Obama - Winner or Loser

[newtogolf]

3 hours ago, rkim291968 said:

How can some folks say that Obama is the worst ever POTUS?   Did they already forget Bush Jr.?    When Bush was leaving office, the overwhelming general consensus was that he was one of the worst presidents in US history.

I'd say GW, Obama and Carter all have rights to the title Worst POTUS ever.  A lot of the things Obama gets credit for will cost the American public when his 2nd term is up.  Read "Aftershock" by Wiedemer, and Spitzer.   We escaped a major recession / depression because of actions Obama took, which mainly included lowering interest rates and quantitative easing (printing money to infuse into the economy without a basis for it).  

Quote

Even left-wingers agree, uncomfortably, that “income inequality” got much worse under Obama, as the rich got richer, while the poor… didn’t. Left-wing analysts will tie themselves in knots trying to shift blame away from Obama and his policies for this state of affairs, with arguments that boil down to “this proves we need even more central planning and socialism to make everybody equal!”

Much of the debate over the maybe-recovery concerns the manipulation of government reports: the sense our vast bureaucracy is cooking the books to make the economy look more robust than it really is. A persistent complaint concerns the way inflation has been hidden, or almost redefined out of existence. (Ed Butowsky discussed this bureaucratic sleight-of-hand on Breitbart News Radio in November, noting that the government began concealing consumer inflation decades ago with some eye-popping formula changes.)

Now comes a fascinating article from Wolf Richter at Business Insider, which brings inflation games, currency manipulation, and near-zero interest rates together, into a unified field theory of how very low nominal consumer inflation has concealed skyrocketing asset inflation… leaving middle-class and low-income workers stuck with flat wages and debt slavery.

Governments across the industrialized world made themselves look better by tinkering with the money supply, lowering the bar for macro-economic success… and sold the Little Guy shackles of debt, at discount prices.

Richter’s key insight is that quantitative easing (QE, or “central banks printing lots of money” in layman’s terms) and near-zero interest rates for loans caused very little consumer inflation, with a few notable examples, so we’ve been treated to plenty of headlines about how inflation is totally under control… but QE caused “rampant asset price inflation, with stocks, bonds, real estate, classic cars, art … all skyrocketing over the years.”

In other words, the things rich people buy and trade have inflated, but most of life’s necessities and modest luxuries have not. That’s because, as Richter puts it: “The money never went to consumers in the form of wages. They would have spent most of it, thus driving up demand that could have created some inflationary pressures in consumer prices. But they never got this money.”

Unfortunately, because QE funneled money into big corporate and investor interests, wages flattened or declined, while household spending power for the poor and middle class declined. Low interest rates made it easy for them to borrow money to make up for lost purchasing power, especially for a few big-ticket purchases that have inflated enormously over the years – particularly health care and higher education. President Obama’s mind-boggling expenditures on both of those goods have done absolutely nothing to slow their inflation – on the contrary, ObamaCare’s meddling with student loans caused that debt bubble to explode.

Richter’s sobering diagnosis of what the Federal Reserve has done to workers:

The Fed keeps a hawk’s eye on wages, especially in the lower 80% of the workers. Its goal is to provide cheap labor to corporate America. And when wage inflation ticks up, the Fed can get quite radical about rate increases.

But because cheap labor makes for bad consumers, the Fed is trying to make cheap debt available to them, turning them into debt slaves, problem solved, for the moment.

So this is one lesson we learned: QE channeled to financial and corporate entities causes asset price inflation, not consumer price inflation. And it tends to exacerbate wage deflation at the lower 80% of households.

One of the exceptions is rent. When residential property prices soar, rents tend to follow. And rents have increased sharply in many cities. But unlike stocks, people have to live in these units, and when rents move beyond their reach, all kinds of things happen, including property price crashes.

