Can anybody show me how it is working and making things better?
Why is Obama's economic plan not working?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I saw an article the other day that said that the economy is improving in key areas, but is being hampered by high oil prices.
Well, first, it is, considering that job loss decelerated shortly after Obama took office and that we're now seeing jobs being added rather than lost.
Second, the Republicans have basically tried to sabotage it every step of the way, which lessens its ability to actually function as Obama originally intended.
What jobs are added instead of being lost? And what kind of jobs? And sabotage it how?Well, first, it is, considering that job loss decelerated shortly after Obama took office and that we're now seeing jobs being added rather than lost.
Second, the Republicans have basically tried to sabotage it every step of the way, which lessens its ability to actually function as Obama originally intended.
GabuEx
See also: private sector job growth.scorch-62
This. I'm not entirely convinced that many corporations simply aren't hiring because Obama's pushing for a return to the Clinton tax rates, and they know that if the economy stays bad it increases their chances of getting a President who will do what Ryan is proposing and slash their taxes even further instead. Beyond that, during the recession businesses learned to operate with less overhead, i.e. fewer employees. Now that they see they can be profitable with fewer employees they're not going to go back to previous hiring quotas unless there's some incentive for them to do so. I'm actually beginning to think that 8%+ unemployment is going to become the new norm.
[QUOTE="scorch-62"]See also: private sector job growth.theone86
This. I'm not entirely convinced that many corporations simply aren't hiring because Obama's pushing for a return to the Clinton tax rates, and they know that if the economy stays bad it increases their chances of getting a President who will do what Ryan is proposing and slash their taxes even further instead. Beyond that, during the recession businesses learned to operate with less overhead, i.e. fewer employees. Now that they see they can be profitable with fewer employees they're not going to go back to previous hiring quotas unless there's some incentive for them to do so. I'm actually beginning to think that 8%+ unemployment is going to become the new norm.
That doesn't make sense. Businesses expand because there is more demand. With the lack of demand, there isn't a need for more employees. A business can only be so efficient with current labor... and once demand exceeds that, then they have to hire more people.P.S... I don't think direct labor is included in overhead costs.
[QUOTE="theone86"]
[QUOTE="scorch-62"]See also: private sector job growth.BMD004
This. I'm not entirely convinced that many corporations simply aren't hiring because Obama's pushing for a return to the Clinton tax rates, and they know that if the economy stays bad it increases their chances of getting a President who will do what Ryan is proposing and slash their taxes even further instead. Beyond that, during the recession businesses learned to operate with less overhead, i.e. fewer employees. Now that they see they can be profitable with fewer employees they're not going to go back to previous hiring quotas unless there's some incentive for them to do so. I'm actually beginning to think that 8%+ unemployment is going to become the new norm.
That doesn't make sense. Businesses expand because there is more demand. With the lack of demand, there isn't a need for more employees. A business can only be so efficient with current labor... and once demand exceeds that, then they have to hire more people.P.S... I don't think direct labor is included in overhead costs.
Companies learned to be just as efficient with less people, and at a lower cost. Unless demand were to increase substantially, there's no need for them to hire more people.[QUOTE="theone86"]
[QUOTE="scorch-62"]See also: private sector job growth.BMD004
This. I'm not entirely convinced that many corporations simply aren't hiring because Obama's pushing for a return to the Clinton tax rates, and they know that if the economy stays bad it increases their chances of getting a President who will do what Ryan is proposing and slash their taxes even further instead. Beyond that, during the recession businesses learned to operate with less overhead, i.e. fewer employees. Now that they see they can be profitable with fewer employees they're not going to go back to previous hiring quotas unless there's some incentive for them to do so. I'm actually beginning to think that 8%+ unemployment is going to become the new norm.
That doesn't make sense. Businesses expand because there is more demand. With the lack of demand, there isn't a need for more employees. A business can only be so efficient with current labor... and once demand exceeds that, then they have to hire more people.P.S... I don't think labor is included in overhead costs.
