When unemployment numbers go down, they're actually going up!

[markberwyn]

America used to be on the verge of a double-dip recession. Now it's rebounding.

[markberwyn]

Where were you the day the president raised commodities prices?

[markberwyn]

Why can't I find "Obama loving blinders" in my size?

[Ted]

 You're wrong, Jake, on several things.

First, Obama didn't tell me to look at European GDP.  You brought that on yourself by your ridiculous claim that GDP was supposed to increase by 2.5% and the fact that GDP increased by 2.2% means that Obama is a bad bad person.

  I already knew what was going on in Europe.  I already knew that many European nations had a negative GDP change in 2011.

YOU invited those comparisons to Europe with your original post, not Obama.   Compared to what is happening in Europe, America is going gang busters.

Second, the trends ARE positive, not negative.  Unemployment is going down; foreclosed houses are getting off the market. GDP rose over 2%, which is pretty good considering the quagmire Europe could potentially pull us into.

Again, I ask the question - Are people better off today than they were 4 years ago?  Given the Bush Depression and the Bush Debt and the Bush Wars that Obama had to deal with, I think most people are going to answer YES.

[Ted]

  ...  From Sept. 2008- Jan. 2009 we were losing 700,000 jobs a month.  Wall Street and its allied power brokers, who had orchestrated the clusterfuck, RIPPED over a TRILLION Dollars directly OUT of the economy, then sat on it, bathed in it and  scoffed at being held accountable. They siphoned/vaporized another $2-3 Trillion out of asset values and money pools.

Obama was faced with a dilemma in 2009 when he took office. He was confronted with a sinking economy with unstable financial institutions and he was also handed a huge debt.

  He could have take one of two roads - Either increase spending and stimulate the economy (and therefore increase the Bush Debt) or he could proceed with an austerity program at the start of the Bush Depression that would pay down the debt.

  Obama chose to stimulate the economy, even if it did increase the debt.

Germany chose the opposite road. Germany's choice has kept the rest of the Eurozone countries in a bad economic situation with zero growth to, in fact, shrinking economies.  Many European countries saw GDP decrease and even strong countries like Germany are flat.

  America, on the other hand, has seen its GDP increase by over 2%, depsite what is going on in Europe.

  Obama made the right choice - increase spending to get the economy on track, even though it increased the debt.

Europe made the wrong choice and they are paying for it.

[jake]

I wonder what super secret economic data Ted is privy to that the Obama monetary team is in the dark about.

Once again this week Ben Bernanke indicated that QE3 is still on the table.  With the stable and upward trending economy that Ted's data points to, I am amazed that additional Easy Money is still thought to be needed by the Fed's economists. 

Ted for the Fed!  Ted for the Fed!

[markberwyn]

When in doubt, use jargon and mockery.

[Ted]

 Fareed Zakaria had a very good commentary on this issue on this mornings show GPS:

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/28/zakaria-obama-should-push-for-investments-not-buffett-rule/ 
 
      Buffett Rule is bad politics for Obama

By Fareed Zakaria, CNN

   After months of meandering, it seems President Barack Obama's re-election campaign has settled on a theme. The problem is - it's the wrong one.

   The "Buffett Rule" tax on millionaires has become Obama's bumper sticker. The proposal is reasonable - but it does not deserve the attention Obama is showering on it. It raises a trivial sum of money - $47 billion over the next 10 years - during which period the federal government will spend $45 trillion. It adds one more layer to a tax code that is already the most complex and corrupt in the industrialized world.

    The focus on the Buffett Rule is also bad politics in the long run for Obama. While polls might momentarily show that it works, Americans are generally aspirational, not envious. Over the years voters tend to support a government that focuses on creating opportunity rather than one that tries to reduce inequality. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair's great feat was to position themselves as pro-market, pro-growth, pro-opportunity progressives. Obama should not fritter away that asset.