That sounds like a far more clear and terrible example of “trickle-down economics” than anything liberals have attempted to slander with the term. Obama built on years of monetary manipulation to create an economy where the government is printing dollars and stuffing them in the pockets of big corporations and wealthy investors, vainly hoping they would invest the money in a way that created jobs, while the media cheerfully pumped out politically-useful stories about a roaring stock market. (Richter notes that what actually happened was a tsunami of money pouring into high-risk, high-yield investments, producing the combination of gluts and shortages that truly free markets are highly resistant to.)

Efforts to create a “perfect economy” tend to collapse into such absurdities as ballooning debt to pay skyrocketing prices for an increasingly poor higher-education product, or phantasmal dollars pouring into unproductive sectors that end up drowning in money. Central planners have a unique ability to annihilate wealth, leaving society with staggering debt levels – including our almost incomprehensible state and federal government debt – but very little to show for it.

Free markets can be rougher on some people in the short term, but they are far healthier over the long run. Winners and losers are discovered by fortune, rather than being assigned by political fiat, and in the process genuine needs are met. Wealth rises and falls, but it doesn’t just evaporate. By now everyone should understand that only real demand, and the exhilarating competition to profitably meet it, produces a robust job market and wage growth. (Did anyone really need further lessons on that score, after watching President Obama laugh it up after he discovered there’s no such thing as the “shovel-ready jobs” he extravagantly promised?)

The Western world is moving rapidly toward a stagnant feudal system populated only by rich aristocrats, rich government officials, and a vast lower class that needs welfare transfer payments to survive. Debt-burdened workers with flat wages, shaky job prospects, and government subsidies for their basic needs are serfs, not a vibrant and independent middle class of entrepreneurs selling their labor to the highest bidders.

If that vision of the future sounds nightmarish to you… well, you’re not a socialist. The Left sees the final and irreversible subjugation of the Middle Class at hand. Low-inflation, low-interest, low-growth debt slavery produces a society with little energy or inclination to challenge its ruling class.

Instead, be respectful of your betters and dutifully supply them with your votes, and they might just knock a few points off the interest rates on your loans, or kick your subsidies up a bit. Currency manipulation has combined with socialist politics to turn the road to serfdom into a superhighway.

 

[iacas]

3 hours ago, rkim291968 said:

How can some folks say that Obama is the worst ever POTUS?   Did they already forget Bush Jr.?    When Bush was leaving office, the overwhelming general consensus was that he was one of the worst presidents in US history.

And yet Bush had, for a time, the record high 90% approval rating in September, 2001.

And, this thread really isn't about Bush, or any other President but Obama.

[ppine]

So now we have citizens of other countries challenging our political views.?

I am not a polar opposite, but I have learned to be careful with my political views because America is a politically divided country right now.  People with any sense do not go spouting all of their beliefs every time someone asks.

[k-troop]

9 hours ago, ppine said:

So now we have citizens of other countries challenging our political views.?

I am not a polar opposite, but I have learned to be careful with my political views because America is a politically divided country right now.  People with any sense do not go spouting all of their beliefs every time someone asks.

I'd say @Ernest Jones didn't challenge anyone's views. He challenged some who posted polarized conclusions without any reasons or explanation. I'd further offer that the policies of the USA affect every country, particularly other North American countries. 

Other than that, you basically labeled anyone who wants to discuss politics as senseless. Nice contribution. Trying to learn about and discuss important issues to our country is part of our duty as citizens. 

[Ernest Jones]

9 hours ago, ppine said:

So now we have citizens of other countries challenging our political views.?

I am not a polar opposite, but I have learned to be careful with my political views because America is a politically divided country right now.  People with any sense do not go spouting all of their beliefs every time someone asks.

Every country has citizens of other countries challenging their political views. We don't each get to have our own little planet, we have to share this one. 

 

[newtogolf]

10 hours ago, ppine said:

So now we have citizens of other countries challenging our political views.?

I am not a polar opposite, but I have learned to be careful with my political views because America is a politically divided country right now.  People with any sense do not go spouting all of their beliefs every time someone asks.

Internet forums are pretty anonymous unless your last name is Pine.  It would also be perfectly fine to ignore the thread entirely.  