What part doesn't make sense, the businesses not hiring to spite Obama? I'd be the first to admit it's a conspiracy theory, but I can't help but realize how a stagnant economy could possibly benefit some of these corporations. If you're talking about he second part, many businesses had a certain number of employees before downsizing, now they have less employees doing the same amount of work, that's not a matter of demand but simple efficiency. Besides, what drives demand? Consumers, or in other words employees, which means that if hiring picks up then demand in most industries will also accelerate.
Operating costs, whatever, no need to get bogged down in semantics.
[QUOTE="BMD004"]That doesn't make sense. Businesses expand because there is more demand. With the lack of demand, there isn't a need for more employees. A business can only be so efficient with current labor... and once demand exceeds that, then they have to hire more people.[QUOTE="theone86"]
This. I'm not entirely convinced that many corporations simply aren't hiring because Obama's pushing for a return to the Clinton tax rates, and they know that if the economy stays bad it increases their chances of getting a President who will do what Ryan is proposing and slash their taxes even further instead. Beyond that, during the recession businesses learned to operate with less overhead, i.e. fewer employees. Now that they see they can be profitable with fewer employees they're not going to go back to previous hiring quotas unless there's some incentive for them to do so. I'm actually beginning to think that 8%+ unemployment is going to become the new norm.
Nibroc420
P.S... I don't think direct labor is included in overhead costs.
Companies learned to be just as efficient with less people, and at a lower cost. Unless demand were to increase substantially, there's no need for them to hire more people.Businesses are ALWAYS trying to maximize efficiency. Maximizing efficiency = maximizing profit. You can tighten your belt for a little while... but there comes a point where employees get too overworked that they actually LOSE efficiency... and that is when you know you must hire more people.[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="BMD004"]That doesn't make sense. Businesses expand because there is more demand. With the lack of demand, there isn't a need for more employees. A business can only be so efficient with current labor... and once demand exceeds that, then they have to hire more people.Companies learned to be just as efficient with less people, and at a lower cost. Unless demand were to increase substantially, there's no need for them to hire more people.Businesses are ALWAYS trying to maximize efficiency. Maximizing efficiency = maximizing profit. You can tighten your belt for a little while... but there comes a point where employees get too overworked that they actually LOSE efficiency... and that is when you know you must hire more people.P.S... I don't think direct labor is included in overhead costs.
BMD004
Perhaps that's how it works in theory, but not in practice. When business is going well many companies will hire workers they may not need because the increased profit makes it easier to do, but when hard times hit those workers get laid off. What you're actually seeing now is that principle working in practice, businesses usually hire more workers when profits pick up but now they are actually sticking to the principle of running as efficiently as possible.
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="BMD004"]That doesn't make sense. Businesses expand because there is more demand. With the lack of demand, there isn't a need for more employees. A business can only be so efficient with current labor... and once demand exceeds that, then they have to hire more people.Companies learned to be just as efficient with less people, and at a lower cost. Unless demand were to increase substantially, there's no need for them to hire more people.Businesses are ALWAYS trying to maximize efficiency. Maximizing efficiency = maximizing profit. You can tighten your belt for a little while... but there comes a point where employees get too overworked that they actually LOSE efficiency... and that is when you know you must hire more people. You're simplifying it too much.P.S... I don't think direct labor is included in overhead costs.
BMD004
If there's no need for a company to hire, they wont. If their current staff can produce the goods/services at a rate the company needs them too, there's no need to hire more.
Businesses are ALWAYS trying to maximize efficiency. Maximizing efficiency = maximizing profit. You can tighten your belt for a little while... but there comes a point where employees get too overworked that they actually LOSE efficiency... and that is when you know you must hire more people. You're simplifying it too much.[QUOTE="BMD004"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Companies learned to be just as efficient with less people, and at a lower cost. Unless demand were to increase substantially, there's no need for them to hire more people.Nibroc420
If there's no need for a company to hire, they wont. If their current staff can produce the goods/services at a rate the company needs them too, there's no need to hire more.
