News: President Obama has fully turned around the U.S. economy - Page 5

KyIe

Quote:

Originally posted by Javan

Romney wasn't going to do **** for unemployment so at least you got something with Obama?

Romney had plans to implement his own RomneyCare that wasn't too different

Debt wouldn't have risen as fast under Romney possibly, but it would have risen either way. He was not going to reduce it one bit

haha I edited my post after saying Romney would probably been just have bad

Manimuni

Quote:

Originally posted by Wafflecakes

My biggest issue isn't even not giving Obama ANY credit for the recovery. Opinions are opinions.

My issue is with people who are DROWNING in confirmation bias. If the economy was tanking 100% chance they would blame Obama. Hell, Kyle was blaming Hoover for making the great depression worse just a few posts ago.

So what is it? Do President's have influence over the economy or not?

The fact is that the only President's in the last 30 years to leave office with smaller deficits than when they came it were democrats. People can pretend that is coincidence all they like.

1986-2016.

A lower deficit won't happen with Obama. And Clinton couldn't continue spending because the Republicans in both chambers kept him from doing so. We can thank Newt Gingrich and John Kasich, among others, for that. And don't forget Reagan's lower deficit.

Repo

Quote:

Originally posted by Wafflecakes

The problem with this line of thought that many conservatives cite is the baby boomers. A disproportionate number of people "dropping out" of the labor force and no longer being counted as unemployed are baby boomers who were a few years away from retirement. It isn't like there is a hidden mass of 30 something unemployed people no longer being counted.

Oh yeah, I have no doubt some are legit too, but I think that makes the statistic just objectively unreliable no matter who's the president if that makes sense? It'd be better if there was something asking if people are looking for a job or whatever to monitor unemployment

Quote:

Originally posted by Wafflecakes

My biggest issue isn't even not giving Obama ANY credit for the recovery. Opinions are opinions.

My issue is with people who are DROWNING in confirmation bias. If the economy was tanking 100% chance they would blame Obama. Hell, Kyle was blaming Hoover for making the great depression worse just a few posts ago.

So what is it? Do President's have influence over the economy or not?

The fact is that the only President's in the last 30 years to leave office with smaller deficits than when they came it were democrats. People can pretend that is coincidence all they like.

Oh yeah, I get you. YOu always get people biased like that tho. At some point I try to just stop caring because they're irrational.

Presidents obviously impact the economy, tho they also, obviously, do not have complete control

*a democrat, or am I wrong? And while presidents do have an impact on the economy and Clinton is obviously not uber-incompetent, he did have a lot of advantages helping to get that surplus (wasn't this around the time things like, say, the internet were taking off?) But yeah, Kyle is pretty notoriously anti-Democrat, pro-Republican, Tho there's others who are kinda the opposite on here as well. I'm probably of the mentality both parties are run by useless (and often corrupt) idiots and we'd be 100% better off without them.

KyIe

Quote:

Originally posted by Wafflecakes

My biggest issue isn't even not giving Obama ANY credit for the recovery. Opinions are opinions.

My issue is with people who are DROWNING in confirmation bias. If the economy was tanking 100% chance they would blame Obama. Hell, Kyle was blaming Hoover for making the great depression worse just a few posts ago.

So what is it? Do President's have influence over the economy or not?

The fact is that the only President's in the last 30 years to leave office with smaller deficits than when they came it were democrats. People can pretend that is coincidence all they like.

I think they have influence in the economy but its almost always negative. Until presidents aren't puppets for their respective parties nothing positive will happen from what they propose. I'm pretty libertarian and think our two party system and the political class of leaches are the source of all these issues tbh.

BlueTimberwolf

Quote:

Originally posted by Wafflecakes

The problem with this line of thought that many conservatives cite is the baby boomers. A disproportionate number of people "dropping out" of the labor force and no longer being counted as unemployed are baby boomers who were a few years away from retirement. It isn't like there is a hidden mass of 30 something unemployed people no longer being counted.

There are arguments that there is though

Wafflecakes

Quote:

Originally posted by Manimuni

1986-2016.

A lower deficit won't happen with Obama. And Clinton couldn't continue spending because the Republicans in both chambers kept him from doing so.

Umm. Obama is virtually guaranteed to have a significantly smaller deficit his last year than his first year.

Unlike Bush who came in with a surplus and left with a trillion dollar deficit.

Wafflecakes

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf

There are arguments that there is though

Bad ones.

Repo

Quote:

Originally posted by Wafflecakes

Umm. Obama is virtually guaranteed to have a significantly smaller deficit his last year than his first year.

Unlike Bush who came in with a surplus and left with a trillion dollar deficit.

Either way, our debt continues to grow. And we make enough money that we shouldn't be in perpetual deficit.

Of course, Bush was incredibly incompetent as well. Not about to even try to argue otherwise

Wafflecakes

Quote:

Originally posted by Repo

Either way, our debt continues to grow. And we make enough money that we shouldn't be in perpetual deficit.

Of course, Bush was incredibly incompetent as well. Not about to even try to argue otherwise

That is what happens when the MOMENT we have a surplus of 250 million, we cut taxes for the rich by a trillion or two.

... but no. The deficit is the democrat's faults.

KyIe

Quote:

Originally posted by Wafflecakes

Umm. Obama is virtually guaranteed to have a significantly smaller deficit his last year than his first year.

Unlike Bush who came in with a surplus and left with a trillion dollar deficit.

Yes because the president has the power when congress approves the budget... and when Bush left it was spend happy democrats who controlled both house and senate and with Obama now its thrifty conservatives who do. When Obama had complete control spending and borrowing was higher than it ever was. Stop trying to attribute successes that he didn't contribute to.