3 hours ago, k-troop said:

I'd say @Ernest Jones didn't challenge anyone's views. He challenged some who posted polarized conclusions without any reasons or explanation. I'd further offer that the policies of the USA affect every country, particularly other North American countries. 

Other than that, you basically labeled anyone who wants to discuss politics as senseless. Nice contribution. Trying to learn about and discuss important issues to our country is part of our duty as citizens. 

I agree, @Ernest Jones asked a question and people responded, including myself.  I'm fairly confident he doesn't agree with much of what I wrote but he didn't engage me in a debate, he simply acknowledged what I wrote, so I don't know why some people are offended by him asking.  He's been very respectful to those that have been respectful to him.  

[acerimusdux]

On 4/4/2016 at 10:48 PM, newtogolf said:

We escaped a major recession / depression because of actions Obama took, which mainly included lowering interest rates and quantitative easing (printing money to infuse into the economy without a basis for it).

But Obama has very little to do with monetary policy. Ben Bernanke was a Bush appointee, previously chair of his CEA. Yellen wasn't appointed until 2014.

And while there are some interesting observations in that piece you posted, I'm afraid it's somewhat clueless about the macroeconomics involved. And it's frankly absurd to see the bankers at the Federal Reserve viewed as somehow tools of "the Left".

It would be nice if exhilarating competition to meet market demand always produced wage growth, but it doesn't when you have high unemployment. Labor at that point becomes a commodity in oversupply, and you won't see real price increases there (in the aggregate) until you get back to near to full employment. Low inflation always means too much supply, not enough demand.

But if instead of having the Fed buy up large amounts of government debt at that point (that's all QE was), you would prefer to put dollars in the hands of the consumers who would most likely spend it, there's a word for that, it's called fiscal policy (OK, two words). But with the congress and president unwilling or unable to agree to do that, monetary policy is pretty much all you've got left.

And with a natural rate of interest below zero, monetary policy will always end up being too tight. Stagnant growth, low inflation, increasing asset prices, stagnant wages, and increasing inequality are all predictable results of too tight money. Mostly the same stuff William Jennings Bryan was screaming about 120 years ago. 

The good news though is, we're just about out of all that. And households this time are not at all burdened with excessive debt, in fact they are seeing the lowest burden in the last 35 years (link).

And the job market remains strong, with a recently surging employment to population ratio indicating that remaining slack is being absorbed, with job openings at the highest they've been in over 15 years, with initial claims at the lowest level since 1974 (and as a share of covered employment, the lowest level ever), and the insured unemployment rate at 1.6% also matching the lowest level on record.

So in the next year or two, we should finally see more meaningful wage growth. And then there's a good chance we'll also see some decline in the stock market, as rising wages and a strong dollar will put some pressure on corporate profits.

So really right NOW is the time when textbook macro says you are supposed to be cutting government spending, getting government out of the way, and letting the magic of that private marketplace work.

So If I'm going to criticize Obama for his economic management, I'd criticize him for:

1 Making the stimulus too small in 2009 when he had the chance with a Democratic congress to do more.

2 Signing on to a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts. Those are now the Obama tax cuts, and they still went mostly to the wealthy and increased inequality.

3 Doing nothing to cut back spending right now, when stimulus is no longer needed. His proposed budget right now has government spending, which was under 20% of potential GDP by the end of the Clinton years, projected back up at 22% of potential GDP, more similar to the Reagan era. I guess the era of big government is back.

[saevel25]

19 hours ago, ppine said:

So now we have citizens of other countries challenging our political views.?

Why shouldn't they? If the US is going to take this pro-active stance in the world for a certain type of government, democracy. If they are going to be pro-active with our military. Then we shouldn't be surprised if the citizens of other countries have their opinions on us. 

9 hours ago, Ernest Jones said:

Every country has citizens of other countries challenging their political views. We don't each get to have our own little planet, we have to share this one. 