I agree with that... I don't understand what you are arguing...[QUOTE="GabuEx"]What jobs are added instead of being lost? And what kind of jobs? And sabotage it how?Well, first, it is, considering that job loss decelerated shortly after Obama took office and that we're now seeing jobs being added rather than lost.
Second, the Republicans have basically tried to sabotage it every step of the way, which lessens its ability to actually function as Obama originally intended.
BMD004
My state is trying to slash education budgets. Not sure how they can expect anyone to get a job and get ahead when they can't afford it. Ever.
Anyway, we're getting into a different discussion. On topic, what has Obama done to help the economy? Did all of his stimulus work or not? (ie, cash for clunkers, etc.)
BMD004
I don't think we're getting into a different discussion, the discussion was about Obama and the economy and the point many of us are trying to make is that it's not JUST about Obama and the eonomy. I would say yes, his timulus worked, it saved jobs, it invigorated the auto industry, it created new jobs, and overall we'd be far worse off without it. He's done his part, but business hasn't done its part. There have been some staggering profits in recent months and no hiring from companies making those profits, that's why you have a bad economy.
[QUOTE="BMD004"]
Anyway, we're getting into a different discussion. On topic, what has Obama done to help the economy? Did all of his stimulus work or not? (ie, cash for clunkers, etc.)
theone86
I don't think we're getting into a different discussion, the discussion was about Obama and the economy and the point many of us are trying to make is that it's not JUST about Obama and the eonomy. I would say yes, his timulus worked, it saved jobs, it invigorated the auto industry, it created new jobs, and overall we'd be far worse off without it. He's done his part, but business hasn't done its part. There have been some staggering profits in recent months and no hiring from companies making those profits, that's why you have a bad economy.
Any proof of any of that?In my personal opinion, the stimulus didn't work at all. It was like smoke and mirros. Sure, it is going to stimulate the economy for a little bit, but after it's over, the economy is right back where it was... except even deeper in debt.
It was an artificial boost.
[QUOTE="theone86"][QUOTE="BMD004"]
Anyway, we're getting into a different discussion. On topic, what has Obama done to help the economy? Did all of his stimulus work or not? (ie, cash for clunkers, etc.)
BMD004
I don't think we're getting into a different discussion, the discussion was about Obama and the economy and the point many of us are trying to make is that it's not JUST about Obama and the eonomy. I would say yes, his timulus worked, it saved jobs, it invigorated the auto industry, it created new jobs, and overall we'd be far worse off without it. He's done his part, but business hasn't done its part. There have been some staggering profits in recent months and no hiring from companies making those profits, that's why you have a bad economy.
Any proof of any of that?It's out there. Oil companies are posting record profits, Wall Street firms are posting record profits, there are plenty of companies posting huge profits and still no uptick in hiring.
[QUOTE="Dgalmun"]It's working in some areas, but the high oil prices and the nation's debt is hurting the plan from working.BMD004The oil prices are rising because of central banks printing money. The money supply is growing and driving up the price of oil. Any proof of that?
[QUOTE="Dgalmun"]It's working in some areas, but the high oil prices and the nation's debt is hurting the plan from working.BMD004The oil prices are rising because of central banks printing money. The money supply is growing and driving up the price of oil.
The price of oil is high right now because of the current speculative nature of the commodity. Inflation can't make oil raise that quickly, unless of course it was severe inflation, or the dollar collapsed (in which case a barrell of oil would be more than $100-150/gallon, and we would have a lot more to worry about).
And how do you know that is Obama's doing? The thing with Government stimulus is that it is win win for whoever passes it: If the economy gets better, they get full credit. If the economy struggles then o well, it would have been worse without the stimulus. And if it fails then screw it, the government can't really fix the markets. Blame the corporations. Yet one must remember that running deficits now means higher taxes later. With incomes down and the poverty rate up across the nation, raising taxes is going to suck. I wish the President could have put our country in a better position than it is right now. His foreign policy has not helped any of this (increases in the defense budget). But the fact remains that I personally do not feel like Mr. Obama has helped this country in his 3(ish) years in office. Unemployment is higher then the government projected post-stimulus. Cash for Clunkers was a joke and failed to create a long term auto sales boost. The debt problem had gone almost untouched until his party lost the house. Now it's a nightmare trying to get anything done. Blame Republicans all you want, but Obama has to take some responsibility for where we are economically. Also, the US is no closer to energy independence than we were when Obama took office.Well, first, it is, considering that job loss decelerated shortly after Obama took office and that we're now seeing jobs being added rather than lost.