Repo

Quote:

Originally posted by Wafflecakes

That is what happens when the MOMENT we have a surplus of 250 million, we cut taxes for the rich by a trillion or two.

... but no. The deficit is the democrat's faults.

Can't it be a shared responsibility? Obviously Republicans are at fault, but I just can't believe that Republicans had SO MUCH POWER during all eight years of Obama's administration (wasn't there a point when democrats controlled the house and the senate, even?) that he could never, ever, ever do anything to lower are debt even a little and instead keeps raising it

In fact, isn't he spending less now with Republicans in control of at least some congress than when Democrats ran congress?

As said, I blame both parties, but I think everyone except Kyle agrees Bush is responsible for a big part of our debt, so there's less need to emphasize his wrong doings

Wafflecakes

Quote:

Originally posted by KyIe

Yes because the president has the power when congress approves the budget... and when Bush left it was spend happy democrats who controlled both house and senate and with Obama now its thrifty conservatives who do.

The budget is irrelevant in large part. I mean, they haven't passed a budget for years.

The budget doesn't actually DO anything. It simply is a roadmap.

...and if you think the dem's caused the economic crisis of 2008 in their two years in congress then

KyIe

Quote:

Originally posted by Wafflecakes

That is what happens when the MOMENT we have a surplus of 250 million, we cut taxes for the rich by a trillion or two.

... but no. The deficit is the democrat's faults.

You did not seriously pull the "rich people don't pay enough taxes" bit to try and combat this statement

When 52% of the country doesn't pay federal income taxes I think we can clearly see why there isn't enough money to fund the government.

wesleywalrus

I mean when it's so low there's really nowhere to go but up

Repo

Quote:

Originally posted by KyIe

You did not seriously pull the "rich people don't pay enough taxes" bit to try and combat this statement

When 52% of the country doesn't pay federal income taxes I think we can clearly see why there isn't enough money to fund the government.

Where do you get these statistics?

KyIe

Quote:

Originally posted by Wafflecakes

The budget is irrelevant in large part. I mean, they haven't passed a budget for years.

The budget doesn't actually DO anything. It simply is a roadmap.

...and if you think the dem's caused the economic crisis of 2008 in their two years in congress then

Thats not what I said at all... I literally just said that the democrats from 2008-2010 literally went on a spending spree of trillions with literally no measurable impact on the economy. And we had our credit rating reduced which is straight up embarrassing. Obviously Bush's administration and the house bubble crisis caused the crisis.. I don't get why you are so combative on here.. stop dancing around facts just because you are probably a democrat and never want to admit when your party f**** up.

Repo

Quote:

Originally posted by KyIe

I don't get why you are so combative on here.. stop dancing around facts just because you are probably a democrat and never want to admit when your party f**** up.

Even if this is true (which isn't what I'm getting from Waffles, and I am more than happy to say Democrats failed at controlling their budget under Obama), could this statement be any more ironic?

Chucko

Quote:

Originally posted by KyIe

I can't believe how many people in this thread who know NOTHING about the economy actually believe that Obama was a good president.

Obama had TWO initiatives made during his presidency: the stimulus package and Obamacare. The stimulus package cost over 700 BILLION DOLLARS and only created 500,000 private sector jobs. That means the federal government and your tax dollars paid approximately 2 million dollars PER SINGLE JOB. Oh and this all used with money we borrowed from China. Obamacare is a complete mess from the website to the verification process to the way doctors are paid. People on Obamacare cannot get quality medical care in many areas because doctors simply will not get paid by it. The entire healthcare system is riddled with errors and honesty certain parts that are unconstitutional.

The economy recovered because it always does. The economy cycles like this and has been for over a century. A recovery would have always happened no matter who was president. Obama had nothing to do with falling gas prices, failed to take us out of foreign entanglements in Middle East like he promised and produced more debt than every previous president combined... its almost at 20 trillion.

And to the poster who said he was pro gay rights... look back to when he was running, he refused to comment on the issue until years later. Obama is not even taken seriously by foreign leaders whom have ignored his advice whether it be in Russia or even Kenya(when the president basically told him to shut up about gay rights).

Bush and Obama are literally two of the worst presidents America has ever had. The only difference between them is that Obama is a democrat so all of you automatically like him even though he has done absolutely nothing during his presidency.

People here think 2% annual GDP growth is a growing economy. We have not had such slow, extended growth since what, the 40's? I would have to look it up but I close. give or take a decade...

Javan

Quote:

Originally posted by Repo

Either way, our debt continues to grow. And we make enough money that we shouldn't be in perpetual deficit.

Of course, Bush was incredibly incompetent as well. Not about to even try to argue otherwise

nnn do some research on the US dollar. It don't mean ****. Once you start deficit spending its hard to neutralise the deficit and it's impossible to do it using your own states capital. You have to take assets from over countries, i.e oil. Hence all the invasions into the Middle East.

You can't spend more money than you have in assets, and then expect to pay off the debt. It's a paradox, because you put yourself at a sub balance. This is the nature of the U.S dollar, a fiat currency which is rigged to weaken over the years. And the petrodollar is about the only thing keeping it afloat rn.

KyIe

Quote:

Originally posted by Repo

Where do you get these statistics?

Sorry actually it was 47% and recently fell to 43% in 2012. it was 52% of people Pay taxes. and lol I look them up. I too was once misinformed by most issues like a majority of this and then I actually did research and realized how sh**** and evil the democratic and republican parties are just on opposite ends of the spectrum.