It won't be that way for long. We'll put up this wall and no one will get in ;) 

6 hours ago, acerimusdux said:

But Obama has very little to do with monetary policy. Ben Bernanke was a Bush appointee, previously chair of his CEA. Yellen wasn't appointed until 2014.

I am sure that Obama can put pressure on Bernanke by threatening to replace him if he didn't have shy towards a certain philosophy. 

I wouldn't say Obama doesn't have some sway on monetary policy. 

6 hours ago, acerimusdux said:

And it's frankly absurd to see the bankers at the Federal Reserve viewed as somehow tools of "the Left".

In some way monetary easing or monetary control through interest rates or inflation is viewed as a socialistic tool because it's government controlling something about the free market. 

6 hours ago, acerimusdux said:

It would be nice if exhilarating competition to meet market demand always produced wage growth, but it doesn't when you have high unemployment. Labor at that point becomes a commodity in oversupply, and you won't see real price increases there (in the aggregate) until you get back to near to full employment. Low inflation always means too much supply, not enough demand.

It isn't even as general as that. Certain positions are always around and you can keep the price low (wages). Look at minimum wage jobs or internships that doesn't pay any wages. Those jobs are always in demand because there is always a higher level of people in poverty who need any job they can get. 

You get a management position or something higher level and it's much more scarce and you want to keep competent people in that position. So the wages get higher. 

6 hours ago, acerimusdux said:

I guess the era of big government is back.

Back, when did it leave? 

[acerimusdux]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

I am sure that Obama can put pressure on Bernanke by threatening to replace him

Sure, in fact he reappointed him. Just as Clinton twice reappointed Greenspan, an Ayn Rand acolyte. But that reflects mainly a broad bipartisan consensus on leaving some of this stuff to the experts.

And you can replace him as chair, but can't really remove him from the Board of Governors over policy decisions. That's a 14-year term.

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

In some way monetary easing or monetary control through interest rates or inflation is viewed as a socialistic tool because it's government controlling something about the free market. 

Yes, government in a way is controlling something that used to be controlled by private banks.

But the government is really just buying back it's own debt. All the stuff about "QE funneled money into big corporate and investor interests"; well if that's who lent the government the money in the first place, that's who's going to get their dollars back when the government buys back it's billions of debt. It's hardly a handout. If this causes them to then move those dollars into riskier assets, they aren't really better off.

And anyway, when things were left entirely to private banks, we just had more frequent and devastating recessions.

Still, Fed management has been far from perfect; 18 months prior to each of the last 10 recessions, the Fed was in the midst of a cycle of rate hikes. But I'm not sure any country has ever really achieved prosperity without some form of central banking, and some form of government regulation. The idea that any government involvement at all in economic management is "socialist" is farfetched.

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

It isn't even as general as that. Certain positions are always around....

Yes, that's why I added "in the aggregate". Certain skills are always in demand, and the people with those skills rarely need to complain about the economy.

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

Back, when did it leave? 

Well it was a little lower at the end of the Clinton administration.

I think some people didn't like that that was accomplished partly through defense cuts, and partly through welfare reform.

But Social Security, health and medicare spending, and military spending all together account for about $3 trillion of the budget. If you are serious about reducing spending, those are the big items you have to address.

 

[ppine]

Bye.

 

[newtogolf]

Quote

The Fed openly stated the purpose of QE was to create a “wealth effect” by lifting financial asset prices so people would feel wealthy and start consuming again.

This works fine if you have a job, your wages are increasing, the value of your home is rising, your retirement assets are appreciating, and you are feeling well off.

But that’s not happening for the middle class and people who aren’t asset owners.

Savers and retirees are getting killed. Interest income on their hard-earned savings and on the fixed-income investments retirees need are close to zero. These people are being punished. The wealth they could be accumulating has been redistributed to everyone who has the means to borrow cheaply to acquire appreciating financial assets. That’s QE.

As a result of the credit crisis and Great Recession, the household sector, meaning the middle class, lost $11 trillion in wealth and 10 million jobs. The country lost an estimated $21 trillion worth of productivity. The Great Recession’s middle-class losers haven’t bounced back, but QE has made the rich even richer.