Second, the Republicans have basically tried to sabotage it every step of the way, which lessens its ability to actually function as Obama originally intended.
GabuEx
Any proof of any of that?[QUOTE="BMD004"][QUOTE="theone86"]
I don't think we're getting into a different discussion, the discussion was about Obama and the economy and the point many of us are trying to make is that it's not JUST about Obama and the eonomy. I would say yes, his timulus worked, it saved jobs, it invigorated the auto industry, it created new jobs, and overall we'd be far worse off without it. He's done his part, but business hasn't done its part. There have been some staggering profits in recent months and no hiring from companies making those profits, that's why you have a bad economy.
theone86
It's out there. Oil companies are posting record profits, Wall Street firms are posting record profits, there are plenty of companies posting huge profits and still no uptick in hiring.
And to post profits that beat already record setting profits, these firms (not sure which ones you are talking about) would have to grow. Shareholders want to see more money year after year.It's hard for your economic plan to work when you don't have one in the first place. -Sun_Tzu-
Honestly, this is the best post here.
We are trying to recover the economy..For what? What future do we have? In what area/industry are we improving?
All the United States is focusing on lately is the service sector, moving all manufacturing to other nations to deal with, and now, even outsourcing some jobs in the service serctor. That is not a sustainable plan for the futue, especially with no manufacturing industry to be seen at all (of course, the US Car Manufacturers are boosting sales, while moving factories out of the US and removing jobs. How sustainable is that?).
We have no economic plan down whatsoever. Our future right now is to create jobs, nothing more, nothibng less, but yet with nothing in mind.
Lets not forget we are doing all of this with our failing real estate industry to worry about still, which is becoming worse, and could result in Obama and the Fed running a QE3.
The oil prices are rising because of central banks printing money. The money supply is growing and driving up the price of oil.[QUOTE="BMD004"][QUOTE="Dgalmun"]It's working in some areas, but the high oil prices and the nation's debt is hurting the plan from working.taj7575
The price of oil is high right now because of the current speculative nature of the commodity. Inflation can't make oil raise that quickly, unless of course, the dollar collapsed (in which case a barrell of oil would be more than $100-150/gallon, and we would have a lot more to worry about).
This can explain it better and more quickly than I can: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujAL6MavIhUWell, first, it is,
GabuEx
A rise in unemployment is a sign of progress. Man, wait until O's plan really picks up steam.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
Well, first, it is,
QuistisTrepe_
A rise in unemployment is a sign of progress. Man, wait until O's plan really picks up steam.
Perhaps it's a sign that people should get off their ***es and back to work? People who feed off welfare and unemployment benefits sicken me. Leaches.[QUOTE="taj7575"][QUOTE="BMD004"]The oil prices are rising because of central banks printing money. The money supply is growing and driving up the price of oil.BMD004
The price of oil is high right now because of the current speculative nature of the commodity. Inflation can't make oil raise that quickly, unless of course, the dollar collapsed (in which case a barrell of oil would be more than $100-150/gallon, and we would have a lot more to worry about).
This can explain it better and more quickly than I can: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujAL6MavIhUOf course he is right, but that's not the only reason. Inflation is definitely a factor, but Oil Speculation is definitely the main factor.
By the way..Posting a video does not explain it better or more quickly. It's better to understand what he's talking about before posting a video you think is good and posting it. Of course, I agree on Peter Schiff on a lot of things, but the growth of the money supply + The speculative nature of oil currently is what is factoring to the growing prices, with the latter being the main reason right now.