Ironically, Obama has been pivoting at the very moment events in the real world are providing him with the perfect campaign issue. We are four years into the financial crisis. In the United States, the government acted speedily and massively to stimulate the economy, using monetary and fiscal measures. In Europe, by contrast, governments quickly turned toward austerity programs, cutting spending across the board to reduce budget deficits.

Well, the results are in: The U.S. economy is expected to grow 2 to 3 percent this year. The euro zone is expected to contract by 0.3 percent this year; Spain and Britain have officially entered a double-dip recession, the first time major economies have done so in 40 years. IMF projections show that even Germany's average growth rate over the next five years will be only 40 percent of America's.

President Obama started the year speaking of "an economy built to last." He should return to this theme and frame this campaign as a choice between investments on the one hand and budget cuts on the other. And he has substance behind his rhetoric.

   Obama has proposed several important investment initiatives: a $476 billion infrastructure plan; a 5% hike in research and development spending; a job-training program to help dislocated workers; incentives for manufacturing; funds to expand the pool of college graduates and to increase science and engineering students. So, he should ask Americans to choose between these investments to create long-term growth versus massive budget cuts.

In the midst of the economic crisis, Warren Buffet said that his strategy was to invest in America. That's the Buffett Rule Obama should follow.

[jake]

The Terrible Recovery

(in pictures)

Output. (That little bar at the right is the Obama recovery)



But let's follow Fed Chairman Ted and ignore all of this and look at Europe instead 

[This data is from the Fed.  That same Fed that noted QE3 (easy money, record low rates for the banks to borrow from the Fed, etc.) is back on the table due to the shitty downward trends in the economy.]

[eno]

Ted:

What do you think President Obama means by "an economy built to last?" No more recessions and consequently, no more growth? No more risk/reward? Will he conquer death and disease along with the old, bygone perils (and the concomitant sweet successes) of living life in what was once an imperfect world?

I keep looking at the glaring failures of central planners over the past century, and more specifically over the past 3.5 years, and the genius of these megalomaniacs still escapes me. Can you reassure me?

eno

P.S. You read it on Berwyn Talk Forum!

[berwynson]

   

   Germany's and England's austerity programs have kept the rest of Europe in a depression.  The only countries that survived are those not tied to the Euro (Poland, Denmark) because they had the option of de-valuing their currency.

What, you think the U.S. of A. does NOT have that option? Try the Monetary Reform Act signed by Reagan, about '81 or '82, thereabouts, in which private banking was effectively placed in the hands of the Fed, IF, "National Emergency measures be required,", etc., etc.

That Act gave the Fed the Legal Right to change-out the United States Currency at "any ratio deemed in the best interests of the Nation",..........

That part pissed me off less than the part which gave "discretionary Presidential Power to "Freeze all private bank accounts....", and, "Require a pre-determined span of time to elapse, subsequent to any private withdrawal request of private funds"........  Indeed, open a savings account. Read the fine print, or ask about it: "This Institution may require at it's discretion, 30 days prior written notice of any withdrawal intent".

Of course, that ostensibly was aimed at preventing "runs on banks"! What patent, lying, Washington-style bullshit!

DUPED AMERICA.

berwynson

[Ted]

  We are coming out of the worst depression since the 30s.  Despite what you want to believe, Europe does matter and a comparison to Europe does matter, since we live in a global economy and Europe was faced with the same situation 4 years ago.

  Obama was handed 3 huge turd balls when he entered office - the Bush Wars; the Bush Debt and the Bush Depression. 

  Obama had a choice - either go with an austerity program and pay down the debt (at the start of a depression) or spend to stimulate the economy, which would increase the debt.

  Obama chose stimulating the economy. Britain and Germany chose austerity programs.  4 years later, the depression in Europe is getting worse while America is recovering.

  America's GDP increase was over 2% while Europe's decreased.

   That's an indication that Obama made the right moves.  If Obama had followed the advice of Republican and the tea partiers, America would be in a same predicament as Europe.

  People are going to ask themselves what Reagan asked in 1980 - Are we better off now than we were 4 year ago?

The answer is yes.