Obama and democrats consistently blame big business and corporations for making the poor poor and the rich richer but in fact QE had a much greater impact on the wealth divide than corporations. 

[boogielicious]

17 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Obama and democrats consistently blame big business and corporations for making the poor poor and the rich richer but in fact QE had a much greater impact on the wealth divide than corporations. 

Queen Elizabeth? 1 or 2? 

[acerimusdux]

2 hours ago, newtogolf said:

Obama and democrats consistently blame big business and corporations for making the poor poor and the rich richer but in fact QE had a much greater impact on the wealth divide than corporations. 

There's not any evidence the wealth divide has even gotten any worse over the last 5 years. It's much more the last 35 years.   

And I've heard people blame many different policies for this (lack of fiscal policy to combat recessions, big cuts in the top tax rates for the wealthy, while payroll taxes increased, reduced capital gains and inheritance taxes, inadequate regulation to prevent fraud and abuse, trade policies that hurt workers and benefited investors, tight money, welfare reform, even excessive incarceration of people for nonviolent crimes). Never heard anyone blame business for making money. 

 

 

[newtogolf]

12 minutes ago, acerimusdux said:

There's not any evidence the wealth divide has even gotten any worse over the last 5 years. It's much more the last 35 years.   

And I've heard people blame many different policies for this (lack of fiscal policy to combat recessions, big cuts in the top tax rates for the wealthy, while payroll taxes increased, reduced capital gains and inheritance taxes, inadequate regulation to prevent fraud and abuse, trade policies that hurt workers and benefited investors, tight money, welfare reform, even excessive incarceration of people for nonviolent crimes). Never heard anyone blame business for making money. 

 

 

You must not watch CNN much or listen to Hillary and Bernie because all they talk about is how big business is making record profits while the poor get poorer.    

[DrvFrShow]

FWIW, my health plans have gone up each year since the 1980s. People were being cut to part-time before the ACA so companies wouldn't have to pay benefits - worked to 29.5 hrs. It's become the new business model since the recession of 2000. Health care was in crisis before the ACA in this country. The ACA was a band aid put over a festering wound. America has the worst health care in the industrialized world. It has the best if you have money. If you don't, you're screwed. Nothing will get done until the ACA implodes and that will happen in the next four years. 

We've still been at war for the past 8 years. Fascinating. Our nation has been involved in some damned war for all but 4 years of my entire life. Eisenhower was sending arms to Vietnam. I'm 63. So why would Obama buck tradition? Jimmy Carter was the 4 years of peace. The people weren't happy about it, so they elected John Wayne in 1980. We're a war mongering people. Have we ever thought that flattening peoples' homes and blowing up their children does not make friends? We've spent trillions of dollars blowing up brown people in the past 26 years and now we wonder why they're blowing up airports and train stations? Not that this will change with anyone of the current candidates....

But what is the Obama legacy? Since it is in record that Mitch McConnell as then Senate Minority Leader stated that "our goal is to make Barack Obama a one term president," the GOP did their best to block every piece of legislation he proposed. In 2012, when the nation was in recovery, Obama wanted to repeal the Bush Tax Cuts on the rich and keep them for the middle class who make under $100,000/yr, because this would help close the deficit. But the GOP wouldn't abandon their constituents. So we're stuck with a $400 billion annual deficit, and it won't get smaller.

Unemployment figures are down, but underemployment is up. College education costs more than ever. Students graduate with the equivalent of a home mortgage hanging over their heads and no way to even refinance it under the law. We're not spending enough on education, but then the GOP has blocked any proposed increases here. We'd rather spend the money blowing up people half way around the world. 

Things that have been proven: supply-side economics doesn't work. The rich only spend so much money. It shifts the tax burden to the middle class. The latest bit of snake oil I've heard is a flat tax with a VAT or National Sales Tax. It'll get rid of the IRS. Right. With a flat 10% rate. Who will end up shouldering the burden? Not the rich. They get a 66% tax cut. We'll end up shouldering the burden with the VAT. We'll have less money to spend. It'll hurt the economy and cause another recession. How do you stimulate the economy from here?