[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]
Well, first, it is,
Nibroc420
A rise in unemployment is a sign of progress. Man, wait until O's plan really picks up steam.
Perhaps it's a sign that people should get off their ***es and back to work? People who feed off welfare and unemployment benefits sicken me. Leaches.Yep... the reason unemployment is high is because people are just being lazy. Now I've heard it all.This can explain it better and more quickly than I can: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujAL6MavIhU[QUOTE="BMD004"][QUOTE="taj7575"]
The price of oil is high right now because of the current speculative nature of the commodity. Inflation can't make oil raise that quickly, unless of course, the dollar collapsed (in which case a barrell of oil would be more than $100-150/gallon, and we would have a lot more to worry about).
taj7575
Of course he is right, but that's not the only reason. Inflation is definitely a factor, but Oil Speculation is definitely the main factor.
By the way..Posting a video does not explain it better or more quickly. It's better to understand what he's talking about before posting a video you think is good and posting it. Of course, I agree on Peter Schiff on a lot of things, but the growth of the money supply + The speculative nature of oil currently is what is factoring to the growing prices, with the latter being the main reason right now.
Agreed.[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]Perhaps it's a sign that people should get off their ***es and back to work? People who feed off welfare and unemployment benefits sicken me. Leaches.Yep... the reason unemployment is high is because people are just being lazy. Now I've heard it all. Well, in part, yes.A rise in unemployment is a sign of progress. Man, wait until O's plan really picks up steam.
BMD004
Government pays people money when they do nothing, then has less money to spend on the things that are important to the people who actually put money into the government.
Eventually they "run out" of money, and have to print more to pay for the leaches who dont work and dont pay taxes.
If people went out and got jobs, they'd put money into the government to pay for the services they QQ about, rather than the Government having to print money and go deeper into debt to feed the lazy ones.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]And how do you know that is Obama's doing? The thing with Government stimulus is that it is win win for whoever passes it: If the economy gets better, they get full credit. If the economy struggles then o well, it would have been worse without the stimulus. And if it fails then screw it, the government can't really fix the markets. Blame the corporations. Yet one must remember that running deficits now means higher taxes later. With incomes down and the poverty rate up across the nation, raising taxes is going to suck. I wish the President could have put our country in a better position than it is right now. His foreign policy has not helped any of this (increases in the defense budget). But the fact remains that I personally do not feel like Mr. Obama has helped this country in his 3(ish) years in office. Unemployment is higher then the government projected post-stimulus. Cash for Clunkers was a joke and failed to create a long term auto sales boost. The debt problem had gone almost untouched until his party lost the house. Now it's a nightmare trying to get anything done. Blame Republicans all you want, but Obama has to take some responsibility for where we are economically. Also, the US is no closer to energy independence than we were when Obama took office.Well, first, it is, considering that job loss decelerated shortly after Obama took office and that we're now seeing jobs being added rather than lost.
Second, the Republicans have basically tried to sabotage it every step of the way, which lessens its ability to actually function as Obama originally intended.
limpbizkit818
Couple of things. One, every President since Eisenhower, perhaps even before Eisenhower, has increased the military budget, that's nothing unique to Obama. Obama has, however, supported decreases in the military budget that have met with opposition in Congress, I don't see how the blame is exclusively his.
Two, what is this logic amongst conservatives, that if Obama does anything to try to address the economy he is expanding government authority too far, but if he doesn't do anything then he gets reamed because the economy is doing poorly? Is there any scenario where he doesn't get criticized? This is perfectly epitmoized in your statements about cash for clunkers, what do you expect him to do, keep passing bailout after bailout to stimulate auto sales? The problem here is demand, and demand won't rise until the workers have money to spend and put back into the economy, which means hiring has to pick up. That's not something that President Obama can rectify.
Three, there are objective ways of measuring the stimulus. Cash for clunkers, for example, shows a direct correlation between car sales that were not projected to go up by any economist until the program was announced, and immediately after many car dealerships had their business and hiring pick up. You can also look at some government work projects to see that there are jobs being created, and that without those jobs the economy would be in worse shape now than had it not been done at all. This isn't just conjectural mud-slinging, these are objective facts about certain initiatives and what their impact has been on the economy. Here are the jobs that President Obama has created, now where are the jobs that private business is creating?
Running deficits now means higher taxes later? Since when? We've been running defecits since Clinton and for years before he came into office and taxes have only gone down. I highly doubt that an increased 3%, even across the board and ignoring the idea of just raising the top rate, would affect Americans all that much. That means a small bit less money for people who have stability in order to increase the stability of the whole nation, I think it's a fair trade-off.
What do you mean the debt problem has gone untouched? Obama had been speaking about deficit reduction since before the midterms, a huge part of his impetus for medical reform was based on deficit reduction, he's put forward proposals for cutting military spending, for cutting oil subsidies, for raising taxes by a marginal amount, for reforming the tax code, and all of these things have consistently been rejected by Republicans. In fact, Paul Ryan's own estimates of the savings that would be created by his medicare and medicaid reform rely on OBAMACARE for a huge chunk of the savings, and at the same time he is criticizing the President for demagoging. Same thing with energy independence, it's the Republicans who are blockading efforts to wean the nation off oil. How can you possibly blame the President for that? What do you expect him to do?
This can explain it better and more quickly than I can: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujAL6MavIhU[QUOTE="BMD004"][QUOTE="taj7575"]
The price of oil is high right now because of the current speculative nature of the commodity. Inflation can't make oil raise that quickly, unless of course, the dollar collapsed (in which case a barrell of oil would be more than $100-150/gallon, and we would have a lot more to worry about).
taj7575
Of course he is right, but that's not the only reason. Inflation is definitely a factor, but Oil Speculation is definitely the main factor.
By the way..Posting a video does not explain it better or more quickly. It's better to understand what he's talking about before posting a video you think is good and posting it. Of course, I agree on Peter Schiff on a lot of things, but the growth of the money supply + The speculative nature of oil currently is what is factoring to the growing prices, with the latter being the main reason right now.
Not to mention that inflation is not specific to simply oil prices, but oil prices are rising at a rate that is dramatically higher than other goods in the country affected by inflation, which points to another factor (oil speculation) as the reason oil prices are rising so dramatically and not inflation.
[QUOTE="scorch-62"]See also: private sector job growth.theone86
This. I'm not entirely convinced that many corporations simply aren't hiring because Obama's pushing for a return to the Clinton tax rates, and they know that if the economy stays bad it increases their chances of getting a President who will do what Ryan is proposing and slash their taxes even further instead. Beyond that, during the recession businesses learned to operate with less overhead, i.e. fewer employees. Now that they see they can be profitable with fewer employees they're not going to go back to previous hiring quotas unless there's some incentive for them to do so. I'm actually beginning to think that 8%+ unemployment is going to become the new norm.
It's a conspiracy! :o Businesses don't really work that way - at least the majority of them. Even if they did, a lot of the people in charge of the bigger profiting seem to be focused on the short-term growth. It seems the sooner they get in and make their millions they bail with a bunch of stock.[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]
Well, first, it is,
Nibroc420
A rise in unemployment is a sign of progress. Man, wait until O's plan really picks up steam.
Perhaps it's a sign that people should get off their ***es and back to work? People who feed off welfare and unemployment benefits sicken me. Leaches.Most people would rather work than collect government benefits, aside from unemployment not being sufficient to support a very comfortable lifestyle, many people also feel a bit of personal pride in working for an income.
[QUOTE="theone86"][QUOTE="scorch-62"]See also: private sector job growth.Saturos3091
This. I'm not entirely convinced that many corporations simply aren't hiring because Obama's pushing for a return to the Clinton tax rates, and they know that if the economy stays bad it increases their chances of getting a President who will do what Ryan is proposing and slash their taxes even further instead. Beyond that, during the recession businesses learned to operate with less overhead, i.e. fewer employees. Now that they see they can be profitable with fewer employees they're not going to go back to previous hiring quotas unless there's some incentive for them to do so. I'm actually beginning to think that 8%+ unemployment is going to become the new norm.