@newtogolf Yes Bernie has been talking about this. And apparently so has Asher Edelman - on CNBC. It's what he says about the velocity of money. It makes sense. 

In 7 years, Obama has not addressed Social Security.

I give Obama a grade of C. 

I gave GWB a grade of F. 

I gave Bill Clinton a grade of a C+.

I gave GHWB a grade of D+

I gave RR a grade of a C-.

I gave Jimmy Carter a C. He would have been better if he didn't try to micro-manage everything.

 

[StevenR84]

If I base the quality of a president in how my life has been impacted over the term I have to say that the last 8 years have been trending straight upwards. I've graduated from college and after some struggle in 2008-2009, managed to find gainful employment 3 times since then. My wife has found multiple positions as well and we do pretty well for ourselves. The only negative impact was that the ACA changed the healthcare at my wife's employer who had to either offer the same coverage to all employees and spouses, or keep it at just the employees. I now pay $5 a week for healthcare as my employer shoulders the rest of the cost. We also bought a house at an insanely low interest rate all in the past 8 years. I do think he has had issues getting more done because this has been one of the laziest congresses in history, and some of the sound bites that have come from people opposing him, just go to show how far we haven't come at times. President Obama also gets unfairly criticized. Perfect example, the Brussels attack. He continued his trip to Cuba and people were calling for his (obama's) head becasue he wasn't in a war room with a plan to eliminate ISIS the next day.

21 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

You must not watch CNN much or listen to Hillary and Bernie because all they talk about is how big business is making record profits while the poor get poorer.    

You can watch old clips of congressional sessions and see Bernie saying that same thing for the last 30 years.

[Lefty-Golfer]

23 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

 

In 7 years, Obama has not addressed Social Security.

I give Obama a grade of C. 

I gave GWB a grade of F. 

I gave Bill Clinton a grade of a C+.

I gave GHWB a grade of D+

I gave RR a grade of a C-.

I gave Jimmy Carter a C. He would have been better if he didn't try to micro-manage everything.

 

Ronnie gets a C- and Jimmy Cater get C....you lose any and all creditability with that statement. Not even Democrats (at least the few with common sense that I do hang out with) agree with that.

What would Reagan do?? jeez he is exactly what this country needs again!!

Obama is the worst of my life time and probably the worst since FDR!

[saevel25]

On 4/5/2016 at 3:25 PM, DrvFrShow said:

Things that have been proven: supply-side economics doesn't work. The rich only spend so much money. It shifts the tax burden to the middle class. The latest bit of snake oil I've heard is a flat tax with a VAT or National Sales Tax. It'll get rid of the IRS. Right. With a flat 10% rate. Who will end up shouldering the burden? Not the rich. They get a 66% tax cut. We'll end up shouldering the burden with the VAT. We'll have less money to spend. It'll hurt the economy and cause another recession. How do you stimulate the economy from here?

Go to the Fair Tax, which is a national sales tax on the last point of sale. No VAT. It's a tad more complex than that. 

Quote

 The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University concluded in a 2007 study on distributional effects that "the FairTax benefits households and individuals in the lower expenditure categories, while imposing a higher burden on those in the higher expenditure brackets" and that it "would benefit the average individual in almost all expenditures deciles.

and
 

Quote

Further, research by Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics shows that consumption would increase by 2.4% in the first year of the FairTax. The increase in consumption would be fueled by the 1.7% increase in disposable (after-tax) personal income that occurs once the FairTax was enacted. By the 10th year, disposable income would increase by 11.8% resulting in a corresponding increase in consumption of 11.7% over what it would be if the current tax system remained in place, and these results are based on the assumption that businesses use only the tax savings achieved from no longer having to pay the employer share of payroll taxes (for more details, see Promotion of economic growth).