It's a conspiracy! :o Businesses don't really work that way - at least the majority of them. Even if they did, a lot of the people in charge of the bigger profiting seem to be focused on the short-term growth. It seems the sooner they get in and make their millions they bail with a bunch of stock.Which is why I said corporations specifically on that first part and not businesses in general, I don't think a mom and pop operation is holding back on hiring because they think it'll lead to a tax break. As for the plausibility, large business interests have always held a prominent role in American politics, and have also had some pretty great sway over American presidents. I really don't think it's so implausible for them to pattern their hiring patterns in a way that could gain them a tax break, especially if it means a 25% tax rate as opposed to 38%. My only reservation in making the statement is that there's no proof, simply a pattern, but that pattern does fit in with a lot of historical precedent. The other thing to consider is that it's not that the corporations are saying, "we REALLY need to hire more workers,and we'll lose profits in the short-term if we don't," more like, "we could hire workers right now and it might stimulate the economy a bit, but it won't dramatically affect our profits either way and if we don't hire them it could help our chances at getting a tax break."
[QUOTE="X360PS3AMD05"]People expect things to happen overnight?Mafiree2.5 years in office is enough time to have some effect. Obama himself believed that unemployment would not go above 8% if the stimulus package he introduced was passed.
Thats because everyone undestimated the impact of the financial crisis.... and not just the government, same goes for for the all-knowing private sector. If you are asking why obama isnt smarter than everyone else on the planet.... well i dont have an answer... other than thats an incredibly unreasonable expectation.
But the stimulus certainly helped to some extent.
2.5 years in office is enough time to have some effect. Obama himself believed that unemployment would not go above 8% if the stimulus package he introduced was passed.[QUOTE="Mafiree"][QUOTE="X360PS3AMD05"]People expect things to happen overnight?SoBaus
Thats because everyone undestimated the impact of the financial crisis.... and not just the government, same goes for for the all-knowing private sector. If you are asking why obama isnt smarter than everyone else on the planet.... well i dont have an answer... other than thats an incredibly unreasonable expectation.
But the stimulus certainly helped to some extent.
It is unreasonable for the president of the United States to be able to hire economist who know how to forecast?There were lots of economists who predicted the housing bubble and the deep recession......
Yep... the reason unemployment is high is because people are just being lazy. Now I've heard it all. Well, in part, yes.[QUOTE="BMD004"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Perhaps it's a sign that people should get off their ***es and back to work? People who feed off welfare and unemployment benefits sicken me. Leaches.Nibroc420
Government pays people money when they do nothing, then has less money to spend on the things that are important to the people who actually put money into the government.
Eventually they "run out" of money, and have to print more to pay for the leaches who dont work and dont pay taxes.
If people went out and got jobs, they'd put money into the government to pay for the services they QQ about, rather than the Government having to print money and go deeper into debt to feed the lazy ones.
You understand what the unemployment rate is right? people looking for jobs that dont exist. Even if all the "leaches" decided to go out and look for work there is no work for them to get.
By cutting off the leaches you are actually shrinking demand which deinsentivizes investment in the economy... which further shrinks the economy.
When McDonalds went on a hiring spree a couple months ago they rejected something like 93% of applicants. That means its basically harder to get a job in fast food than it is to get accepted to a high level university.
[QUOTE="SoBaus"][QUOTE="Mafiree"] 2.5 years in office is enough time to have some effect. Obama himself believed that unemployment would not go above 8% if the stimulus package he introduced was passed.Mafiree
Thats because everyone undestimated the impact of the financial crisis.... and not just the government, same goes for for the all-knowing private sector. If you are asking why obama isnt smarter than everyone else on the planet.... well i dont have an answer... other than thats an incredibly unreasonable expectation.
But the stimulus certainly helped to some extent.
It is unreasonable for the president of the United States to be able to higher economist who know how to forecast? There were lots of economists who predicted the housing bubble and the deep recession......Yes and all those economists predicted it under the presidency of GW Bush. Remember the bubble popped under bush, all the chances to avert the crisis happened under bush. Obama came in post financial meltdown.... the best he could do was try to pickup the pieces. So apparently you expect obama to have access to time machine technology as well?
It is unreasonable for the president of the United States to be able to higher economist who know how to forecast? There were lots of economists who predicted the housing bubble and the deep recession......[QUOTE="Mafiree"][QUOTE="SoBaus"]
Thats because everyone undestimated the impact of the financial crisis.... and not just the government, same goes for for the all-knowing private sector. If you are asking why obama isnt smarter than everyone else on the planet.... well i dont have an answer... other than thats an incredibly unreasonable expectation.
But the stimulus certainly helped to some extent.
SoBaus
Yes and all those economists predicted it under the presidency of GW Bush. Remember the bubble popped under bush, all the chances to avert the crisis happened under bush. Obama came in post financial meltdown.... the best he could do was try to pickup the pieces. So apparently you except obama to have access to time machine technology as well?
No..... I'm saying he is he either has incompetent economist or lied to the American people to pass the stimulus.[QUOTE="SoBaus"][QUOTE="Mafiree"] It is unreasonable for the president of the United States to be able to higher economist who know how to forecast? There were lots of economists who predicted the housing bubble and the deep recession......Mafiree
Yes and all those economists predicted it under the presidency of GW Bush. Remember the bubble popped under bush, all the chances to avert the crisis happened under bush. Obama came in post financial meltdown.... the best he could do was try to pickup the pieces. So apparently you except obama to have access to time machine technology as well?
No..... I'm saying he is he either has incompetent economist or lied to the American people to pass the stimulus.Im sure he had the most competent ecnonomists, but sadly even gifted economists are not fortune tellers. They made predictions to the best of their ability... again you seem to have incredibly unrealistic expectations.
Think of it this way... the most knowledgeable person in football in the world... still cant predict 100% of football outcomes, there is always a rather large margin for error. This is the case anytime anyone tries to predict the future.... even the greatest minds in the world cant predict the future.
No..... I'm saying he is he either has incompetent economist or lied to the American people to pass the stimulus.[QUOTE="Mafiree"][QUOTE="SoBaus"]
Yes and all those economists predicted it under the presidency of GW Bush. Remember the bubble popped under bush, all the chances to avert the crisis happened under bush. Obama came in post financial meltdown.... the best he could do was try to pickup the pieces. So apparently you except obama to have access to time machine technology as well?
SoBaus
Im sure he had the most competent ecnonomists, but sadly even gifted economists are not fortune tellers. They made predictions to the best of their ability... again you seem to have incredibly unrealistic expectations.
Think of it this way... the most knowledgeable person in football in the world... still cant predict 100% of football outcomes, there is always a rather large margin for error. This is the case anytime anyone tries to predict the future.... even the greatest minds in the world cant predict the future.
It is not "unreasonable" to expect an economist to forecast unemployment to a +/- 2%......... And if this predictions had such a great margin of error, Obama should not have presented the results in the manner he did.It is unreasonable for the president of the United States to be able to higher economist who know how to forecast? There were lots of economists who predicted the housing bubble and the deep recession......[QUOTE="Mafiree"][QUOTE="SoBaus"]
Thats because everyone undestimated the impact of the financial crisis.... and not just the government, same goes for for the all-knowing private sector. If you are asking why obama isnt smarter than everyone else on the planet.... well i dont have an answer... other than thats an incredibly unreasonable expectation.
But the stimulus certainly helped to some extent.
SoBaus
Yes and all those economists predicted it under the presidency of GW Bush. Remember the bubble popped under bush, all the chances to avert the crisis happened under bush. Obama came in post financial meltdown.... the best he could do was try to pickup the pieces. So apparently you expect obama to have access to time machine technology as well?
Excuses excuses.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment